Be afraid of those questions that both religion and science are trying to answer at the same time. If these two forces enter into an unyielding dispute, it means that they cannot prove their position. And then we have to suffer and look for answers to these complex questions. Maybe someday we will get answers to them, but definitely not today.

What is good and what is evil?

Good is angels in white, and evil is Satan in black. Good is the pioneers leading old women across the road, and evil is the children who eat the horse in the ravine. Stalin, who shot a trillion people, is evil, and the Tsar Father is obvious good. Is this really so? It depends on which side you look at and what you start from. Social norms and religion have somehow defined good and bad, but some of their decisions sometimes contradict common sense. All the norms and laws in which we live are established by people, and not always by the majority. And since there are people involved here, it means that the decision is by definition subjective. Killing for insulting one's religion is considered good in some cultures, while in the civilized world no one would even think of cutting off a person's head for a joke that mentioned the Holy Scriptures, because it is forbidden to kill.

Or another example: you told people of dubious appearance with heavily stained car license plates where house number 8 is located. It seemed like you did a good deed - you helped figure it out, but then you found out that the man in that house had been shot. And you simply pointed the killers at the victim.

Or, let’s say, he helped a stranger lower her stroller. She could have done it herself, but thanks to you everything happened easier and faster. Good? Undoubtedly. But if she had hesitated, she would not have been hit by a drunk driver at the crossing. This evil. But you didn’t know this girl, you didn’t know that she had obvious mental problems, that she stabbed her mother with scissors, that she had manic tendencies that were passed on to her son, and 25 years later this innocent doll, whose congenital defects were aggravated influenced by a crazy mother, will turn into a serial killer-rapist, perhaps the most brutal in history. So think about all this: is it good or bad. Everything is very ambiguous. Your help to some may harm others. What seems good in one situation turns out to be evil in another. And vice versa. Therefore, one can speak about good and evil only in a narrowly focused, rather conditional sense - for example, to give assessments within one social formation. And in many ways, therefore, there is no possibility of answering the question, which is still truly correct.

How real is our world?

As a child, especially in bad moments that now seem completely harmless, I really wanted everything that happens to us to turn out to be a dream. That is, you dream about your life, and this is a kind of rehearsal that will allow you to learn from your mistakes. And now, many years have passed, problems have become more significant, thoughts have become more mundane, and we all think: is this a dream? And in general, everything around is not an illusion? What if reality is just a simulation created by a more advanced mind, and it turns out that the movie "The Matrix" was closer to the truth than ever.

According to physicists, reality in the usual human understanding does not exist. The universe is an illusion, a fiction, a huge, well-detailed hologram. The material world is a manifestation and reflection of processes that occur in the world of information and energy substances unknown to man.

If we were created and controlled by someone else (for example, the legendary zhidoreptiloids, who we play in the same way as we play the Sims), then we may have no idea about our true nature. But we are simply manipulated for fun and are treated no more seriously than we ourselves treat the painted dudes. Maybe that’s why there are so many idiotic things happening in the world?

But for our convenience and safety, it is better to assume conditionally that our Universe is real. Simply because otherwise you might go crazy. And even if we get to the bottom of the truth, we will be ground into powder. Because the circle of people who are allowed to know the truth cannot become wider.

Is there a God?

The theme of the existence of God has been winning the category “Best Theme for Inciting Assholes” for many years now. And at the same time, this is a very important question, isn’t that why we always ask the question on the first date: “What about God?” Believers foam at the mouth and claim that God, as an intelligent superpower, watches over us, his creations. Atheists no less vehemently argue the opposite, and that “stupid believers” are simply too weak to be responsible for their actions.
Believers reproach them for excessive cynicism, and they, in turn, give an example of the damage religion has caused to humanity. But the same church shaped the culture.

It would seem that the study of space should put everything in its place: why didn’t the servants of God immediately say that the Earth is round? And the Universe turned out to be too big - it would take a brigade of gods to run everything. And he even found a complex proof of the impossibility of the existence of God that defies the average mind, declaring at the end that either God or nature can exist. But if Anatoly Aleksandrovich reasonably declares that he feels nature and does not feel God, there will be people with a different worldview who will prove that everything that exists is God.

The most interesting thing is that even if we take into account that the structure of the Universe is the result of the interaction of autonomously occurring natural processes with each other, this does not exclude the existence of a Great Design that launched all processes. If the Universe arose from nothing, then why, maybe, did someone help it? It is easy to attribute everything to God, but so far it has not been possible to scientifically prove his total absence. Therefore, many do not doubt the existence of divine forces, the nature of which is inaccessible to our experience. The person is too incomprehensible. It’s not for nothing that Alan Rickman warned in the film “Dogma” that meeting God can have a great impact on the psyche.
You can give a lot of evidence that we are really controlled by someone or something. There is even more evidence, including scientific evidence, to the contrary. But we cannot really know God.

Is there life after death?

There is nothing more timeless than something wrapped in duct tape. Everything else, alas, is fleeting, everything comes to an end. But what awaits us after this very end is a good question. Either we will end our lives plucking the strings of a harp on a fluffy cloud or forever unloading coal in the mines of hell, or we will simply rot without a trace, and we will not have a second chance, or we will live one of 9 lives. In any case, no one except John Constantine returned from the other world, but, unfortunately, he is a comic book character. So we have no one to tell us what awaits a person there, beyond physical existence. And we cannot say with one hundred percent certainty that the afterlife exists, nor deny its existence. Therefore, decide whose side you are on - believers or materialists, convinced that there is nothing “on the other side”, and with the fading of consciousness after death, the world disappears for a person, like himself. You still won't know the truth. Although, in metaphysics, it seems, there is a theory. Just a theory, but when science deals with such issues, there is always blind faith in the truth of the theory. This theory is associated with the concept of repeating cycles. Hans Moravec believed that we will always observe this Universe, remaining existing in one form or another: a blade of grass, humus, a person or a song by Mikhail Shufutinsky. Of course, it is not possible to test this highly controversial idea.

Why does the world work this way?

We take many things for granted, but if you think about it, how and why did it happen this way? Why, after all, do we exist, for what? To maintain balance in nature? But if we have intelligence, shouldn't we do something more?

And I would really like to know why there are animals, plants, and various inanimate things in the world? And why are they all arranged in a certain way and obey certain laws?

Why are numbers needed? Do they exist in nature or is it an abstract designation of mathematical relationships?

What is time, after all?

And why do chains of patterns lead us to such questions, why?!

Until now, in response to these questions, we hear attempts at thought, which are called the beautiful word “theory”.

ETERNAL QUESTIONS OF HUMAN LIFE

Every person at some point in his life asks the questions: why am I living? is there destiny? How free am I in my decisions and actions? Are there laws that determine the development of the world? who or what determines these laws?

Every person is even more interested in those problems that relate to his position in this world.

Is man mortal or immortal? How can we understand the immortality of human existence? Can a person find out about his purpose in this world or is it inaccessible to him? What can people know? What is truth? How to distinguish it from delusion and lies?

Every person is concerned about moral problems. What are conscience, honor, duty, responsibility and justice? Is it possible to clearly distinguish between good and evil? Where does evil come from in human actions and world history? Is it possible to achieve such a state in the development of humanity when evil will disappear and the “era of universal love and harmony” will begin?

People ask questions: why life, why death, what is the point in pain, why do we grow old, why does what happens to us happen? Why does suffering exist, why can a person move from suffering to joy, from joy to suffering, which carries him, like the wind, from one state to another? Why do fears arise, why do doubts arise?

When such questions arise in a person, he is forced to either look for answers or continue to live in constant anxiety, like a person who has put a blindfold on his eyes and does not want to see anything. When there are ambiguities and question marks, there is no better way than to continue to formulate questions that lead to the search for an answer.

When Socrates said: “I only know that I know nothing,” he did not say this in order to come to terms with this state of affairs. This was both an admission that much was unknown to him and a desire for further search and acquisition of knowledge: “I will learn more, because I need more...”.

Centuries pass, but man continues to ask himself the same questions. The art of living is to try to answer these questions day after day in order to understand the meaning of pain and suffering, joy and love, the meaning of one’s own life and the life of humanity.

Philosophers in their theories, like ordinary people, answer these questions very differently. This diversity of ideas allows everyone to find something in philosophy that is understandable and consonant with them, their needs and interests.

There are no final, only correct answers to philosophical questions, because... Each appeal to them, comprehension of what is already known, becomes as a result one’s own, in something new, a solution to this or that issue.

Philosophy is the oldest, but ever-renewing form of thought, a theoretically developed, logically developed type and level of worldview. Philosophy is a great art, a great science, a special, deep approach to life. This is an approach in which a person does not live blindly, but with open eyes and an open heart, is not afraid to penetrate the mysteries that surround us, is not afraid to peer into the Universe and ask questions about its mysteries, about the mysteries of humanity and about ourselves.

The mind, engaged in the search for truth, encounters three groups of problems on its way, which are traditionally classified as extremely complex. These are, for example, the “Millennium” mathematical problems, many of which have been waiting for their solution for hundreds of years. A scientist who successfully copes with at least one of them will undoubtedly be recognized as a genius. There are situations that obviously cannot be resolved logically at all. These are so-called paradoxes that can convince a proud person that the complexity of the world fundamentally exceeds his analytical ability: “There are many things in the world, friend Horatio, that the sages here have never dreamed of.” And finally, there are philosophical conflicts, traditionally called “eternal questions.” The fact that some people still manage to cope with them forces us to distinguish “eternal questions” from paradoxes. And the fact that the solution here does not require special knowledge and genius of thinking gives reason to believe that “eternal questions” cannot be classified as the most complex problems of science.

The specificity of most philosophical questions in general lies in the fact that they cannot be solved purely theoretically. Among philosophers there is a well-known professional anecdote about a beauty and her admirer, which makes it possible to understand the peculiarity of “eternal” problems: “The admirer struggles with embarrassment for a long time and finally asks: “Beauty, would you marry me?” “Sorry,” she answers coldly. “I don’t understand the meaning of this question, as long as it is asked in the subjunctive mood.”

There is no coquetry here: the question of being is posed, and from within the situation of being itself, which neither the girl nor her admirer can rise above. When posed purely theoretically, this question becomes absurd, because it presupposes a certain conditional situation in which the beauty would not be herself, but her admirer would also be someone else. Actually, there is only one way to find out the will of a girl - to propose: “Marry me!” - that is, to ask a question practically, to perform a question-action that presupposes the courage to bear responsibility for one’s curiosity.

The “eternal” question, being one of those that are asked from within being, has the same feature: it is correctly asked and successfully resolved not so much through the theorizing mind as through action. This means that the “eternal” question does not require a clearly formulated and sufficiently substantiated answer. Solving it means taking a step that overcomes the problem of your existence, the same one that was painfully reflected in your mind in the form of four words: “what is the meaning of life?”

It is worth paying attention to the fact that two people - a child and a saint - in the process of life do not question its meaning. Their life is full and identical with joy. So asking about the meaning of life is the same as asking about the meaning of joy: it is an absolute value over which there is nothing, and therefore it cannot be considered as a means, but logically thought of as the final goal.

So a little boy, noticing how the workers started repairing the street, asks his father:
- Dad, what are these people doing?
“They want to put up curbs and put soil between them.
- What for?
- Then to plant flowers and make a flower bed.
- Why do they want to make a flower bed?
- To make it beautiful.

At this point the curious child falls silent. He intuitively understands that it is no longer possible to ask why beauty is needed. Not everything in the world can be considered as a means - there are things that represent the final goal, setting the limit to pragmatism. That is why Oscar Wilde concludes his aesthetic credo with the phrase: “All art is completely useless.”

Anyone who is not involved in joy, and therefore does not have the fullness of being, knows nothing about true life. That is why he is looking for something that could justify her. This is what an ignoramus does, who, not being able to see the beauty contained in a painting, seeks an economic use for its canvas.

“Eternal” questions do not have an answer precisely because they are asked incorrectly and are, rather, symptoms of a disease, indicating the existential incompleteness of the one who asks them. Any answer will be unsatisfactory, because illness is cured with medicine, not a prescription, hunger is satisfied with dishes, and not with stories “about tasty and healthy food.”

So, in Old Testament times, “there was a man in the land of Uz, his name was Job; and this man was blameless, just and God-fearing, and shunned evil.” He was very rich, “more famous than all the sons of the East.” “His sons came together, making feasts each on their own day, and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them.” But one day Job lost everything, his sons died. A terrible disease - leprosy - struck the righteous man from head to toe. Sitting in a heap of ash outside the city, he asked his “eternal questions”: Why does God create man and allow the creation of his hands to suffer? If it is not God, but man himself, who is to blame for his misfortunes, then why do the righteous suffer while the wicked happily avoid hardships and troubles? And in this case, is there any point in keeping oneself in the Law of God? The comrades who came to the sufferer, despite all their wisdom, turned out to be “bad comforters.” Then God himself speaks to Job “out of the storm.” At first glance, the Creator avoids answering – He simply talks about how he created the world. But in the picture that unfolds as the story progresses, Job suddenly sees the Personality of the Artist. And this immediately removes all questions: “I spoke about things that I did not understand, about things that were wonderful to me, which I did not know. Listen, I cried, and I will speak, and what I will ask You, explain to me. I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; now my eyes see You; therefore I renounce and repent in dust and ashes.”

In 1998, Oxford University professor Roy Abraham Varghese organized a debate on the so-called eternal questions. Well-known Western scientists and philosophers took part in the discussion, a list of whom we provide at the end of this article. A report on the discussion was published the same year by Oneword Publications, Oxford. England.

The panelists discussed the following fifteen “eternal” questions:

1. The problem of relativism (idealistic doctrine of relativity, conventionality and subjectivity of human knowledge).
2. Universal principles of science and philosophy.
3. Is there anything other than matter? Does the soul exist?
4. Free will and its reality.
5. Is there life after death?
6. Does reincarnation exist?
7. Psychology, sociology and religious beliefs.
8. What is good and what is evil?
9. What and how can atheism be explained?
10. Does God exist?
11. God and modern science.
12. The problem of evil. How to reconcile the presence of evil in the world with the existence of an all-merciful and all-powerful God?
13. How do philosophers relate to pantheism - a doctrine that claims that we are all “particles” of God, that God can be identified with the world around us?
14. Is Divine providence possible in the surrounding world and human history?
15. If God exists, then can we call his attributes such qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, eternity, infinity?

The participants in the discussion give detailed, sometimes very lengthy answers to all these questions. It is up to each reader to decide whether to agree with these answers or not. But in any case, acquaintance with the opinions of modern Western philosophers on the listed issues is of great interest.

Also A.S. Pushkin, referring to reading books, said: “Following the thoughts of a great man is the most entertaining science.”

We do not know whether the philosophers who answered the questions posed consider themselves great thinkers. They probably think more modestly about themselves, but their answers testify to their broad scientific erudition. While differing in detail, one philosopher's answers complement those of another depending on the scientific specialty or views of the interlocutors on the subject of conversation. It is easy to notice that the interlocutors, in general, almost do not contradict each other, do not argue, and do not criticize each other’s opinions on the issues under discussion. This is understandable, because before us are people whose worldview is based on the dogmas of the Christian religion. Therefore, it would be more correct to call their conversation a reflection, an exchange of opinions.

In inviting readers to explore the answers of the great contemporary philosophers of the West to the great eternal questions, we would like to say that understanding their answers does not require knowledge of philosophy or theology. It is quite enough to have knowledge of the school course of basic natural sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

Which readers, especially young ones, have at least some idea of ​​the philosophical views of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Plotinus, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz? That's right, no one except specialist philosophers. By reading the answers to the “eternal” questions, we get a certain idea about these great philosophers. This is interesting in itself, and for such categories of our readers as students, graduate students, teachers of philosophy, logic, physics, physiology, the information offered can be useful in a professional sense.

We have no doubt that our readers will become acquainted with great interest with the views of modern Western religious philosophers on such issues as consciousness and cognition, matter and soul, the origin and further fate of the Universe and our Solar system, where on one of its small islands called Earth arose and the most amazing phenomenon in the Universe still exists - intelligent life.

No less interesting are the answers of philosophers to questions about the existence of God and his qualities, although no one expects answers from philosophical theologians to these questions that would be very different from the biblical texts.

On the question of the characteristics of God, theologians have not come up with anything new since the time of Aristotle, who died 2334 years ago, i.e. long before the birth of Christ. (if you count down from our days, i.e. from 2012). Catholic philosophers and theologians adopted the Aristotelian attributes of God as a basis: He, i.e. God is the first cause, the prime mover of all movement, God is a living being, eternal, best, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

Four hundred years after Aristotle, the ancient Greek idealist philosopher Plotinus (205-270), who strived for unification with God and even, according to the testimony of his student Porphyry, achieved this goal several times, composed his work called “The Enneads.” Strange, but from this casuistically confused quasi-philosophical work, theologians were able to extract some kind of rational grain and saw some support for their theories. Perhaps, among the meaningless set of words, their attention was attracted by Plotinus’s statement that the main characteristic of the One (i.e. God) is the absence of any characteristics; that which has no essence cannot have qualities. Thus, God is inexpressible, God is outside of being and above the being of entities. Divine power is limitless, God is great, and nothing can be stronger than Him or at least equal to Him in power.

What can He have equal to Himself in beings who are in no way equal to Him?

And then everything continues in the same spirit, with an increasing degree of hardness and meaninglessness. It is clear that no one with normal reason can argue about such “truths” and statements, because there is no subject of dispute.

On “solid” foundations similar to the teachings of the mystic Plotinus, Christian philosophy developed for another thousand years. In the 13th century, the star of the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) shone. He was a Dominican monk who adapted some idealistic elements of the teachings of Aristotle (384-322 BC) to the Christian faith. The teachings of Thomas Aquinas began to be called Thomism (from the Latin Thomas - Thomas). Thomism became the leading direction in Catholic philosophy. Almost seven and a half centuries have passed since the death of Thomas Aquinas, but his teaching is still used unchanged in the Catholic Church. Moreover, in 1879, the scholastic teachings of Thomas Aquinas were officially declared “the only true philosophy of Catholicism.” The basic principles of this philosophy are the harmony of faith and reason. At the same time, it is believed that reason is capable of rationally proving the existence of God and the inconsistency of objections to the truths of faith. Well, what could be better than these principles for Catholic preachers! It is no coincidence that 50 years after the death of Aquinas, he was canonized (Thomas Aquinas was named Aquinas after his birthplace in Aquino, near Naples).

We needed this very short excursion into the history of Christian philosophy in order to show readers the strength of the foundations on which the worldview of the respected philosophers who participated in the conversation rests. But despite the fact that these foundations seem very shaky to us, we want to emphasize once again that the reflections of philosophers on all issues without exception are very informative and interesting.

In order for readers to believe that this is really the case, before you read the text of the conversation, we will provide examples of statements by the discussion participants with our comments.

Here are the arguments of some philosophers on the question of the existence of God:

Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame:

“The existence of God has long been a hotly debated topic, yet literally millions, perhaps billions, of people accept belief in God without any debate. In essence, this is not a question for discussion, except for some intellectual theories that originated in the Western world, mainly after the Enlightenment. But if you take religious belief in isolation, then it can be compared with the belief in the existence of other intelligent beings... I definitely believe that God exists. However, I do not think that the fact of His existence can be deduced from logical arguments, or that the evidence in favor of His existence is more powerful than evidence to the contrary. I think I feel God. I experience God's presence in many ways, as do millions of other people: in church, while reading the Bible, in nature, in human relationships, in moral commitments. Therefore, my reasons for believing in God are exactly the same as my reasons for believing in the existence of other people, the world around us, and physical phenomena. This is not a logical conclusion. It is something much more immediate, gained through personal experience.”

After such a statement by Professor Plantinga, we were left with some kind of warm feeling of trust and respect for him: no attempts to prove anything or “provide a scientific basis” to explain our position. He believes in God because he believes in Him. That's all. It's his choice. And for some reason it seems that his faith is sincere.

Alvin Plantinga shares the view of the philosopher Pierre Duhem (early 20th century) that correct scientific methodology must be free from any metaphysical prerequisites, including religious beliefs. All people can and should do science together: Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists and everyone else. Science is remarkable because it unites human aspirations. But at the same time, Plantinga believes that science understood in this way must be supplemented by something else that would explain our original knowledge when we try to find answers to scientific questions. But if such views of science are accepted, then, according to Professor Plantinga, huge layers of what is now called "science" will be separated from human knowledge.

For example, much of cognitive science takes for granted that people are material objects, i.e. materialism is considered an immutable fact. But, of course, this premise is not shared by all researchers. Therefore, if we are doing science according to Duhem, then taking materialism for granted will be as strange as, say, doing biology on the assumption that God created everything that exists. According to Duhem, which Plantinga shares, much of the work on the theory of evolution and human biology, where it goes without saying that people and biological systems in general have an accidental origin, and are not conceived and created by someone's will, does not belong to true science .

These are Professor Plantinga's views on science, on the origin of man and biological systems in general.

And now we will give fragments of the statement of the honorary doctor of divinity of the University of Oxford, Professor Keith Ward, on the existence of God and the origin of the Universe and man:

“According to theological views, God, unlike everything else, exists by virtue of absolute necessity. There is no alternative to the existence of God, since God exists in any of the possible worlds, as the basis for the possible actualization of this world. God, being omniscient, can choose the appropriate set of any mathematical truths to govern the physical universe. Being self-sufficient, God does not depend on anything and has the power of being in Himself. God has the power to embody material forms, which become the object of chosen laws. Ultimately, God can be accepted as a hypothesis needed (?) by science in order to provide a satisfactory explanation of the existence of the Universe. God is that necessary Essence that answers every question “why?”, gradually revealing the nature of the basic laws. …The most important point is that God always uses His Divine will for a reason. This cause is the intrinsic goodness, value, or original perfection of the states produced. So, now we have an absolute explanation of the Universe, its laws and basic physical states - this is the One who exists by necessity and necessarily chooses the laws of the Universe, which are initially inherent in perfection, subsequently realized by His Creations. The existence of God is the clearest and most definitive argument, since God unites ends and causes in one simple and comprehensive hypothesis."

However, after these fine lines, Professor Ward states the condition under which his “clearest and most definitive argument” can have force: “... the God hypothesis works only if the created Universe is truly aware of its perfection, if its existence is certainly better than non-existence and if the realized perfection could not exist in any other case.”

But this, frankly speaking, strange condition is impossible to fulfill, because otherwise we would have to admit that the Universe is a thinking being, capable of thinking and realizing its perfection. But this is not an intelligent being, but the material world of infinite space, where intelligent beings, even if they are still discovered somewhere outside the solar system, would constitute a vanishingly small fraction of the mass and volume of outer space. If theologians consider atoms of hydrogen and helium, which constitute the basic material of billions of galaxies, to be thinking beings, then it is a different matter, then we need to talk about other concepts and, apparently, not only about material ones.

“It should be noted that although the existence of God satisfactorily explains the primary conditions and fundamental laws (?), the Divine nature is itself not knowable by the human mind. Thus, the absolute explanation, if it exists, is known only to God. For people, the absolute explanation of the Universe must remain a postulate, an asymptotic goal of research, the achievement of which continues indefinitely.

... God creates (maintains existence) the Universe throughout the entire period of its existence, and not just at the first moment. According to the postulate of Creation, it exists due to a combination of necessity and conscious choice. Revealing the complex, finely tuned and clearly regulated structure of the Universe, modern cosmology shows that such a Universe could only be created by a Being possessing perfect intelligence and absolute power. The main difference between the postulate of theism and atheistic cosmology is the existence of a purpose in the Universe, which makes its existence the result not of blind necessity, but conscious intention. In the most general sense, a goal is a state of value in itself that is typically achieved through a process specifically designed to achieve that state. In many cases, the process itself, and not just the final state, can be part of the goal.

Cosmic and biological evolution follows simple and clear laws, moving from a primary state of unconscious energy (the Big Bang) to a state of highly developed, complex, but integral and conscious being, which has the ability to comprehend and orients the process itself towards the creation of conscious, shared and understandable values. This movement from primary undifferentiated energy to intelligent life seems purposeful. It powerfully supports the hypothesis of Creation, the dependence of the cosmic process as a whole on the conscious act of the Divine will.

Darwin's version of the theory of natural selection overemphasizes random mutations of genetic material, exaggerates the role of the relentless struggle for survival in a hostile natural environment, and overlooks the progressive nature of evolution from primitive cells to conscious, thinking beings.

For a theist, the atheistic view of evolutionary data (by the way, Darwin was not an atheist) is based on a number of inaccurate premises. Mutations are not “mistakes” in DNA copying. These are carefully planned variations, finely tuned to reproduce viable organisms through an indeterministic process, which inevitably leads to a certain number of unfavorable mutations and the destruction of individual organisms. Mutations are not actually random or chaotic, since they are driven by physical laws that are predictable on a macroscopic scale.

Nature is not a ruthless war of all against all, but a living kingdom where mutual dependence and cooperation are necessary to create viable organisms from proteins. Genes are not selfish in the sense of wanting to perpetuate themselves by any means necessary. On the contrary, they are very altruistic and dedicate their short lives to creating living organisms, collaborating with other genes to achieve this goal and mutating to produce more effective natural "recipes". The survival of genes has no absolute value. All that matters is the creation of organisms, and genes matter only insofar as they serve that purpose. Indeed, in nature there is competition and extinction of individual species, but we should also note creativity and cooperation, which play an equally important role in the evolution of life.

... the theist cannot regard human evolution as an absurd accident, a strange game of nature. Since organisms are selected by their environment, and God created this environment and maintains its existence, man must be seen as the goal of the evolutionary process, and carefully controlled mutations and selection as the means to achieve this goal.

Indeed, the God hypothesis makes the evolution of intelligent life from inorganic matter much more probable than the natural selection hypothesis taken alone. Given random and purposeless natural selection, the emergence of human life is simply incredible. But if God created the material Universe and evolution leading to the emergence of intelligent beings capable of knowing and loving God, then it (i.e., the emergence of human life - V.K.) becomes practically inevitable. Since the best hypothesis in science is the one that makes a given process more likely, the God hypothesis is a much better explanation of evolution.”

As you can see, dear readers, the scientific horizons of Honorary Doctor of Divinity Keith Ward are very broad. But, noting this indisputable fact, we believe that the religious consciousness of the respected theologian reduces many of his judgments to idealism. We even got the impression that Professor Ward personally communicated directly with God for a long time and, as a result of this communication, studied in great detail, one might say, thoroughly, the personal qualities, capabilities, goals and plans of the Almighty, which he told us about in a confidential and at the same time firm manner. form.

Professor Ward believes that to achieve absolute explanation of the universe It's almost impossible for people. Such an explanation “must remain ... an asymptotic goal of research” that can continue indefinitely.

Everyone will most likely agree with this opinion: both theists and atheists, because the Universe is infinite. The truth of Professor Ward’s statement that the Universe appeared as a result of the conscious intention of the Creator and has a purpose for its existence cannot be verified, so we take note of it as a speculative result of the author’s abstract reasoning and as his personal opinion. As for the scientist’s considerations about the purposeful movement from the primary state of energy to intelligent life and about the course of the evolution of life, they, in our opinion, to a certain extent correlate with the materialist position, with the exception of the conclusion about the emergence of human life as a result of the actions of some powerful Creator.

And a few more comments. Dr. C. Ward says that God can be accepted as the hypothesis necessary for science to provide a satisfactory explanation of the existence of the Universe. We think that the hypothesis of God is completely unnecessary for science, because religion and science have nothing in common. The God hypothesis can only confuse any scientific problem, especially one as complex as the problem of the origin and existence of the Universe. According to Professor K. Ward, God is that necessary Being who “answers every question “why?”, gradually revealing the nature of the fundamental laws of the physical Universe.”

It is difficult to choose an epithet for this statement without offending the respected professor, but this statement is completely untrue. Perhaps the professor simply misspoke? After all, the truth is that God has not yet answered a single question “why?” Theologians answer for Him, and everything is approximately the same: “God decided this, this is what God wants, this is God’s will,” etc.

In general, this question is fundamental. The nature of the basic phenomena and laws of the physical Universe is gradually, step by step, revealed, but not by God or theologians, but by materialistic science. And if we turn to the history of science, as well as to the history of religion, we must admit that these steps would have been broader and more confident if religion had not interfered with science. There is no need to prove anything here; it is enough to point to the long, almost six-century period of the European Middle Ages, when, due to religious obscurantism and the crimes of the “Holy Inquisition,” the development of science practically stopped. The Catholic hierarchs and European monarchs in the XII-XVII centuries had no time for science - it was necessary to destroy the “heresy” with all their might, and burn the carriers of the “heresy” at the stake. Is it necessary to cite examples that have already become textbook ones, such as mockery of the aged, the death at the stake of Giordano Bruno, Jan Hus, the Spanish scientist Miguel Servetus, as well as thousands and thousands of people accused of witchcraft and blasphemy. The Inquisition persecuted women especially cruelly, organizing a shameful witch hunt, as a result of which thousands of innocent women suffered martyrdom at the stake, having previously been tortured during interrogations.

However, in addition to the terrible execution at the stake, other, more exotic procedures were used to destroy “heretics”. For example, one of the leaders of the Reformation, John Calvin (1509-1564), on whose orders, by the way, the physiologist M. Servetus was sent to the fire, often ordered people (usually women) to be walled up alive.

Since we are talking about religious philosophers and their views, I remembered the story of the English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (1225-1349), who taught at Oxford University and was accused of heresy. Fleeing execution at the stake, Occam, with the help of friends, escaped from prison to Bavaria.

All these facts are known to the philosophers participating in the discussion better than to us. That is why their conversation on the topic of good and evil, as they say, did not go well. The answers to question No. 8 were confused and crumpled, although all the speakers unequivocally recognized that the problem of evil is one of the main difficulties for theism and the doctrine of the existence of an omnipotent and all-seeing God, whose mercy is infinite.

Theologians admit that the progress of science has often led religion to the need for some revision of its dogmas. Philosopher Gerard Hughes (University of London) reasonably believes that philosophical reasoning, religious faith and scientific research should be seen as mutually complementary attempts by man to understand himself and the world around him. “Honesty requires us to seek consistency between our beliefs, and open-mindedness requires a willingness to change those beliefs—both religious and scientific—in the light of new arguments, discoveries, and research methods.”

It is impossible not to note the usefulness of such a position for both idealists and materialists.

© Vladimir Kalanov,
Knowledge is power.

The meaning of life is to become happy. In this world, where everything is temporary and, by and large, beyond our control, it is impossible to find the happiness we dream of - eternal and not dependent on external circumstances. But such happiness can be found within yourself. To do this, a person needs to understand two things: what is his true nature, his purpose, and what needs to be done for this nature to be fully revealed.

The Vedic scriptures state that we are not just material bodies that came into existence by chance and lead a meaningless existence awaiting death. We are eternal souls associated with and by nature possessing three inherent qualities - sat (immortality), chit (knowledge) and ananda (bliss). And the meaning of life is to, moving along the path of spiritual improvement, which is described in detail in the sacred scriptures, to realize one’s original nature and become truly happy.

The presence of a soul is what distinguishes a living being from dead matter. In Sanskrit the soul is called atma, “the vehicle of the self.” Just as a sunbeam is a tiny particle of the sun and has its qualities, but to an insignificant extent, the soul is a tiny particle of the primordial consciousness. Consciousness has two aspects - the perception of what is around, and the awareness of the fact of one’s own existence. Each of us has this experience: I know not only what is around, but I am also aware of the fact of my own existence.

Consciousness is an attribute of the soul, and it cannot be created artificially. Even very complex and highly organized matter does not acquire this special quality. It is possible to imitate the first aspect of consciousness – the perception of information about the external world. For example, you can install artificial intelligence programs on your computer that will create the illusion of interaction with the outside world. But the computer will never learn the second aspect of consciousness - to be aware of the very fact of its existence: the computer does not know that it exists, because it does not and cannot have a soul.

It is usually believed that good is what I like, and evil is what does not suit me. We are accustomed to reserving the role of the final judge and setting our own criteria for good and bad. But, from the point of view of God-centric philosophy, good is what is liked, and evil is what somehow contradicts His plan or desire. What God likes and what He doesn’t is spoken of in all the sacred scriptures of the world. These laws may vary slightly as they were given under different historical, climatic and social conditions, but the general rules that a person must follow in order to satisfy God are universal. And good, understood in this way, is universal. If I myself become the highest criterion of good and evil, then my ideas will collide with the ideas of other people, and conflicts are inevitable. But having one universal law, we can live in harmony with each other. The universal good is understanding God and one’s relationship with Him, and the main problem is forgetting God and one’s relationship with Him.

In other words, evil is the result of our wrong attitude towards ourselves and our role. As soon as I change my attitude towards myself, the world and God, as soon as I recognize the power of God and try to look at the world, I get rid of the very concept of evil and begin to see that “everything is for the better.” This is the slogan of those people who were able to get closer to God and gained spiritual consciousness. They understand that behind everything - both good and bad - is the will of the all-good God. God wishes us good and in mysterious ways helps us to get closer to Him and get rid of the very source of evil, which lies in our desire for independence.

Holy people are people who remember and serve Him all the time. The memory of God allows us to look at the world around us. Such people do not divide the world into friends and enemies, they understand that all living beings are brothers, that everyone has the same nature and that everyone has their own unique, inimitable relationship with God. In other words, a saint is one who always feels the presence of God. Such a person exhibits all those qualities that from time immemorial have been considered in human society as qualities of holiness: meekness, patience, wisdom, kindness, impartiality, compassion, etc.

Love is a luxury that not everyone can afford. Love is giving up oneself for the sake of another. Love is the ability to live in the interests of another and the ability to forget about oneself for the good of another, to sacrifice oneself. True love is always associated with self-sacrifice, self-forgetfulness and service. Love is the nature of a living being. The Vedas state that dharma, or the nature of a living being, is the desire to serve others, that is, the desire to love. Love is the highest purpose of a living being, the meaning of his life and the source of endless happiness.

Happiness is a very important concept, so Sanskrit has many terms to describe different types of happiness. For example, there is happiness at the level of the body, which we experience from the satisfaction of the senses (say, when we eat something tasty, listen to beautiful music or admire beautiful flowers). Another type of happiness - at the level of the mind - is a joyful state in anticipation of something pleasant or the delight that we experience when our dreams come true.

However, such types of happiness are temporary and therefore cannot truly satisfy a person. Sensual pleasures sooner or later bore us, become boring, and cease to please us. In addition, over the years, our body can no longer enjoy as before and brings us more and more suffering. Everything that our mind wants to receive turns out to be not free; joyful excitement in the mind inevitably gives way to disappointment. These types of happiness have a beginning and an end, and from the mere premonition that happiness will end, a person plunges into melancholy and sadness.

Living beings are spiritual and essentially, so we all seek happiness that will correspond to our spiritual nature: infinite, not dependent on external circumstances. And there is such happiness. It is called "ananda" in Sanskrit, which means the inner, constant, unclouded happiness that comes from the living experience of contact with our eternal nature. It is achieved through spiritual practice, when a person reveals his true essence and frees himself from the influence of illusion.