On the special religious vocation of our time

(Introduction to readings on theology in Prague on October 6 (19), 1923) 1 Perhaps it is no coincidence that I have to begin a course in Theology on the feast day of St. Thomas the Apostle, who is a living symbol of conscientious unbelief and honest doubt rewarded by faith. And first of all, I feel the need to say at least a few words about the special religious calling of our time, our people, the present generation, and all of us in general. With the thought of him, I associate vivid memories of that era in the development of the Russian intelligentsia and the Russian public, of which our generation was a witness and direct participant. My personal biography is largely connected with this history of the Russian intelligentsia, Russian social thought, so that, speaking about the history of the Russian intelligentsia over the past quarter century, I involuntarily have to talk about myself. I vividly remember the dark “Middle Ages” of our society, which is now receding into the past, which was this quarter of a century, which, however, continued in this and in the previous era. That was the time when religious darkness and ignorance were deeply rooted in our intelligentsia, although the Russian soul, Russian thought, Russian literature have always been nourished by religious quests. In this dark time, talking about God and faith was considered indecent and ignorant. Theology existed as a government subject in a secular higher school, which timidly and unnoticed huddled among other subjects. Now, with my head raised, firmly and boldly, I begin my course in theology, not for the sake of personal self-affirmation, but in the name of the great and responsible task of theology, calling everyone to the consciousness that theology is the very first, most important, most difficult and urgently necessary in our life. This is how it is essentially, apart from any school programs. If there is a God, then, of course, there is no higher and more important task than to know Him. And “is there a God?” - even the unbelieving Thomas must ask before legitimately answering this, even in the negative. In our Russian “Middle Ages” (I do not use this word here in the exact sense: of course, the true Middle Ages in the life of European peoples in their religious intensity was the highest religious era compared to ours, but in the usual sense of spiritual darkness and impoverishment) in this “timelessness” of our public, the question of the existence of God was considered to be decided in advance and, of course, in a negative sense; Even the problem itself was denied. But what kept this calm and indifferent denial alive? First of all, its psychological condition was the strength of our entire way of life, which turned out to be imaginary in the era of the revolution, and the associated strength of our everyday life. The feeling of strength, stability, and immutability of everyday life was extremely strong, it permeated throughout life. The average person imagined himself to be protected from special changes, shocks and catastrophes, and if they happened, it happened only within the limits of personal fate. This strength of everyday life, which supported the mood of spiritual philistinism, a certain lowliness of spirit, is now broken by the revolution, apparently completely, or at least for a long time. This strength has already been shaken in Western Europe, but in our country this way of life, which we until recently imagined so unshakable, has been completely destroyed. During this time, almost each of us experienced a personal catastrophe, in which he had to feel his personal destiny in a new way, and in it he had to experience personal depth, and in many cases, experience a meeting with God in it. Now the philistinism of everyday life no longer obscures the eyes, does not burden the spirit, does not interfere with thinking about the Most High. Such was the negative obstacle to religious faith, which kept the nerves from well-being and slumber. But there were also positive obstacles, real or only apparent. The first of these obstacles was the so-called “scientific worldview,” a kind of modern superstition. There was a widespread prejudice, especially among those who had never set foot in a science laboratory, or experienced the scientific method and scientific asceticism, that science was incompatible and should take its place. How widespread this was is evidenced by the irresistible success of the newest formula of the philosophy of O. Comte about the three phases of human thinking: religious, metaphysical and scientific, successively replacing each other. As soon as they crossed the threshold of a higher scientific school, Russian people usually began to believe in the scientific nature of their disbelief, reassured and supported in this by a good part of their teachers. I cannot go into an analysis of science and the scientific method here and will focus only on one basic misunderstanding, which is associated with the very phrase “scientific worldview.” Is this a phrase? This combination of two concepts represents some kind of internal contradiction, something like a “round square”. Science is a special way of studying the world, logically isolating objects; it always studies the particular, special, and with a certain methodological approach. The true meaning and character of science does not lie in the content of scientific propositions, which are more or less relative, playing the role of working hypotheses “in science, this is primarily a method of thought,” analysis, logical isolation of processing the subject of study. Now, after the brilliant success of scientific teaching, the theory of knowledge, we sufficiently know the logical nature of science. Only by ignoring this nature and method of science can one speak naively and certainly unscientifically about a “scientific worldview.” Worldview is the comprehension and understanding of the world as a whole, as a unity and the connections of all things. Science does not and cannot pose problems of worldview. The world as a whole is practically denied by the method of science. The whole always escapes her, which is why she uses the method of isolating, special study. And the idea of ​​a purely scientific construction of a worldview is an involuntary illusion, as is the hope that the sciences will ever unite their conclusions and thus lead to a “scientific worldview”, in which, of course, there will be no God (for, as Laplace noted, in his experiments and research he did not find the need for such a hypothesis). This cannot be, because science, further deepening and complicating its research, is increasingly differentiated, not approaching the general synthesis of knowledge, but rather moving away from it. Of course, the data of scientific research, entering the flesh and blood of modern humanity, leave their mark on the worldview, but it is never repeated by the forces of rational analysis alone, but is given only to an integrating synthesis with the participation of all the forces of the human soul, the entire human being in some common living aspiration and comprehension. Science moves towards a horizon that is always receding and never approaching. And this tirelessness of its movement reflects the well-known self-denial of science, what can be defined as its religious pathos of serving the truth. And in this tireless movement lies her vital power, beauty and spiritual feat, the asceticism of science. The ascetic path is such a way of service, creativity and work, which does not contain the end of the path as a goal, which knows only the path and ascent and for this purpose finds its recovery in itself, in the very efforts of achievement. Science is such a feat and such an ascetic service, and in this sense it is pious and religious in its tasks. It is religious, of course, not by its conclusions, but by its dedication, which cognizes without thinking about the latest results. That is why scientific work was (and still is) one of the images of monastic feat, and the monastery revived European science. She is religious in her inner pathos, which makes sense of her. This is expressed not in its individual provisions, but in a general attitude towards the world and man, which can only be comprehended in God. And it seems that it is no coincidence that the greatest scientists showed exceptional reverence. The only way that truly leads science to faith is the method of reverence, the loss of which among his contemporaries Carlyle mourned, saying that they put on glasses and did not want to see anything except them. Representatives of Russian science, except for the greatest (and the first of them Lomonosov), unfortunately, were often cold and dead to faith, and in many ways they were responsible for the spiritual disasters now being experienced. I now call upon a new generation of Russian scientists who will be inspired by the result of faith in their scientific work. Nowadays, this form of science is becoming more and more clear as opposed to the scientific atheism that has corrupted our fatherland. If science has hitherto been an obstacle to faith, then it must put its fingers in, be private and bold to the end in its doubt, so as not to stop halfway and overcome it. The second obstacle to religious faith, which existed for more refined minds, came not from science, but from philosophy, and not from the positive philosophy of Comte, but from the German critical idealism of Kant and the entire critical school. Kant's philosophy is one of the most powerful, but also deadening constructs that the human mind and industriousness have ever conceived of. As if a huge mountain had blocked a river, Kant’s criticism fell like a heavy block on the spiritual path of European humanity at the end of the 18th century. It was necessary to reckon with criticism, survive it and overcome it, and this was the preoccupation of the philosophical thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries. To this day in Russia, in well-known university circles, the latest German revisions of Kant’s philosophy and its various interpretations, which were given by the Freiburg, Marburg, Berlin and Heidelberg schools, were considered the last word in philosophical thought. With all the differences in these shades of criticism, they exhibit one and the same feature, a common spiritual tone - a ban on a religious worldview that exceeds in its content meager moralism and formalism, a ban on dogmatic faith and religious-metaphysical thought. All these systems say “no!” positive religious quest; and they say this in a logically very impressive and sophisticated form. To cope with criticism, to survive it and, having processed it, to overcome it, human mental energy was required, especially since, like a hydra, more and more new heads appeared. The successes of criticism corresponded to the general rise of Germany, which was observed before the war. This was a typically German philosophy, which also became Russian. Here, too, in addition to overcoming, there was a need for spiritual liberation and a shift, a new life experience. And it seemed to me long ago, long before the war, that only world upheavals could heal Germany and Russia from the spiritual captivity of criticism, from this sterile and lifeless scholasticism: they, those “coming Huns” who hang like a cloud over the world, they will break these concrete strongholds too. After world upheavals, Germany itself apparently begins to free itself from criticism, which ceases to be the spiritual expression of the era and people, although it remains in universities as a school, and in individual minds as philosophy. And it would not be an exaggeration to say that internal criticism is becoming obsolete, opening the way to a religious worldview. Kant said “impossible!” religious worldview, which he himself reduced to morality, and modern religious and philosophical thought more and more confidently says “It’s possible!” It is worth mentioning that there is a Russian school of religious and philosophical thought, which has long been fighting against Kant, arguing that this is “possible” and “should.” And this tradition needs to be continued and deepened. But if criticism was accessible only to a select few, then its role for the broad masses of the intelligentsia was replaced by socialism. All recent generations have been spiritually captivated by socialism, perhaps even the present one. But here, in this area, the greatest upheavals occurred. Socialism is terrible because it is popular to the point of vulgarity, and because all its wisdom was sometimes contained in a small brochure. he is strong in the unique religious pathos of man-theism, in his belief in the feasibility and imminent coming of the “kingdom of God” on earth, in the utopia of the “earthly paradise.” While socialism was depicted in the foggy haze of the future, it was irresistible. And the only way to free yourself from it, as from a faith and worldview, was to experience it to the end. Before our eyes, a fatal experience of socialism was carried out, terrible for Russia and for the world. We have paid for a long time, are paying and will continue to pay for this experience, and although for this reason alone we must honestly and completely live out what this experience of socialism teaches in order to finally free ourselves from this mirage. (I’m talking here, of course, about socialism not as a system of economic ideas or social policy, but as a religion). To expose all the lies of socialism, it is enough for it to become reality and thereby reveal its spiritual nature. Many people still think that Russian Bolshevism is not a test experiment for socialism; they judge that the Bolsheviks did something bad, but the Mensheviks or some other socialist party could perfectly implement real socialism. Such reasoning is possible within the confines of party differences and groupings, but in its spiritual essence, Bolshevism is the last word of socialism, it is - in a certain sense - truth and denunciation. It clearly expressed both essential and characteristic features of socialism: 1) the desire to organize life without God and 2) the organization of life not from the inside, but from the outside, not on the basis of the internal regeneration of the soul, but on the basis of the external reorganization of social forms: life and violent coercion. Both of these basic motives of socialism found full realization and embodiment in Russian atheistic Bolshevism. If we meet people who remain faithful to the ideas of socialism in the face of everything that happens, then we have to say that we are dealing with people who do not heed the voice of history and are inaccessible to its influence. However, many who were previously blinded by the socialist mirage are now spiritually liberated from socialism; the clouds no longer obscure their vision. But at the same time, an ominous emptiness formed in their souls. However, the human soul does not tolerate emptiness; it languishes and suffers from it. And this languor and suffering mark the predawn hour in the Russian soul; this is the most precious and creative, the most important and responsible thing that we have now. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied! If only the prodigal son had this spiritual hunger! There is no need to close our eyes to the fact that there is a fatal discrepancy and difficulty in our wretchedness, in the wretchedness of our external situation and the enormity of the tasks facing us. In addition to the general misery of the situation of the Russian people at home and abroad, it is also important that the revolution itself always brings savagery, mental impoverishment, and a decline in cultural and spiritual type. We also have to take into account external impoverishment, the difficulty or inability to get the necessary money and organize teaching. God knows our destinies, and history will not exact our forks from us. We are irresistibly faced with important tasks, and the first of them is the development of religious thought, the deepening of religious consciousness and experience. Meanwhile, while our youth now does not have much of what the average student could have in the days of my youth, they are entrusted with great spiritual feats, they can turn the Russian soul in a new way, put all Russian life on new rails. You must return to your homeland as new people, people of thought, consciousness, science, faith. You must not give up anything valuable in the past, you do not have the right to give up higher cultural needs, so as not to lower your spiritual type, and at the same time you must transform it creatively and religiously. Neither I nor you have the strength or the data to solve this problem, but we have the strength and the data to recognize it and admire it. I know that not everyone wants this even now, I hear internally those who remain on the other side, having not spiritually experienced the revolution, without overcoming it. They will greet speeches about the need for religious revival with coldness and distrust, perhaps mockingly, but this leaves me cold too. It is unshakable for me that the spirit of renewal is already enjoying among the intelligentsia, the revival has begun, and it is only a matter of time when the distrustful and cold will be convinced of this. In the meantime, let us look for ways together, not only by studying, but also by the work of life, by raising, deepening and clarifying religious consciousness, and let this spiritual work be the central part of our work. And this will make up for the fatal insufficiency of our study. After all, even before studying theology meant devoting your whole life to this subject. And this was not only in Western Europe, where Catholic and Protestant theology received such development (and it still remains so), but also in Russia, where the Theological Academy, with all its recognized shortcomings, stood at a height about which we knew little, and in any case its level was higher than universities. Now we have so little for religious enlightenment, but God has given us the soul-softening experience of suffering, shock, death, and in our hearts we hear the calls and revelations of history. Therefore, let us entrust ourselves to the Almighty and do what we can. According to listener recordings, comp. stud.