Konstantin Volkodav
Religious Implications of Atheism

Language: English

This is a translation from Russian into English of the book Религиозные Аспекты Атеизма: Атеизм, Ислам и Христианство на языке Метафизики. Translated by the author.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture marked KJV comes from the King James Version.

Scripture marked LXX (in Greek) comes from the Biblia Graeca IVXTA LXX Interpretes (Septuaginta).

Praise for the Religious Implications of Atheism

A very good and timely book! Today, many people who seek God or hesitate in thought, especially observing the position, behavior and lifestyle of the Church hierarchy of various confessions, unfortunate people, easily fall under the influence of atheistic propaganda. This book is a wonderful answer and refutation of this propaganda, written by a very good and competent theologian. Comments are intelligible and well-grounded, easy and interesting to read! I recommend to everyone!

–Sergey N. Kurtalidi,

historian, theologian (Athens)

The format of this book is very interesting—a discussion within a discussion. I hope that the questions posed by the author will resonate with readers, and a discussion will emerge that expands and complements this debate. The book is written in good language, easy to read and interesting. The density of thought is high. I also want to note that the author’s proposal to read selectively interested topics makes sense. The book is made so that it can be read in arbitrary parts, and not just sequentially. The book touches upon not only theological and philosophical aspects, but also publicistic and historical prospects.

–Yaroslav Taran,

poet, writer, editor-in-chief of the portal “Air Castle” (St. Petersburg)

Foreword by Ronald Kirk

Atheism except by the grace of God is hardwired into mankind’s spiritual DNA. The original sin made us think we were clever. Our thoughts were equal to the Creator’s thoughts, or superior. So rather than judge ourselves by God’s Word as we ought, we routinely choose to judge God by our fallen, humanistic standards. Thus, practical if not philosophical atheism prevails in the world. We know God, but we naturally and universally suppress the truth in unrighteousness to our own hurt (Rom. 1:18).

Thanks to God our Savior for His grace, for not leaving us in that condition! He is wont to save His creatures, those whom He created in His own image. Yet He also makes us partners, however minor, in the redemption of His people. Therefore, knowing what we are up against is central to the calling of the Great Commission to make Christ’s disciples.

To offer a bit of an aid in this quest, after Cornelius Van Til and Rousas J. Rushdoony, I am a presuppositional apologist. Referencing the debate between Hamza Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss from this book, the reason they cannot agree is that they operate on entirely different premises, literally completely different universes. One universe is finite and acts according to fixed Law. The other, according to Krauss, is a multi-verse of infinite members capable of absolutely any character. Ultimate contingency. Anything can and like does happen. Empirical arguments such as are common in evangelical apologetics depend on a common ground that does not really exist, unless one is willing to assume a Biblical perspective at least for the sake of argument.

In the documentary movie, The Principle, Krauss admits what NASA has found—a plane field of ancient extensive microwave energy resulting from creation propagates on the equator of the Earth. His only response is that sure, it exists in this universe, but likely not in the rest of the multi-verse. In other words, his scientific, materialistic answer is that he must base his answer speculatively on the supposition of a reality of his imagination alone! He merely begs the question: how is this scientific?

The materialist’s problem is a deep one. Cosmologist Paul Steinhardt, one of the architects of the Big Bang theory, and of the theory of inflation—that tiny fraction of a second when chaos becomes order—has second thoughts. About a decade ago Steinhardt reversed his original view as an impossibility due to a probability of one in a googolplex [ten to the power of 10 ¹⁰⁰]. In other words, something caused Steinhardt, on this point, to abandon the notion of ultimate contingency in favor of a creationist universe of law. [1]

A fluid and inconsistent view of reality is the most common practice among the supposedly rational materialists. With Jean Paul Sartre, knowledge of reality is impossible, but since we live in this world with all its laws, meaning and consequences, we take a leap of faith to accept it—though not the God of this reality. In so suppressing the knowledge of God in unrighteousness (cf. Rom. 1:18), they give themselves license to make themselves god.

Closer to home, an elderly friend, a brilliant died-in-the-wool scientific materialist, admitted that he had no rational basis for his beliefs regarding origins, law, love, meaning, self-sacrifice—which he himself lived—etc. Yet he insisted we Christians are irrational. There is no ground of argument with such a person. He will always have a response to any empirical evidence. When I mentioned Steinhardt’s reversal with reference to the odds against inflation, he answered it is only zeros. I asked in return if I could borrow a thousand dollars, since I could repay with my own idea of zeroes. Even he had to smile at that. What was so frustrating was that he lived a more consistently Christian life than many Christians I know.

Jesus said, we know a tree by its fruit. This is the basis of a Biblical epistemology. What are the consequences of practical atheism? What are the consequences of the Biblical view of all things? The atheistic model cannot predict meaning, love, etc. Ultimate contingency holds inherently, if consistent, zero meaning, zero law, zero morality. Materialistic environmentalists assume a moral superiority of non-human nature over humanity. On what rational ground? How is there any basis of judgment without a fixed law?

On the other hand, the Biblical model, when one is willing to assume the presupposition for the sake of argument, even as a purely scientific model, does an infinitely better job of predicting nature, human conduct, etc. Again, with Van Til and Rushdoony, my apologetic is presuppositional. God never defends His existence or His Ways. Rather He merely declares them. Likewise, the Bible never defends God’s existence or His Ways. Apostle Paul merely asserts that we ought not to say to the Potter, why do You make us thus? (Rom. 9:20–21)

I pray the reader of Religious Implications of Atheism: Atheism, Islam, and Christianity in the Language of Metaphysics, particularly the atheist, honestly consider the power of the original sin in all of us, and its clear, rational remedy—the grace of God, ready to be found if we only grope for it (cf. Acts 17:27).

Ronald W. Kirk

Student of God’s Ways

Сhief editor of Nordskog Publishing

(мanuscript review and theology)

[Ronald Kirk has walked with Christ for over forty-seven years. He devoted himself to the lifelong endeavor of bridging the proverbial gap between theology and practice in every area of life. God honored this conviction with a thoroughly Biblical philosophy, method, and content for education proved over twenty-five years of practical development, including highly successful classroom application kindergarten through high school and beyond—regardless of native ability or previous educational experience. A Providential view of history allows making the best use of the lessons of history, from the consequence of choices—godly or humanistic, with their good or evil results]

Acknowledgments

First of all, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who, in one way or another, by deed, word, thought, contributed to the publication of this book. I would especially like to thank Ronald W. Kirk who kindly agreed to write the Foreword. It is perfectly natural to give thanks for the good, and similar acknowledgments occur in many books.

However, one of the paradoxical features of Christianity is the commandment to love enemies. Christians pray, among other things, for those who hate and offend them. This book examines aspects of atheism, which, not only in words, but sometimes in deeds, is at war with the religious worldview. Therefore, often atheism does not cause positive emotions in religious people, just as it does not cause positive emotions, for example, fly larvaes.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to the fact that even completely unsightly fly larvae can be of great benefit. They can clear trophic ulcers, wounds and bedsores from infection several times faster than traditional therapy. In some cases, using fly larvae to fight infection is much safer, more effective and cheaper than antibacterial drugs. Fly larvae eat only dead tissue, without touching healthy ones. Thus, they cleanse the wound and promote its healing much better than antibiotics.

Likewise, atheists can expose and criticize only dead and sick areas of religions. The healthy part of religions is too tough for atheists. If a human had a personal metaphysical experience of “touching other worlds,” then he will never forgott this experience, and atheists will never be able to convince him. In addition, atheists will never say that the biblical commandments are bad and must be fought against. On the contrary, the moral code of the builder of communism was copied from the biblical commandments, since atheists could not think of anything better.

Of course, delusions and superstitions within religion have always been criticized by religious people, trying to separate the human from the divine. However, their voice was often too weak to reverse negative tendencies. Atheists approached religions with a heavy hammer of criticism, and began to test the strength of all religious foundations. In many things, the atheists were deluded themselves, and their blows did not reach the target. On the other hand, the problems that atheists rightly pointed out were already criticized by religious people long before the atheists. The atheists just once again drew attention to them and contributed to their wide discussion.

Thus, it is worth to thank the atheists for their unsightly “fly larvae work”. It is worth thanking them here and now, and not only thanking them, but also pitying them, because they do not understand what they are deprived of (Ps. 39:4).

Introduction

“We want to know in order to live. And to live means, on the other hand, to live not in blindness and darkness, but in the light of knowledge . . . And in the last depth of our being, we feel that the light of knowledge and the highest good of life we are looking for are two sides of the same principle.”

– S. L. Frank [2]

From time immemorial, people have argued about the criteria of truth, about the meaning of human life and about the nature of things. Usually this was expressed in religious disputes. About two hundred years ago, atheism arose in Christian Europe, and began to take part in these disputes. Many books have been written on these topics. Nevertheless, a book is a monologue of one author. A more complete picture is obtained when different colors and contrast are present in it. Therefore, it is advisable to conduct dialogues, trialogues, disputes, in which representatives of different points of view argue. For two hundred years, there have already been thousands of disputes on the topic “Religion and Atheism”, in which, as a rule, representatives of Christianity or Islam speak about religion. The titles of these disputes can vary widely. For example, there might be a title “Religion and Science”, “Religion and Evolution”, “I don’t believe!” etc. However, the essence is the same everywhere and the arguments for each side are approximately the same. It is like a children’s carousel where you can change animal figures. You can exchange horses for donkeys, camels, giraffes, etc., but the rotation mechanism and trajectory will be the same. Therefore, the disputes of the twenty-first century, in fact, differ little from the disputes of the nineteenth century. For two centuries, almost nothing has changed. Perhaps, it is impossible to reach a consensus between religions and atheism through disputes, controversies, and discussions.

Therefore, we will try to consider the discussed problems alone, in creative silence, that is, we will present our views in the genre of Plato’s Dialogues. However, it would not be correct to analyze the dispute between atheists and believers in a completely abstract way, without reference to specific individuals. It is not very nice to argue with fictitious opponents and refute the arguments of marginal anonymous (as atheists often do). Therefore, we will comment on one specific dispute here, by the example of which we will try to reveal the essence of all similar disputes. This is a debate between a prominent representative of Atheism and a well-known representative of Islam. In addition, we will comment on their polemic from the point of view of Christianity. Thus, three points of view will be presented here, and the problems discussed will be shown as if in “three-dimensional”.

Debate video source:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI

Title:

The Big Debates: Islam or Atheism—Which Makes More Sense?

London, March 9, 2013

Participants:

Professor Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is a renowned cosmologist and popularizer of science, founder of the Faculty of Earth and Space Studies and honorary director of the “Origins” project at the University of Arizona (USA), author of about three hundred scientific publications and nine books, including international bestsellers “The Physics of Star Trek” and “A Universe from Nothing: why there is something rather than nothing”.

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis is a student of the organization “Islamic Thought”, author, lecturer, employee of the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA).

00:00:24: Introduction – Timothy Yusuf Chambers (Moderator)

00:06:30: Opening Remarks – Hamza Tzortzis

00:32:02: Opening Remarks – Lawrence Krauss

00:59:33: Rebuttal – Hamza Tzortzis

01:14:28: Rebuttal – Lawrence Krauss

01:22:43: Summary Discussion

01:42:07: Question & Answer Session

02:06:00: Closing Remarks – Lawrence Krauss

02:07:50: Closing Remarks – Hamza Tzortzis

Below we will alternate our comments with quotes from the debates, highlighting them in different fonts. For this, we transcribed the video into text. For the sake of brevity, we have skipped irrelevant parts of the discussion. The timestamps are indicated in square brackets.

Debates and Comments

[00:00:58–00:03:03] Moderator: I start by praising God, the Compassionate, the Merciful . . . Peace be upon whole gathering! . . . Welcome and thank you very much for attending. This that I hope will be a seminal debate between two respected speakers on the left and the right. That is all about. It is about a debate and it is about of come together and been truth to each other . . . Tonight’s challenging debates in title “Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?” is not happening in a vacuum, quantum and otherwise. It is taking place within a context of the world full of human beings looking for answers, in a world similarly full of Western promise, a world full of information hub by the IT. However, IT and we seem fail to adequately answer the most fundamental questions about life, our existence . . .

Comment 1

In general, everything he said correctly, however, the formulations are not quite clear. Any instrument cannot measure meaning, and one cannot say where it is more and where it is less. The meaning is either there or not. It would be more correct to say, “Islam or Atheism: what gives a person the meaning of life?”

It is also not clear what “Western priorities” are meant? For the last two hundred years, the West has been dominated by secular, that is, atheistic priorities. Fundamental questions, which from time immemorial have occupied the best minds of humankind: “How to find the truth?”, “How to distinguish between good and evil?” and so on, previously were solved in a metaphysical or religious context. The atheistic worldview directed the search vector to purely material aspects. Only that which can be verified by experiment began to be considered true. In general, instead of asking, “Where is the truth?” the priority was given to the question: “What is more useful?” Instead of metaphysical moral truths, the priority was given to the question, “How to become successful and avoid failures,” etc. Information technology has nothing to do with it. This is just a technical tool that does not answer any questions. However, if people replace live interpersonal relationships only with dry transmission of information, then some metaphysical qualia [3] disappear from these relationships.

The poet Yevgeny Baratynsky well expressed this general tendency back in 1842 in the following verses:

“The century walks along its iron path;

In the hearts of self-interest, and a common dream

Hour by hour vital and useful

Clearer, shamelessly busy.

Disappeared in the light of enlightenment

Poetry, childish dreams

And generations are not worried about it,

They are devoted to industrial cares”. [4]

On metaphysics

Here we will often talk about metaphysics. Therefore, it is worth noting that the term “metaphysics” arose quite accidentally. In in the seventies BC Andronicus from the island of Rhodes systematized the works of Aristotle and arranged them thematically. At the beginning, treatises related to the laws of nature (Gr. φύσης) were collected, and after them (Gr. µετά τα φυσικά), works of a philosophical nature were placed.

Despite the fact that metaphysics often talks about God and immaterial entities, it cannot be equated with religion. Aristotle did not write about religion. He simply divided the realm of reality, which can be cognized by rational and experimental methods (physics) and the realm of reality, which can only be spoken about in the language of philosophy (metaphysics). Thus, he was well aware that the methods of physics (and other rational sciences) have a limited field of application, with their help it is possible to study only part of reality.

Aristotle laid the foundations of physics (as a systematic science) and he also laid the foundations of metaphysics (as a separate field of knowledge). So if physicists ridicule metaphysics, they ridicule the founder of physics.

Moderator: Which is, of course, the main core area, we gone be addressing tonight in this auditorium in London . . .

I remember, you know, spending a large part of my life asking myself, “Why am I here? Who created me? Do I have a purpose?” Do we be certain about any of these questions?

Comment 2

Of course, these questions concern humanity throughout all its history. Exactly these metaphysical questions are underlying any religion. In search of answers to these questions, people look at these debates [5] and others like them.

Therefore, it would be logical to ask prof. Krauss, an cosmologist-atheist, how from the “quantum fog” or from the “Big Bang” to go to a person interested in the issues of being and the meaning of life, his own higher destiny. Evolution cannot be involved in this, since these questions are purely metaphysical and have nothing to do with natural selection or adaptation for the sake of survival. No animals ask such questions in principle, and they have nothing like this even in embryonic form. Unfortunately, the participants in the debate did not even come close to this important topic at all.

Comment 3

The Same “Dimension” of Atheism and Religion

This is perhaps the first religious aspect of atheism to pay attention too. In physics, the concept of dimension plays an important role. One can somehow compare and contrast values of only one dimension. It is impossible, for example, to compare mass and temperature, something triangular and something bright. The same is in the field of human thought and creativity. Nobody will have a debate on the topic: “Mathematics or Music—Which Makes More Sense?” “Chess or Swimming—Which Makes More Sense?” There has never been a debate on the topic: “Atheism or Architecture—Which Makes More Sense?” or something similar. However, the debate on the topic: “Atheism vs Religion” happen very often. Moreover, they happen in the same way as the debates between different religions.

Attempts are sometimes made to bring atheism to a “common denominator” with religions, considering it as a worldview. However, the worldview is an attribute of religion. Therefore, Krauss avoids the term, preferring to emphasize a “common sense”. Nevertheless, no matter how one characterizes atheism; common sense and whatever else and all the same can be found in any religion. Thus, the very fact of the debate between religions and atheism speaks of their equal conditional “dimension”—this is one area of the human spirit.

Moderator: Once I asked a bishop, “What is the purpose of life?” And he said to me, “Go and do a theology degree.” I am not telling you to do theology degree, I am asking you to sit here in the debate for two hours with my two honorable guests over here.

Comment 4

Of course, the bishop should not have rejected the person who asked difficult questions in such a way and put on him a burden that he could not bear. However, in theory, the bishop is right. In short, they may be misunderstood. Moreover, even a two-hour lecture will not help much. Jesus Christ taught the apostles for over three years, but they still did not understand much. Theological education takes much more time than, for example, studying physics or mathematics. In the nineteenth century in Russia, education at the Theological Seminary and Academy took twelve years. The same length of study now with Buddhists. I have been studying Christianity for over twenty five years, got my doctorate degree, but I see before me a whole ocean of unexplored. In general, despite two thousand years of hard work of theological thought, a long series of important questions remain unanswered.

Thus, any debate is not able to reveal the topic completely. This is just an entertaining show for those who do not want to read books. Nevertheless, we use them to provide a clear example of the points of view of the parties to the dispute.

[00:03:12–00:03:50] Moderator: But what, of course, we can do to inform our decisions about this debate tonight to use our reasoning, to use our mind, to use our intellect. And really to have an open mind set. Muslim, Non-Muslim, Christian, whatever you are, whatever you believe in, we should have an open mind set and really go at this with sincerity. I am just asking you, I am asking myself first . . .

[00:03:55–00:05:17] Moderator: This evening two major belief systems, if you like, claim to the truth and going head to head. No matter which side of a fence you tend to reside on. But at the end of the night you will be better informed about Atheism and about Islam . . . And after that there will be “crossfire”. Only without weapons! No heavy arms to be use in this section, both of you. Okay? Good? Although, I understand that tongue is a lot more dangerous than nuclear weapons . . .

[00:07:18–00:07:47] Tzortzis: Today’s question: “Islam or Atheism—Which Makes More Sense?” I would argue that if we use our reason, our rational faculties, we will definitely come to the conclusion, that Islam makes more sense. I will use two simple arguments to verify that claim. Argument number one: Islam makes sense of the origin of the universe. Argument number two: Islam makes sense of the nature of the Qur’anic discourse . . .

Comment 5

Tzortzis sets the direction of the whole discussion: “If we use our reason, our rational faculties . . .” Except for a very brief mention of morality, all issues were discussed from a purely rational point of view. This inevitably led to immersion in the field of physics and mathematics, which Tzortzis did not study deeply. Talking to a cosmologist about cosmology without knowing enough science is counterproductive. It is like a student arguing with an academician. Therefore, it is not surprising that Tzortzis looked like a rather weak opponent compared to Krauss, and his arguments were unconvincing even for many Muslims. He should have talked about the “universe” inside a human, about those many amazing qualities that only a human has. Unfortunately, he did not do this, and we do not consider it appropriate to comment on his arguments in detail and will limit ourselves to just a few brief comments.

However, the weakness of Tzortzis’s argumentation does not yet mean the triumph of Krauss’s ideas. Not at all! If believing scientists, who are also among Krauss’s colleagues, were invited to the debate, they would easily expose him wrong.

Comment 6

Logical Arguments and Evidences are Counterproductive in Debates about Religion

One can relate to the Bible in different ways, believe it or not, but one thing is undoubtedly: on its basis it is possible to build a consistent theory of human psychology. It has stood the test for millennia. In natural sciences, no theory has been tested for so long.

One of the key points of the biblical concept is the story of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As an educational measure so that the first man could show trust and love, the LORD God commanded the man: “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gen. 2:16–17). However, Eve succumbed to the temptation of the serpent (devil), lusted after the forbidden fruit of knowledge, ate, and gave it to her husband (Gen. 3:6). The devil always deceives by representing God as envious and wicked. However, the intellectual knowledge that devil offered, apart from trust and love for God, easily becomes evil. There have been and still are many evil geniuses in the world, people whose intellectual abilities are undoubtedly outstanding, but they are possessed by evil.

In the fallen world, knowledge has always been highly valued as a means that gives power over nature and other people. Pagan priests and magicians, Platonists, Gnostics and many others up to modern atheists—all gave priority to knowledge.

The biblical texts also praise wisdom and knowledge (and vice versa, ignorance and stupidity are condemned). However, the context suggests that wisdom and knowledge should follow sincere love for God and neighbor, truth and virtues. Thus, the Bible distinguishes between wisdom coming from above (which is full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and unfeigned), and earthly, spiritual, demonic wisdom (James 3:15).

King Solomon wrote:

“My child, if you accept my words and treasure up my commandments within you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; if you indeed cry out for insight, and raise your voice for understanding; if you seek it like silver, and search for it as for hidden treasures—then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Prov. 2:1–6).

At the beginning of the fourth century, the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire ceased [6], and, shortly after the accession of Emperor Constantine, Christianity rose to the status of a state religion. However, because of this entry into the Hellenistic world, Christianity was subjected to the colossal influence of Greco-Roman culture. From Neo-Platonism, ideas about intellectual knowledge as a self-sufficient virtue were perceived. Of course, we note only a general trend, and there have been exceptions to it always and everywhere.

Theology began to appeal to the intellect, to be presented logically, as a scientific system. In the West, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) succeeded in this. In his fundamental work Summa Theology (Lat. Summa Theologiae), he outlined five proofs of the existence of God based on the Logic (science) of Aristotle. Almost the same was done in the East. For a whole millennium, this has become a trend. Many books have been written where the existence of God was proved, based on intellect and common sense.

By the way, Islamic thought followed in the same direction (it is no coincidence that Tzortzis refers to the rational evidence of medieval Islamic theologians). Islamic theologians could simply rewrite the evidences for the existence of God from Christians, since in this respect Christianity and Islam speak of the same things. In general, the formation of Islam was influenced by Christian asceticism, Buddhism and Neo-Platonism. However, that is another topic.

In Christian countries, secondary and higher education included the study of various kinds of evidence of the existence of God. Then atheism appeared, other books were written, where, on the contrary, it was proved that there is no God, and with references to reason and common sense. They began to teach young people using these books. In the Soviet Union, for about seventy years, atheism was actively promoted, forbidding access to any positive information about religion. However, as soon as the communist regime fell, people began to convert to Christianity en masse. Old and new religious books were reprinted. After thirty years, some of the Christians, seeing the unworthy behavior of some representatives of the church, became disillusioned with Christianity and began to convert, some to another religion, some to Atheism.

It was the same in Turkey, where Mustafa Kemal began to instill secularism in the 1920s. Kemal admired science and saw the happiness of humanity in scientism. Nevertheless, propaganda of atheism did not help. After several decades, in Turkey people again began to turn to religion en masse.

This story repeats itself for centuries. Not all the numerous proofs, both on the one and on the other hand, somehow help. It is high time to understand that logical proofs in the field of metaphysics do not work! This is an area where everything depends on the choice between good and evil, between virtue and vice. Logic and common sense can play a supporting role here, but not the main one.

[00:10:50] Tzortzis: . . . But what have cosmologists said? They have said, for example, Alexander Vilenkin, in his book Many Worlds in One [7], which I believe is a friend of prof. Krauss, he says, “With the proof this we place, cosmologists can no longer be hide behind the possibility of the past eternal universe. There is no escape. They have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning”. And just to know, even prof. Krauss in his book affirms a beginning to the universe . . .

Comment 7

Great quote! In it, atheists expose themselves. Not a single discovery of physics is spoken of in such terms. Elsewhere in the book, Alexander Vilenkin frankly says that the atheists really did not want to, but there was no way out, and they had to admit the fact of the beginning of the world, which was inconvenient for them. Moreover, it began from nothing, and not from the previous infinite universe.

From the fact of the beginning naturally follows the question of the Cause of this beginning and this fact confuses atheists. Therefore, in the atheistic USSR, the Big Bang theory was denied for thirty years, insisting on the postulate of the infinity and eternity of matter, that is, the “Big Bang” was viewed as the transition of uncreated and indestructible matter from one state to another. In 1955, a Soviet author wrote in an astronomical journal, “The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of an infinite universe is a fundamental axiom at the basis of Soviet cosmology . . . Denial or avoidance of this thesis . . . has nothing to do with science.” [8] This is how Soviet atheism, which proudly called itself “scientific”, considered Marxist-Leninist axioms, that is, statements taken on faith, as its foundation.

In fact, the so-called “scientific” atheism has nothing to do with science. It is a set of atheistic dogmas, as a sacrifice to which hundreds of real scientists were expelled from the profession, and many were arrested and convicted. [9] For example, the world famous scientist Academician N. I. Vavilov (by the way, he was a deeply religious Orthodox Christian) was sentenced to be shot [10] because he dared to criticize the erroneous views of Lysenko for the sake of scientific truth.

[00:24:00] Tzortzis: Before I get into that, we have to now discuss what a miracle is? The word comes from the Latin word miraculum, meaning something wonderful. And the traditional Western philosophical definition of the miracle, as summarized by David Hume in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. [11] He says that it is a transgression of natural law. We do not agree with that definition. Because what are natural laws? Natural laws are just inductive generalizations of patterns we can see in the universe . . . That the profound Islamic theologians and thinkers have done, they redefined that a miracle is, based on the Qur’anic discourse. And they have said, that a miracle is an event that lies outside the productive capacity of nature. Which means, when you go to a nature of the event . . . there is no naturalistic cause or link between the event and the nature of the event . . .

[00:32:10] Krauss: Well, first of all, I want thank the people invited me, who been very gracious to me . . . That does not mean I respect ideas. Some ideas are ridiculous. And that is perfectly reasonable. In fact, ridicule an ideas is that makes progress.

Comment 8

Here Krauss introduces himself as a clown, determined only to make fun of. He does not want to ask, understand, or come to know the particulars. How can one make fun of what he do not know and don’t understand? In order to more or less understand Christianity or Islam or Buddhism, they need to be studied much longer than any science. For example, in the Russian Empire, one had to study theology for twelve years.

It would be better if Krauss said that laziness is the engine of progress. Then you could at least smile. His ridicule of ideas is not at all funny. This is a crude propaganda trick. The real engine of progress is the desire to find out the truth. Unfortunately, Krauss does not show such a desire.

It is a pity! One might suggest that he analyze atheistic literature from the mid‑nineteenth century to the mid‑twentieth. There are so many ridiculous ideas, mistakes, and contradictions with the data of modern science that one can laugh!

[00:33:42] Krauss: Debates that I watched were always exactly the same. So I thought will be different this time. And it is always begin to you and I have to respond to you. And I will to some extent, but it is hard respond to nonsense. And in fact, the point of this is not a question does God exist, that is “Islam or Atheism, which is more sensible”. I was just shocked because I thought that you would not try to pretend you know science. Because you do not. And we will go through that in real detail. Everything you said is nonsense what regards to science.

Comment 9

Here the style of speech is not at all decent for a scientist. There is a kind of discussion ethic in academia. If the interlocutor thinks about the opponent’s statement that “this is complete nonsense,” then the most rude thing that can be said aloud is “I don’t understand you”.

In fact, it is completely inappropriate to compare religion and natural sciences, although this is often done. If you compare religion with anything, then you need to take examples from the sphere of art or human relationships. It would be rather silly to come to a museum and start criticizing the masterpieces of art in terms of probability, causality, the laws of mathematics and physics. And nobody does that. How to prove beauty, can it be scientifically falsified? Beauty and love, cannot be proven or recognized as scientific, but from this they do not lose their value. Beauty and love occupy an important place in human life. The same can be said for religion.

[00:34:30] Krauss: Let me just first begin with the fact that the premix of this debate is, in some sense, inappropriate . . . First of all, it is suggest that Islam is something special. It is not! It is not special at all. It is one of a thousand religions, or more, that have existed since the dawn, which claim divine revelation. All of which claim perfection, proclaim infinite knowledge, uniqueness, beauty et cetera. So Islam is just a religion like any other religion. And there is no difference. It proclaims just as Rig Veda . . . ancient Egyptians, that the universe had a beginning. Nothing special . . . Okay . . . Islam one of a thousand religions. All of which make same claims.

Comment 10

Even within the same religion, there can be different trends and significant differences of opinion. For example, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox in Christianity, Sunnis and Shiites in Islam. Even about these confessions within one religion, one cannot say, “It’s the same everywhere. Nothing special.”

It is completely incomprehensible how, from the fact that there are a thousand religions in the world, it can be concluded that there is not a single unique one among them? For example, there are millions of paintings in the world. However plots, maybe only a few dozen. Does it follow from this that among the hundreds of thousands of paintings with a similar plot, there is not a single unique one? Why does one sell for two dollars and the other for a hundred million? In addition, it is sometimes difficult for a nonprofessional to distinguish a fake from the work of a genius. The nonprofessional will say, “In one picture, a fruit, and in another picture, the same fruit—the same thing, nothing special.” The expert will say, “One picture is a simple consumer goods, and the other is a unique masterpiece.”

Therefore, those people who have not yet grown to understand it may simply not notice the value and uniqueness of something. For example, paintings by the French artist Camille Pissarro sold very poorly during his lifetime. One day they paid for his painting with just one cake. During the Franco-Prussian war, soldiers lodged in his house (in his absence). They used canvases instead of aprons, laid them on the floor, and threw them in the trash heap. About one and a half thousand paintings were damaged. Now paintings by Camille Pissarro cost hundreds of thousands of dollars! It is impossible to assess anything adequately until the very criteria by which they are judged are inadequate. It makes no sense to throw pearls in front of pigs, for them it is no more valuable than sand.

Krauss’s attitude to religion does not allow throwing pearls in front of him. How can Krauss, who has not studied Islam, be so self-confident in claiming that Islam is no different from other religions? He says that in Islam, as in Rig Veda or beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, it is stated that the universe had a beginning. Yes, but the beginning of the universe is understood in different ways everywhere! The so-called Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) profess that time, space, matter (and all the laws of physics) were created by God out of nothing (Lat. ex nihilo, Gr. οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων). In this they fundamentally differ from other religions, where it is said that the universe is either eternal or has a beginning, but is created by God from himself or from eternally existing material. Many religions (Gnosticism, Neo-Platonism), gravitated towards pantheism, that is, towards the elimination of the substantial difference between God and the universe. Therefore, these religions essentially deified nature. Atheism simply replaces God with nature. That is why atheists insist (without proof, of course) that at least some attributes of the material world (the path is not matter, so at least its laws) exist eternally (and even outside of time). This is where “the needle of Koshchei the Deathless” is hidden.

Could the Universe Have Come into Existence

from Non-Existence by Physics?

From time immemorial, people believed that without a cause nothing comes from nothing. [12] This principle was formulated back in the fifth century BC in the philosophy of the era of Parmenides and has since been considered an obvious truth. Therefore, the best way to get people’s attention is to show that it is not.

In the 1830s, the Scottish illusionist John Henry Anderson (1814–1874) came up with a trick, the demonstration of which gathered full houses. The magician shows the audience his top hat, demonstrating that there is nothing in it. Doubters may even pick it up and check it out. After several magical passes, he puts the hat on the table or makes an arc movement with it in the air, as if scooping something up, and immediately pulls out a rabbit or even two in a row from the hat. The secret of performing the trick is that the illusionist discreetly puts the rabbits into the hat from the secret pockets of his tailcoat or from under the table.

Now, getting a rabbit out of a hat, in which initially there is nothing, you will surprise no one, but the concept of the formation of the universe from “nothing” has become the excitement of people’s minds. The prerequisites for this concept have been gradually taking shape since the beginning of the twentieth century. Protestant rationalism grew out of atheistic scientism and positivism. These doctrines deny philosophy and absolutize the role of natural sciences and mathematics not only in the epistemology of science, but also in explaining everything in general. They say that physics and mathematics can explain any phenomenon (even in the field of culture and anthropology!), If not just today, then in the near future. Several generations of scientists have already been brought up in the mainstream of this paradigm of thinking.

It is not surprising, therefore, that when physical and mathematical models had developed sufficiently, cosmologists began to try to answer the philosophical question about the beginning of the universe. [13] In 1973, the Soviet physicist P. I. Fomin and a little later the American physicist E. Tryon [14] announced the possible emergence of the universe from “nothing”. [15] In 1988, the journal Priroda published the last article by Ya. B. Zeldovich entitled “Is it possible for the universe to form ‘out of nothing’?” [16] with a positive answer to this question. [17] In 2012 L. Krauss published the book A Universe from Nothing. [18]

These and many other similar works of scientists on the emergence of the universe can be figuratively summarized like this:

“With the help of what did the universe come into existence?”

“With the help of physics (i. e., the totality of the laws of matter).”

“With the help of what did physics come into existence?”

“Eh . . ., hmm . . . with the help of physics.”

This type of “proof” is called a “vicious circle”. There is a tale about Baron Munchausen, who pulled himself out of the swamp by the hair with his horse. Alternatively, the same, about the boy who pulled himself out of the swamp by the laces of his own shoes. This is a metaphorical image of how physics created itself with the help of physics. The universe, as it were, pulled itself out of “nothing” by its “own laces”. This metaphor was even taken seriously as an explanation, and the process itself was called “bootstrap”. The universe, as it were, spontaneously aroused in itself all the energy that was necessary for the “creation” and “revitalization” of matter, and initiated the explosion that generated it. This “self-extension”, of course, is absurd and is a logical error, but nothing else can be invented in this atheistic paradigm. Scientists and positivists categorically reject philosophy, since for them “god” is physics, and its “prophet” is mathematics. Therefore, when asked about the origin of physics, they have to build a vicious circle of evidence. After all, otherwise their minds will go off the “rails” on which they were put at school and at institute. [19]

Let us explain the above with examples. Spontaneous electromagnetic radiation by atoms or spontaneous fission of heavy atomic nuclei occurs due to the instability of their energy (or other) state. The time of this event cannot be precisely determined, but is described probabilistically, according to the corresponding distribution function.

However, can we talk about the spontaneous emergence of the laws of physics (as Krauss says)? Of course not. For spontaneous occurrence of a photon, at least a hydrogen atom is needed. If the atoms (matter) themselves do not exist, then there will be no phenomenon of spontaneity, no wave functions of electrons, etc. The same can be said about the vacuum, which has energy and is capable of producing particles. Krauss wrote in his book A Universe from Nothing:

“The existence of energy in empty space-the discovery that rocked our cosmological universe and the idea that forms the bedrock of inflation-only reinforces something about the quantum world that was already well established in the context of the kinds of laboratory experiments I have already described. Empty space is complicated. It is a boiling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time so short we cannot see them directly.” [20]

But this means that the “empty space” that cosmologists study is not “nothing” at all, but a physical (material) object under the conditions of space-time and the existing laws of physics.

Cosmologists talk about quantum fluctuations of the physical vacuum, about the spontaneous emergence of particle-antiparticle pairs in very strong electric fields from “nothing”, about fluctuations of the scalar field (which allegedly gave rise to the universe). However, all these examples are taken from the material world with already existing physical laws. Thus, by “nothing” cosmologists mean, as it were, a special “pra-matter” that existed outside space and time. All theories that talk about the possibility of the emergence of the universe from “nothing” require the preliminary existence of the laws of physics and a special “nothing” that has the potential to give birth to quantum particles.

However, it begs the question: how did the laws of physics themselves emerge if there was nothing material yet, and why the original “nothing” could have any potential. Krauss quotes Richard Feynman in Preface of A Universe from Nothing: “The laws of physics could be like an infinitely layered onion, with new laws becoming operational as we probe new scales.” In addition, a little earlier, he recalled about the famous “story of an expert giving a lecture on the origins of the universe (sometimes identified as Bertrand Russell and sometimes William James), who is challenged by a woman who believes that the world is held up by a gigantic turtle, who is then held up by another turtle, and then another . . . with further turtles ‘all the way down!’” [21]

In fact, there are not only turtles, but a whole zoo: an elephant, a boa constrictor, a tiger, wild boars and a whale that swims in a bottomless and endless ocean. Krauss and those to whom he refers are arguing with representatives of the Abrahamic religions, in whose cosmogony there is nothing of the kind. But for the sake of argument, wanting to ridicule religion, Krauss mentions this “zoo” of Hinduism. However, he does not realize that he is ridicule of himself.

Only someone who is very stupid will take the ancient metaphor literally. The opposition of ancient myths and scientific cosmogony is already a myth in itself, a method of demagoguery.

People in ancient times were not stupid. For example, Thales of Miletus predicted a solar eclipse in 585 BC, having learned the necessary knowledge in the field of mathematics and astronomy from the ancient Egyptians. Aristarchus of Samos in the third century BC argued that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. He also calculated that the Sun is about eighteen times farther from the Earth than the Moon. Copernicus created a heliocentric system based on ancient heritage (and referred to ancient authors).

Therefore, the ancient myth of the Earth on turtles was never considered as a scientific theory, but served as a metaphor that illustrates the state of mind of a rationally thinking man in the street. If the Earth were floating directly in the ocean, a natural question would immediately follow: is there anything further, at the bottom of the ocean and below it? But when there is a long chain of mysterious creatures between the Earth and the ocean, human curiosity is largely satisfied, and the person is no longer interested in whether there is anything at the bottom of the ocean.

Using this metaphor, the ancient authors wanted to show that no matter how deeply scientists advance in the knowledge of nature and space, they would discover more and more “animals” (essences, laws of matter) and further advance along the chain of knowledge. However, no matter how far they go, there will always be an unknowable ocean ahead. This is what the ancient people understood and what modern atheist scientist does not understand.

Physicists are constantly finding more and more “turtles”—more and more new laws, effects, and essences. Of course, the reliability of physical facts is beyond doubt, but the endless sequence of correct explanations itself now plays the role of a zoo from ancient myth. Physicists have learned to split protons, but how long can subatomic particles be split? Is there anything smaller than the Higgs boson? Physicists are constantly discovering new elementary particles, but how elementary are they? Atheists stubbornly refuse to notice the obvious fact that no matter how far science has advanced, there will always be an ocean of the unknown in the distance.

About the same thing was said by one of the giants of science, Sir Isaac Newton. His quote is widely known, in which he uses a metaphor that is close in meaning:

“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” [22]

Since the time of Isaac Newton, our knowledge of the Universe has expanded significantly, but we also stand only on the shores of the “great ocean of truth”. Physicists have always been and will be doing the same thing as Newton: looking for “a smoother pebble or a prettier shell”, while before them there will always be an unexplored great ocean of truth.

The situation in atheistic cosmology resembles not only a metaphor with turtles, but also a trick with getting rabbits out of an “empty” hat. The only difference is that quantum cosmologists imperceptibly take out of their pocket or from under the table not rabbits, but the formulas of quantum mechanics, wave function, scalar field, etc. and put all this into the original “nothing”.

For example, in the theory of the quantum creation of the universe, it is postulated (i. e., it is proposed to believe!) That the universe arose from an unreal quantum field that did not exist in the physical sense, that is, it is a purely mathematical abstraction, called by A. Vilenkin “literal nothing”. [23] Then watch his hands! This mathematical “literal nothing” due to spontaneous fluctuations was able to give rise to a pseudo-real particle, representing the embryo of the future universe. Moreover, it, in turn, with the help of quantum tunneling overcame the barrier separating the abstract mathematical world from physical reality!

Good trick! However, physics cannot arise from mathematics just because some physicists want it, and they skillfully juggle formulas. Materialists go beyond the applicability of scientific theories that describe our world when they try to talk about something “before” the world came into being. The trick does not cease to be a trick from the fact that “serious people” with high ranks and regalia and with an intelligent look perform it. “A smart face is not yet a sign of intelligence, all stupidity on Earth is done with just such an expression.” [24] In any case, all this rhetoric does not remove the main question: how did the laws of physics arise and why are they exactly like that?

Maybe there will be a boy who will say, “But the king is naked!” It is only in fairy tales that you can lift yourself into the air by your hair or by your laces. Ontologically, physics (that is, the totality of the laws of matter) cannot create itself. Albert Einstein once remarked that it is impossible to solve a problem by thinking the same way as those who formulated it. To solve the problem of the emergence of the material universe, it is necessary to go beyond the “level of physics”; after all, not without reason, the outstanding thinkers of humankind spoke about metaphysics and philosophy.

Could physics give the initial impulse for the emergence of the universe, if it did not exist at first? The question is rhetorical. What comes first, physics or metaphysics, matter or spirit? There must be a final limit, beyond which there is no longer physics. This limit is non-being (Lat. nihilo, Gr. οὐκ ὄν). This is absolute non-being (non-existence, nothingness), a denial of any existence (any of its forms), and a denial of any being. It lacks any essence, potency, inner laws and anything else. In non-being, there are not only the laws of physics, but also even the laws of abstract mathematics.

A great many scientific books and articles on the emergence of the universe from “nothing” have been written. Although the approaches and methods in these scientific works may differ, they are all based on one glaring logical error and can only fascinate science fanatics. The error lies in the fact that the authors speak the language of physics and mathematics about the moment of the origin of the universe, about the initial singularity, ie in the language of the material world, which did not yet exist at that moment. The universe arose not from a physical or mathematical vacuum, but from non-being (nothingness), in which there was no physics, no mathematics. Obviously, when there was no “physics” (ie the material world), there were no laws of physics either. Therefore, no scientific formulas and equations make sense in the original singularity.

It remains to recognize that the act of creating out of nothing requires a person, a creator, who is transcendental in relation to his creation. Moreover, this is not just a philosophical conclusion, but also a fundamental ontological Law, similar to the First and Second Laws of thermodynamics. Just like the Laws of thermodynamics, this Law is not proved, but enunciated inductively.

The centuries-old experience of humankind, no exception from which has ever been found, says that only a creator, a person, can create something out of non-being. A genius poem or musical symphony is not created by physical or chemical processes in the human brain, but is the fruit of his creative act. No tomography and electron microscopes will help you find out how a piece of music is born in the head of a brilliant composer. It cannot be described in the language of physics and mathematics. Nevertheless, it is given to us to feel it through experience.

No physicists will ever answer where the laws of physics come from, which cause the universe from nothing. An honest scientist can only say that the mystery that caused and created everything will always be an insoluble mystery for materialistic science.

Thus, it would be reasonable and logical to admit that only a metaphysical Cause could give the initial impulse to the universe. Only the Reasonable Creator, possessing free will, not bound by any laws of necessity, causality or anything else, and therefore “calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Rom. 4:17), could call the universe from non-being into being. He did not need a beginning, since he is Being itself (Gr. ὀ ὄν) and generally transcendental to the material world. However, that is another big topic.

Three Options to Explain the Origin of the Universe

All versions of explanations of the origin of the universe in the entire history of human thought are reduced to three main ones: 1) the universe, or some “part” of it, existed forever, that is, it had no beginning; 2) the universe is “an emanation from the divine nature”, that is, it receives its origin from the essence of the beginningless non-material primary cause; 3) The universe was created by the will of the transcendental First Cause out of non-being (nothingness).

The first concept is characteristic of many pagan religions, Platonism and Atheism. It does not matter in principle whether the universe has existed forever in its modern form, or whether it was formed from some preceding “pra-matter”. In ancient Greek cosmogonies, the formless primary matter was ordered by the Demiurge according to the model of eternal ideas. Atheists, at first for a hundred and fifty years, self-confidently asserted that the universe (matter) is eternal. However, modern cosmologists have already proved several decades ago that the universe had a beginning. Now atheists reluctantly admit this fact, but at the same time claim that the universe arose “with the help of physics.” However, physics is an attribute of matter. Thus, one way or another, atheists talk about the eternal beginningless existence of some “physics”, or, what is the same, some “pra-matter”.

The second concept was adopted by the Gnostics, Neo-Platonists and their followers. They taught that the various cosmic “eons” originate in the divine being itself. However, if God created something out of his essence, this would not mean that he actually creates.

The third concept is affirmed by the Abrahamic religions. They teach about the creation of the universe by God from nothing, that is, from non-being. The Second Book of Maccabees directly states this: “Look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not [Lat. ex nihilo, Gr. οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων]” (2 Macc. 7:28, LXX, cf. KJV). Here, the “things that were not” (Lat. nihilo, Gr. οὐκ ὄν) has a completely clear and definite meaning: it is non-being (non-existence, nothingness), the denial of any existence (any of its forms), the denial of being, that is, non-being. In non-existence, there is no essence, potency, law, or concept; moreover, there is no “physics” in it. Therefore, non-being cannot be an object of physics study, like a vacuum or “nothing” specially invented by atheists.

Moses, when describing God’s creation of the world, uses the verb “bará” (Heb. בָּרָא Strong’s lexicon number 1254, Gen. 1:1) to designate the creation of something fundamentally new, which cannot be deduced from the previous, from the pre-existing. He lived around the fifteenth–thirteenth century BC. Thus, the idea of the creation of the universe from non-being preceded Greek philosophy, and could not be borrowed from any other religion.

In Christianity, the creation of the world from non-being (nothingness), except for the text of the Bible, is expressed with all clarity in liturgical texts [25] and in theological treatises. [26] Time began with the universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 146:6; John 1:3; Col. 1:16–17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Rom. 11:36). This is important to emphasize. Time was created in the act of creating the universe, and did not exist forever. In the fourth century, St. Basil the Great wrote, “Not in time, it is said: in the beginning he created.” [27] Since God does not create the universe from himself, but calls it out of non-being (cf. Rom. 4:17), Christianity denies all types of deification of the world (the nature).

The first concept contains ontological conditioning, determinism: the universe was supposed to appear. In the third, biblical concept, the universe is ontologically unnecessary. Its cause lies only in the free will of the transcendent Creator. Fr. George Florovsky about this remarkably wrote:

“God is completely self-sufficient. Rather, it is a miracle that God began to create. There is no necessary or compelling connection between the divine nature (or essence) and the law of creation. The absence of creation in no way diminishes the absolute completeness of the Divine Essence, the vastness of this Ocean of Essence, as St. Grigory Nazianzin [28] “God had no beginning, and he will have no end. He dwells in the “motionless radiance of eternity”. [29] And his infinite present is not time but eternity. [30] God is completely unchanging and immovable, —“with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” [31] (James 1:17). He cannot gain or lose anything. Moreover, we can say that the created world is an absolute excess, something additional, which could not exist at all.

The omnipotence of God must be defined not only as the supreme power to create, but also as absolute power not to create at all. God could have allowed nothing to exist outside of him. To create and not to create the same good for God and it is useless to find the underlying cause of the reason for the Divine choice, for the act of creation was not even conditioned by the mercy of God and his infinite perfection. The “Creative Essence” is not the main and not the determining quality of God: God creates in unlimited freedom . . .

For the human consciousness, there is something mysterious, paradoxical and contradictory in this. The created mind is always looking for the necessary reasons, inevitably closing in on itself. To the idea of creation is absolutely alien such an approach. The world undoubtedly has a Cause that is supreme and sufficient. Nevertheless, this is a Cause given in absolute freedom of expression and manifestation. The creation cannot exist without the Creator. However, the Creator may not create.” [32]

Krauss: The question is Islam, as one of a thousand religions, all of which makes the same claims, but mutually inconsistent ones . . .

Comment 11

How can identical statements contradict each other? Krauss argues mutually exclusive things. This is completely incomprehensible, and he should have given at least one example. Although, this is hardly possible.

Krauss: Thousand religions, they all make mutually inconsistent claims. So, they cannot all be correct. In fact, at best, one of them can be correct. They not consist with each other. So that means “a priori” [33], [referring to Tzortzis] I know you like that term . . . A priori, Islam is probably 0.1 percent have been correct. Because this is just one of a thousand religions. But since they all make the same claims, is probable that none of them are correct. So treating Islam specially is inappropriate.

Comment 12

Here are examples of demagoguery and sophistry in almost every sentence. This is how they usually “prove” that white is black and vice versa. People have created as many scientific theories as religions. Should we conclude from this that among the many scientific theories there is not a single true one?

Krauss does not mind, for example, that quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity contradict each other, since gravity is not quantized. But physicists use both. Why is each of the thousands of religions equally likely to be true? Krauss did not confirm or substantiate this thesis. Moreover, if cosmologists come up with a thousand theories of the origin of the universe, will they all have the same probability (0.1 percent) to be true? And why make any judgments about the truth a priori? On the contrary, everything must be tested, checked. Christianity teaches this too, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

[00:36:00] Krauss: Then Atheism as somehow have been described speaker as a belief system. It is not a belief system like Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity, or the North’s myths, or Zeus, or Thor or any other myths have been create in human history. It is not a belief system. We do not choose to believe that stuff, because it is not sensible.

Comment 13

From this point of view, there is nothing new and unique about atheism. Even the apostle Paul urged not to believe in myths, because it is not sensible. For example, he advised the apostle Titus strictly denounce the inhabitants of Crete, “so that they may become sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths [Gr. μῦθος] or to commandments of those who reject the truth” (Titus 1:13–14). He also encourages the apostle Timothy to fight myths: “For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths [Gr. μῦθος]” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

Krauss: So, it is not saying, “We belief that.” An atheist can say, “This myth is unconsent with this myth, or this myth is unconsent what we know about the universe. And therefore, it is unlikely it be true.” So, the atheism is just saying, “This is unlikely to be true.” It is not a belief system . . .

Comment 14

It is obvious (and there are many examples of this) that both among atheists and among adherents of any religion, there are both genius scientists and people who are completely ignorant and even stupid. Faith or disbelief does not depend on knowledge or intellect, but on the state of the soul. Atheists are reluctant to admit this obvious fact.

Krauss and other atheists try to make things seem like they alone have a “monopoly” on reason and common sense. They argue that people have been mistaken for thousands of years in absolutely everything, and only atheists (who have appeared quite recently by historical standards) act reasonably. However, this is not true. For example, the theory of the multiverse has no more scientific evidence than the existence of Zeus or Thor. Then why is it better than any other long-standing invention of humankind?

In fact, there are a lot of myths in politics, science, and culture. Myths are everywhere. Of course, it is good when a person “turns on the brain” and thinks reasonably. The trouble happens when at the same time everything else that is characteristic of a person is turned off.

All over the world, religious people were looking for wisdom and engaged in science long before atheists. Indian, Arabic, and ancient Greek mathematicians made great contributions to mathematics thirty five thousand years ago, when there were no atheists. Yes, their religious views were sometimes wrong. However, the scientific views of the same time were also erroneous. Many scientific theories have over time been refuted, and they could be called “fictions” and “myths”.

The thesis that atheism is not a belief system is also wrong. In the USSR and other communist countries, atheism was a belief system. A lot of literature has been written on this topic. On the other hand, it is absolutely wrong to identify all religions only with a belief system. This is oversimplification. It is like looking at the world through a small hole covered by a thick light filter. Only a small part of the complete picture will be visible, and only in one color.

Sharpie looks at the world through the prism of probability theory. However, not all people are like that, and the theory of probability is not applicable everywhere. Let us say that Krauss meets a young man with a burning gaze, and he will happily tell that he has fallen in love with a girl. “She is beautiful, the one and only,” the young man will say. Suppose, Krauss will reply, “Your statement is ridiculous. There are hundreds of millions of girls in the world with exactly the same shapes, with exactly the same physiology. There is nothing special about it. Moreover, hormones, brain substances, and social patterns trigger your emotions. Therefore, the likelihood that your statement is true is low.” Will Krauss leave unbeaten after that? Great question!

Krauss’s picture of the world is dull and uncheerful. This is the picture of formulas and equations. This is a world without love, without spiritual achievement, without spiritual enlightenment. Everything in it is subject to the theory of probability, the impersonal laws of physics and chemistry. It has no purpose, no meaning.

Krauss’s theses testify to his complete lack of understanding of the essence of the issue. Religions are, first of all, spiritual states that defy description and cannot be expressed in words. Moreover, no science can say anything about them. Even religious scholars who study any religion from its texts, but have not experienced its spiritual experience, cannot adequately describe it. They are like people studying musical notation, but not knowing how they sound.

Christian ascetics and Islamic Sufis said that their goal was the comprehension of the Truth. In addition, this goal can be achieved not through reason, logic, and reasoning, but only with the help of love, conscience, and purity of heart. [34] In a state of spiritual imperfection, in an abnormal state, people are not able to see things as they really are. An imperfect person, due to his imperfection, without even realizing it, perceives the truth as distorted, and not as it really is.

Yet, Krauss never said, in what way is Islam or Christianity or Judaism contrary to what we know about the universe? He did not say because they did not contradict anything. So all Krauss’s accusations are unfounded.

On the other hand, Krauss’s argument can be rephrased in relation to atheism. Atheism is not unique. Everything has been said thousands of years ago. Even the ancient sophists wrote down all possible lines of thought, long before Krauss. Moreover, atheism can also be called one of a thousand religions. After all, religious people have always looked for common sense and engaged in science. Moreover, the penchant for myths is a feature of culture and psychology. There have been and are myths in science too.

[00:36:51] Krauss: The first part of the false promise is that Islam is special. Not special at all . . . It is just like all the rest.

Comment 15

Krauss did not study Islam, and he cannot say how Islam is similar to other religions. Therefore, all of his statements about the similarity of religions are groundless and fundamentally wrong. Although in Islam there are some borrowings from Christianity, Neo-Platonism, and Buddhism, the presence of some borrowings from three religions does not at all mean similarity with all. If we talk about Christianity, then everything in it is connected with the Incarnation from beginning to end (Matt. 16:15–18). This is the meaning of the creation of the world, and the meaning of human life. There is nothing like this in any religion.

[00:37:00] Krauss: And atheism is not a religion. It is just, in fact, it could be described as “common sense”. Ok? What make sense? I will think that those things that make sense are likely, and others things that do not make sense are unlikely prefer to assume that rationally understood events are probable, while are unlikely. In fact, science is all about. Okay . . .

I am an educator (may be it is flaw, but it is that it is). That means I believe in actually trying illuminate ideas and lead to discussion, critical thinking, and eventually learning things and increase in knowledge. Debates are not made for that. Debates are rhetorical devises . . .

[00:38:20] Krauss: So, the first thing I want to say, however, I want to clear some misconceptions. This idea of deductive arguments, which sounds good, is not the way we learn about reality. Okay. Deductive argument is just do not work. It leads to irrational actions. In fact, if we discuss “what common sense is?” The common sense is taking your beliefs to conform of the evidence of reality so you make rational actions.

Comment 16

Socrates and Plato would say the same thing about religion that it’s just common sense, and aligning your beliefs with reality data to perform rational actions. By the way, in the Byzantine era they were portrayed in the vestibules of churches and were called “Christians before Christ”, since long before Christianity they presented some Christian theses. Note that no angel from heaven said anything to Socrates and Plato. They made their conclusions solely based on logical reasoning and common sense.

In the Bible, the word “wisdom” occurs over two hundred times. For example, King Solomon wrote, “Get wisdom; get insight: do not forget, nor turn away from the words of my mouth. Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you. The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever else you get, get insight. Prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her” (Prov. 4:5–8). Moreover, in the book of Ecclesiastes it is written, “Applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to human beings to be busy with” (Eccl. 1:13).

Thus, atheists have no monopoly on common sense. In Christianity and Islam a lot is said about the search for truth and wisdom. Therefore, as much as Krauss would like, in this respect atheism is not something unique. In fact, science was born and grew up in the religious tradition.

On the other hand, common sense and rational actions are not the only and universal tools for cognizing reality. Is it possible to love or compose music, poetry, paint pictures, relying only on common sense and rational actions? Of course not.

[00:38:51] Krauss: If you force reality conformed to your beliefs, you make irrational actions. So, you could do things, based on your beliefs, on your a priori beliefs . . . For example, your a priori belief could be that if you pray to Allah, then you can jumping out of the fourth storey from window of this building and you will land safely. Okay? That could be a priori belief . . . And, in fact, you could deduce based on all your beliefs and all of the evidence that you are a good person, and Allah would takes care of you, or whatever you call it, and you will be fine. I would take the elevator down. And only one of us could be walking at the end. That is not deductive. It is based on empirical evidence. Ok.

Comment 17

Neither Tzortzis, nor any other Muslim, jump out of windows, but ride down the elevator. The example is not relevant. Moreover, this is stupidity and slander. In addition, it is he, Krauss, who tries to deduce facts from his beliefs, a priori beliefs. Krauss did not have any mystical experience, and therefore his a priori conviction is the belief that there is no God. Nevertheless, Krauss’s empirical data is completely insufficient to draw any conclusions by the method of induction.

[00:39:35] Krauss: So, arguing that something does not makes sense to you, is based on the fact, the assumption that you know what is sensible in advance. But we do not know what is sensible in advance until we explore the world around us. Our common sense arise, in the fact, on the savanna in Africa to avoid lions, not to understand quantum mechanics, for example.

Comment 18

Krauss never ceases to amaze. I would like to believe that he is sincerely mistaken, and not maliciously. However, it is difficult to imagine how a person in their right mind could say that. According to Krauss and other atheists, the universe, and all of its contents, arose from random processes. However, at no stage in the chain of random processes can a purpose appear. Randomness and purpose are two opposites. Atheistic evolution, because of a chain of random processes, is blind and meaningless, and it cannot lead to the emergence of purpose and meaning. It is impossible to reasonably explain how hydrogen atoms were able to accidentally self-organize into living creatures that have desires, purposes (for example, not to be caught by a lion) and some “common sense”.

In addition, if common sense, as we understand it, originated in the African savannas, then antelopes and gazelles would succeed in it more than humans would, because lions hunt mainly antelopes. However, we do not know of a single animal that, at least in an embryonic form, had an interest in the study of the surrounding world, in science, art, creativity. Evolution has not bequeathed us to understand anything, because it is blind and meaningless. There is not a single rational explanation of how evolutionary self-consciousness of a person, his thirst for knowledge, and all types of creativity could arise. From the point of view of evolution, all this is superfluous and unnecessary, and therefore there is nothing like this in the animal world.

[00:39:59] Krauss: As I often said, common sense our deductions might suggest that you cannot be in two places at once. That is crazy. But, of course, an electron can do it. It is does not make sense because we did not evolve to know about it, we have learned about it . . . We force our common sense to change. And it is called learning.

Comment 19

Christian theologians have had to solve paradoxes that are far more surprising. How can God be in all places at the same time? How can the Trinity be absolute Oneness? How can the Uncreated God, existing outside of time and outside the material world, at some point in history unite with material human flesh? How can the Immortal die? How can God be separated from God (from himself) on the Cross? This and much more simply does not fit in the head, and it seems impossible. Theologians have to study this, and Christians make their common sense change.

Therefore, the example from quantum mechanics does not explain anything. This is not the difference between atheism and religion. Religious people have also studied and are engaged in quantum mechanics and strive for learning.

Nevertheless, it is good that Krauss draws attention to an important fact: human common sense can be a false guide and inadequate to talk about reality. Therefore, the topic of the debate was not formulated quite correctly. Let’s say one of the respected interlocutors convinces the audience that his worldview makes more sense. But a worldview, which seems to makes more sense, may inadequately reflect reality. And then all this common sense that a person hoped for has no value.

What does Christianity say? Will it be based on common sense and earthly wisdom? Not. “For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart . . .’ Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor. 1:19–20) The human mind encounters many paradoxes in Christianity.

On Christianity and Religions

Uneasy Relationship of Christianity and Religion

Before talking about Christianity and religion, it is advisable to briefly talk about the very concept of “religion”, because during debates, interlocutors often means by “religion” are completely different phenomena. For example, before the Middle Ages, the term “religion” had a very narrow meaning and denoted godliness, piety, worship of God, or something like that. [35] Only specific ideas and related practices were called religion. Later, from about the eighteenth century, the term “religion” began to be given a broad and universal meaning.

To solve the terminological problem of determining religion, we offer the following arguments. Any idea in the field of worldview, social relations and cultures is usually materialized and externally expressed by any ceremonies, rites and rituals. As a rule, these ceremonies and rites follow their idea in the event of her evolution, but sometimes they can break away from her, closing in themselves. Thus, the formation of a conditional “body” of religion occurs similarly to the formation of state and cultural traditions, because the action of the same laws of psychology.

For example, the Byzantine emperors were always escorted by spear-bearers (doriforians) during any events. In fact, it was not a guard, but an honorary escort as an expression of the highest honor. The Christian concept of God as the Heavenly King began to be expressed through similar symbols. For example, at the Liturgy, in the Cherubic hymn, depicted the image of God—the Universal King, surrounded by the angelic ranks of the doriforians. The Bible does not say anything about any doriforians angels; this metaphor entered Christian worship from the Byzantine court ceremonial.

Over time, these external expressions of ideas may change. In our time, there are no more doriforians, but the salutation of the highest honor to especially significant persons is still expressed through honorary escort. The Pope has a Swiss guard; the presidential cortege is accompanied by an honorary escort of motorcyclists.

Thus, the conventional “body” of religion—its expression in the social and cultural sphere—is formed according to the same psychological laws as non-religious phenomena, such as art. Therefore, it is possible to find parallels and analogies of religious phenomena with non-religious ones, and this will facilitate understanding of the processes taking place in any historical religion.

Also we should take into consideration the fact that, for various reasons, other ideas, parasitic and even opposing, can mix with the main idea and co-exist in parallel with it. For example, the purpose of art is art itself. If an artist starts thinking about commerce, then he loses inspiration and sense of beauty [36]. Likewise, in Christianity, some of the fundamental ideas are non-possessiveness and humility: “You cannot serve God and wealth,” “You received without payment; give without payment,” “Whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave” (Matt. 6:24; 10:8; 20:26–27), etc. But historical Christianity provides many examples of Christians doing exactly the opposite.

What’s going on? Why Christians are often live quite differently from how the Holy Scripture teaches them? By the way, the same thing can be said about the followers of other religions. This question is sometimes asked by atheists, but most of all it worries the believers themselves.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh tells on this subject a very remarkable case. Once, he spent three days of talks on the spiritual life for a group of students who were to be ordained in the Anglican Church. At the final meeting, one of the students on behalf of the others, in front of all the teachers, asked, “How can we find again the faith that led us to the theological school, and which the theological school destroyed?” That is the situation. That’s the edge of the sword! And this is a key question for the future of modern Christianity!

Both Darwin and Stalin were going to become priests, but the church educational institution destroyed their faith, and they became militant atheists. There are so many such examples that it is impossible to attribute all this to special cases and exceptions. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, theology flourished in Russia: many achievements of church science remain unsurpassed to this day. However, four Theological Academies and hundreds of Seminaries ruined the faith in many of their graduates. The atheist revolution of 1917 would not have been possible without the active support without the active support of graduates of religious educational institutions.

In the Bible, some regions, countries, and nations are sometimes described as being one person. Using the same metaphor, one can ask the cardinal question of an Anglican student already on the scale of the entire Christian civilization: “How can Christians revive that faith for a better understanding of which Christians have been creating theology and establishing theological institutions for one and a half thousand years? Why did these theological institutions destroy faith and lead many people to atheism?” Where was the mine of the delayed action hidden? Is this the reason that Greek theologians tried to present Revelation in the language of ancient philosophy? Or is the reason in Western scholasticism, which also used the logic of Aristotle?

Indeed, countries with “young” Christianity, such as Ghana or Samoa, are distinguished by their sincerity and liveliness of faith. There is no crisis of faith and, moreover, no atheism there at all. At the same time in Europe, with its two thousand-years-old Christian history, atheism dominates.

Most likely, the reason for this is not so much in theology and not so much in the conversion of Christianity into a religion, as in betrayal of the fundamental principles of Christianity. Very often, the attention of Christians was focused on ethics and moral perfection: how to become better, fairer, more restrained and kinder. But all this is not the great purpose for which God created man. The main message of Christianity is that God became the Son of so that man could become the son of God. Various holy fathers formulated this idea a little differently, but the meaning is exactly that. [37] That is, the Creator, being God ontologically, calls man to become a god by grace. Man was created in God’s image and likeness (Gen. 1:26) in order to achieve not only a moral, but also a personal relationship with his Creator.

Therefore, the central nerve of the Christian life is the sense of God and living relationship with him. [38] Literally about “touching” (ψηλάφηση) of the Divine was preached by the apostle Paul (Acts 17:27). [39]

Although it is possible to experience God outside the religious context, the elements of religion either immediately follow or are present as a background. For example, in the life of the Catholic priest, saint Curé of Ars, the following incident is told. Coming to his village church, he found there an old peasant who sat for hours, apparently without even praying. And once the priest asked the old man: “Grandpa, what are you doing here, sitting in church for hours? I noticed that your lips do not move in prayer and your fingers do not run along the rosary, you just sit and look straight ahead. Explain to me what’s going on?” And the old man answered with a smile, “I am looking at him, he is looking at me, and we are so good with each other!” [40]

Another typical example is given by Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh. A man came to his temple to deliver a package for one of the parishioners. He was a convinced atheist and wanted to come after the service, but by chance he came too early. After the service he stayed and turned to the priest with the question, “What is happening in your church? I came here knowing that there is no God, knowing that all this is fiction. But I sat through part of the service, and something struck me. Does it flicker of candles, singing or something else?” The priest answered him, “If you were a believer, I would say that this is God’s presence. But if you know that there is no God, then I cannot say anything.” He then thought and said, “Can I come somehow, when there will be no one in this temple, when you leave, so that nothing will affect me? I want to be alone, to look and smell if there is anything here, or just emptiness, an empty space.” He came several times and then said, “I don’t know if God exists, but I know for sure that there is something here, because when I am alone in the temple, I feel some kind of incomprehensible, unintelligible presence for me . . .” This unbeliever was able to feel something that believers who visit the temple regularly do not often feel.” [41]

On the one hand, both a believing peasant and an atheist were able to sense God in an empty temple. And worship, and religious education, and theology, and rituals would only hinder them. On the other hand, they felt God in the temple, not in a museum, theater, or university. Due to theology and liturgical tradition, this temple arose as a meeting place with God. Divine services in it became that background, a prerequisite, thanks to which it became possible to feel God’s presence in the silence of an empty church.

All these examples show that Christianity is not identical with religion, but when trying to separate one from the other, there is a risk of losing something essential and important. However, the revision of historical Christianity is necessary for the sake of purification from everything superficial, extraneous, and alien to it. The bottom of the ships is overgrown with mollusks, which increase the ship’s friction against water. Because of this, the ship loses speed and in vain spends fuel. In addition, fouling makes the ship heavier [42] and increases its draft. Therefore, ships are periodically docked, scratched, cleaned the bottom and painted. Something similar is required for Christianity.

For example, in the Orthodox Church, the revision of the liturgical texts is long overdue. Often, parishioners do not fully understand what they hear in worship, due to the archaic language. Some people like this situation, and they make their misunderstanding even sacred. And they are happy in their ignorance. If you make a translation and explain the meaning of these texts, then Christians will be horrified and will make a sad discovery: in two thousand years, the “church ship” has increased not only by a huge number of ballast, but in this ballast there is also a lot of heretical and alien to Christianity.

For example, many chants of the Byzantine era contain prayers for granting victory to the Emperor over the barbarians. Under the barbarians, the Byzantines understood all foreigners, including Slavs. And Byzantium repeatedly waged such wars, where Orthodox Christians fought against Orthodox Christians. It is tragic and completely contradicts the Gospel. And then the Byzantine Empire has been gone for almost six centuries, so there is no point in praying for the non-existent Emperor. However, in Greece, these chants have been mummified and repeat in our days in their unchanged form.

Moreover, almost all church hymns are written by monks. And this leaves an imprint on the way in which the hymns were written, to which saints preferences are given and what kind of relationship they preach. But the main problem is that a significant part of monasticism was clearly or latently influenced by the ideas of Neo-Platonism and Origenism. Therefore, in church hymns, attention is focused on Origenistic Ecclesiology. [43] Repeatedly the church councils condemned Origen, but his doctrine, to one degree or another, was revived again and again in monasticism.

In conclusion, let us note once again that the central “nerve” of Christianity is the sense of God’s presence. It depends not on education, not on theoretical knowledge, and not even on the number of fasts and prayers, but on whether a person opens up to God, or aspires to him with all the soul. The religious component in Christianity can be either beneficial or harmful. Therefore, each religious phenomenon must be considered separately.

Christianity is a Paradox that Transfigurate Religion

Many Christian theologians [44] have expressed the idea that “Christ is the end of religion,” “Christianity is not a religion,” “Christianity is a judgment on religion,” or something similar. However, when comparing Christianity and other religions, one can come to the conclusion that Christianity is a paradox that is above religion and transfigurate religion.

Even Friedrich Engels, who was not a specialist in Christian theology, quite correctly noted an obvious historical fact, that Christianity “entered into a resolute antithesis to all previous religions.” [45] Indeed, for the whole world, Christianity has become a paradox, requiring a complete revision of all religious doctrines.

A paradox [46] is a phenomenon that can exist in reality, but has no logical explanation. Paradoxicalness is unexpectedness, unfamiliarity, contradiction with the generally accepted, traditional (orthodox) view. Antinomy is a kind of paradox—a combination of real facts that logically contradict each other. The antinomies of Christianity were very fond of emphasizing Christian theologians and hymnographers. Especially many paradoxes are illustrated by the liturgical hymns of Christmas and Easter. For example, the Kontakion of Holy Nativity [47] or the 15th Antiphon of Holy Friday: “Today he who hung the earth upon the waters is hung on the tree . . .”

A separate thick book could be written about the paradoxes of Christianity. In Christianity, at every step, at each dot, at every point, there is an amazing paradox. For example: the Incorporeal incarnates; the Beginningless begins; Virgo gives birth; the Sinless one suffers for the sins of the world; the Righteous Judge is condemned by criminals of the law; the Immortal dies; God experiences God’s forsakenness on the Cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34); the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords washes the feet of the disciples; the power of God “is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9), etc.

It is impossible to understand this with the help of ordinary human common sense and logic. That is why the apostle Paul wrote, “We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor. 1:23). Even the apostles, the chosen disciples, after three years of daily teaching from Christ, still did not understand and did not accept much, their logic was too human. The apostle Peter rebuked him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you” (Matt. 16:22). The apostles James and John, sons of Zebedee, asked to be on the right and left sides of Christ, i. e. receive the highest honor. The other apostles were indignant at them, since and they would like the same (Matt. 20:20–24). But Christ taught them exactly the opposite, “It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:26–28). And he himself “for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame” (Heb. 12:2). And he offers the same to his followers (John 16:2). Instead of the honor they justly deserve, they often endure dishonor (2 Tim. 3:12).

The voluntary suffering of good for the victory over evil is not only “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,” but the apostles themselves for a long time remained “impervious” to this new teaching. And then in history everything repeated itself. The hierarchs of many churches are still arguing with each other over the primacy of honor and will argue until the Second Coming, although Christ taught something completely different (Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:34–35). Beautiful chants, rituals, godly traditions, etc. for many may be attractive, but not self-deprecation, dishonor and suffering, even for the truth.

Therefore, no man could have invented the teaching of Christ. It’s just that no one would want it. And no one would want to follow this without inspiration from above. God whom he loves, he reproves and disciplines (Rev. 3:19), promises his followers persecutions (John 16:33). Well, who will like it? Christian teaching surpasses any human logic and common sense. Krauss says that if a voice from heaven said something to a multitude of people, it would be convincing. However, nothing supernatural, no voice from heaven, is required to distinguish the divine from the human. People without external miracles perfectly feel and understand what is in accordance with their nature and what is higher than this nature. Nobody before Christ taught to love enemies, this is contrary to human common sense.

In any religion, its adepts who can prophesy, cast out demons and perform many miracles will certainly be considered religious leaders. But this is not the case in Christianity. By performing miracles in His name, Christ can say, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers” (Matt. 7:23).

All religions require worship and service to a certain deity. This is completely logical, and according to the religious idea, the Roman emperors, the Egyptian pharaohs, the Babylonian kings demanded to be worshiped as gods, they self-deified themselves. However, in Christianity, the opposite is true. The King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15) wants love, not sacrifice, believes in man (in his potential for deification), becomes a friend to human (John 15:14) and “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). Christ proclaims the anti-religious teaching that God and the supreme authority in general, and His disciples too, should be like servants, and “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Thus, Christianity is, in fact, in every point opposite to other religions.

While religion is a socio-cultural phenomenon, in Christianity God looks at the heart, addresses the depths of the personality of each person individually. Sometimes He asks provocative questions or even gives provocative commandments to see the response of a person’s soul. For example, when Christ said to Judas, “Do quickly what you are going to do” (John 13:27), he did not want to push Judas to betrayal, but on the contrary, he wanted his conscience to awaken in him. And when Jesus said to the twelve apostles, “Do you also wish to go away?” (John 6:67) he certainly did not push them away. Does God look wherever the heart of a human bows, for good or for evil?

In the Old Testament, many religious ordinances were given. For example, about the Sabbath or the fact that harlots should be stoned. But Christ did not condemn the harlot whom they wanted to stone (John 8:11) and often provocatively violated the Sabbath in front of Jewish religious leaders. They were indignant at him, and he was at them, saying, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4) God, as it were, provokes people: will you fulfill a religious commandment if it will lead to evil, or will you break a religious commandment if it will lead to good? Perhaps, the Old Testament commandment to destroy seven nations in the land of Canaan was just as provocative: do you want to become executioners?

Thus, it can be sayed that Christianity is a paradox that is above religion and transfigurate religion. And if one tries to explain Christianity rationally, logically, its meaning, so to speak, for atheists, then its most basic core, its essence, its paradoxicality will inevitably be lost. It is logically inexplicable. Myths and legends of different peoples, no matter how fantastic they are, in any case contain traces of human psychology, elements of human logic. In Christianity, at its core, this is not the case. It is impossible to invent it. In it, at every point, there is a paradox and a contradiction to human common sense. Even the chosen apostles did not understand it at first. The former persecutor of Christians, the apostle Paul, labored more than them in the preaching of Christianity. And this is also a paradox.

Paradoxical and Orthodox Christianity

After the second century, Christianity began to divide, split into orthodox and heterodox. But both of them began to lose (not in theory, but in practice) the Christian paradoxicality. Of what the paradoxicality? When the ruler is like a servant, when Christians have everything (property) in common and they seem to have one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32) and love for one another (John 13:35), not a human for the sabbath (or the tradition of the elders), but sabbath for a human (Mark 2:27), etc.

Paradoxia (as opposed to orthodoxy or heterodoxia) is like the calcium in bones, which gives them strength. If the calcium is washed out of the bones, the bones break easily. Likewise, in Christianity, with a lack of practical paradoxia, it becomes fragile. It is no accident that atheism developed, first of all, in Christian countries.

The antonym of paradoxicality is orthodoxy—proven, traditional. “Orthodox” literally means “following the dominant tradition.” Paradoxicality and orthodoxy are two opposite paths. The first corresponds more to Christianity, and the second to paganism. The source of all the differences between them is the opposite attitude towards God and the spiritual world in general.

According to the Christian concept, God creates a human in his own image and likeness, i. e. in the act of creation the potential possibility of overcoming the ontological and spiritual abyss between the created and the uncreated is laid. The connection of the Creator with the creation can be so close that even the Incarnation of God in definitive and final form in Christ took place, i. e. real union of God with human nature. God believes in human and is ready to accept even death on the Cross for human sake. He encourages a human to establish a relationship of mutual love (characterized by freedom, selflessness and self-giving). These are relations of free individuals that cannot be subordinated to any formal scheme.

On the contrary, paganism is characterized by the fundamental ontological and spiritual alienation of human from any deities. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus said that the gods would never agree to accept a real human body. Even the material body of a human was considered by the pagans as a punishment, as a prison of the soul. Similar views were also in Hinduism, where deities took only ghostly forms (avatars), not uniting with matter in reality. Thus, a human seems to withdraw into himself, because the gap between him and the deities is insurmountable in principle. In addition, paganism seeks the possibility of either protecting a man from deities, or gaining their patronage for ‘a bribe’ (an offering), or by using some magical action to make the deities serve humans. The ideal of paganism is to “catch God” and make him fulfill the desires of man. To achieve this goal, a special religious system of methods, means and ways is being developed. Therefore in paganism “orthodoxy” is very much appreciated, that is, understandable logical explanations and formal schemes, the ability to achieve the desired result by simply following a known well-technique.

That is why the Gentiles of different countries and nations easily understood each other, because the psychology of idolatry was almost the same everywhere. In the Roman Empire, Babylon and Egypt the profession of non-local religions by foreigners was tolerated, provided that they honor traditional local (state) gods. Only Christianity was persecuted everywhere, because from the point of view of the Gentiles it undermined the fundamental principles of any religion. Indeed, the New Testament says that the religious worldview (in the pagan sense) is fundamentally wrong.

But unfortunately, in historical Christianity the pagan approach and the Christian actually coexist in parallel. This is not surprising, because the Old Testament also abounds with examples of the facts that, despite all the divine revelations, people often inclined to paganism. This is a very big and important topic. For brevity, we confine ourselves to only three aspects: views on theology, worship, and the organization of the believers’ community (the Church).

Firstly, the intellectual cognition of the mysteries of the reality does not necessarily lead to understanding the mystery of God himself. If we cognize the material world by the methods of science and philosophy, then this will only lead to other questions. But a purely logical conclusion about the existence of God is not enough for the Christian faith in him. If an atheist loses in a dispute with some very clever believer and will be forced to recognize correctness of Christianity, the logically correct conclusions will not let him touch the reality of God and to go through any religious experience. This phenomenon is practically non-formalizable. A human can only feel that he knows about God personally, from his own experience, but not by hearsay, not by logical evidences, not forced by any authority.

In Judaism (Old Testament prophets), Christianity, and Islam, the knowledge of God is spoken of in terms of “daath Elohim” (Heb. אֱלהִים «Elohim», Strong’s lexicon number 430, דַּעַת «daath», Strong’s lexicon number 1847, cf. Hos. 4:1) [48], denoting the highest destiny of human, the meaning and purpose of his life. This is not theoretical (theological) knowledge, but spiritual closeness achieved through love for God and the fulfillment of his commandments. The meeting of the saints with God is described in the Bible as a meeting of two free personalities.

This is probably the key problem of atheism. Atheists take a rational-speculative path, in which they obviously cannot meet God. However, the same problem can apply to religious people if their hearts are not sincerely turned to God (Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6).

And yet it is necessary to emphasize another property of theological calculations—these are just models collected from the data of Revelation. Between the formulated truth and reality there is a link, but not an identity.

Therefore, Christians seek a meeting with God and stand before the mystery of God, and not before the knowledge of him, accumulated by many generations in the past centuries. It is necessary to distinguish the partial Revelation from the fullness of what is still offered to our knowledge, from the vision of God himself. St. Gregory the Theologian in the fourth century said about this, that if we could collect all the data of the Revelation and create from them the most rich and full image of God, if at this moment we foolishly say, “Here is our God,” we would create an idol that closes the vision of the true God, instead of creating a transparent image that would allow us to see through it a reality that is more and more superior to it. [49]

In addition, one should take into account the fact that even the holy fathers are not immune from intellectual errors. The famous patrologist Fr. George Florovsky said, that there is not one father of the Church, except St. Gregory the Theologian, who cannot find any not entirely correct statements. At the St. Gregory the Theologian, they are not only because he was too cautious in his writings. [50] Therefore it is necessary to evince wisdom and courage and not try to build an imaginary presence of God to fill the horrible emptiness of his absence.

In those countries where Christianity enjoyed the support of the state, attempts to preach it with purely intellectual methods were typical, with the help of the authority of theology. But this approach does not always lead to the desired results. Suffice it to recall that in the atheistic revolution of 1917 in Russia numerous graduates of Orthodox educational institutions took an active part.

Secondly, the liturgical aspect should be noted. Before the beginning of the Liturgy, the most important Christian worship, the deacon tells to the priest very important words, “It is time for the Lord to act”. [51] By that time, the Office of Oblation (Proskomide), the preparatory part of the Liturgy, has already been performed, and these words serve as a reminder to the priest that all his further movements and prayers cannot accomplish anything: the time has come when only the Lord will act. In Christianity there is no magic, there is no other High Priest except Christ, and there is no power other than the power of the Holy Spirit. No human effort, words and tricks can transform earthly into heavenly. God cannot be forced to commit something. He responds only to invoking him with a pure heart, that is, when the thoughts of human are pure from all that is unworthy of love. However, in his immeasurable love he descends to sinful people, not forced by anyone, like a father to disobedient children.

In this sense, Christianity really is the end of religion, that is, the end of the system of rituals, prayers, incantations, spells and other tricks in order to force or at least convince God to approach people. None of this is required. The paradox of Christianity is that God became human and through his Incarnation invisible became visible, the imperceptible became tangible, inaccessible became available. There is no rite, ritual or spell that can add or subtract anything to that.

Christian worship is born out of a sense of God’s presence; it is an expression of worship and reverence. It can facilitate the acquisition of a personal spiritual experience of communion with God, but cannot give it in some magical way. Unfortunately, it should be noted again that in historical Christianity there was a lot of deviations towards pagan, magical attitudes to ecclesiastical rites and sacraments.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh said the following about this:

“I know a number of cases where Anglican or Catholic priests simply told a man who does not believe, who, as if in darkness, was in search of: ‘Be baptized and you will be given faith.’ This is a catastrophe. Faith is given, but not simply because the person was baptized. I knew two such people and accepted them into Orthodoxy, but I had to work with them for decades of years to make them out of despair and disappointment that God deceived them. The priest promised them in the name of God: ‘I will dip you into holy water, and you will receive faith.’ Dipped—and exactly nothing happened. In one case it was even worse: the man was mentally upset, he was promised not only faith, but also healing, and there was neither healing nor faith. So one must not promise that the sacraments will affect a person automatically. This is not a morphine injection, not a medicine that will work, whoever you are and whatever you do”. [52]

Christian sacraments may be valid, but not act, because there is no soil, which would perceive them. You cannot accept the sacrament in the hope that something will happen magically. It is necessary for a person to experience spiritual hunger, striving to God. Then, through the sacraments, something can happen which cannot be achieved by dialectic and dispute.

Sometimes the pagan attitude to the worship was manifested very frankly. For example, in the rite of the Psalmocatara—curses by the psalms. [53] The purpose of the Psalmocatara was to deliver a man into the hands of the devil and call upon him all sorts of calamities even up to his physical and spiritual death. The rite was prescribed to be performed in the temple by seven priests. In this case, priests put on all priestly clothes inside out, and shoes with the right foot put on the left and vice versa. They use unusual black candles. All this indicates that the priests were aware that this whole ritual is contrary to the Gospel and the purposes of Christian worship. Christ would have rebuked them, and said, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of” (Luke 9:55 KJV).

Nevertheless, the Psalmocatara, a prayer for evil, in the twelfth–seventeenth centuries was practiced very, very often. Professor of Canon Law at Moscow University A. I. Almazov describes three versions of this rite. [54] Later texts of the rank become more occult and practical (in the last edition it can be performed only by one priest and not necessarily in temple). Perhaps the Psalmocatara was a borrowing not only from pagan magic, but also from the Talmudic and Kabbalistic practices. For example, from the rite of the “pulse de Nura.” By the way, the rite of the Psalmocatara is not officially abolished, and there has never been its conciliar condemnation, and if you consider that it was used for at least five hundred years, you can generally talk about its reception, inclusion in the Church tradition and consensus patrum!

Thirdly, we note one more paradoxicality of Christianity in relation to the Christian Church. In a sense, the concept of a Church is very close to the concept of religion (the Church is a religious organization), one can define another. However, there is still no unambiguous and universally accepted definition of the Church, although theologians have written about it for almost two thousand years.

It is easy to say where the Church is, but it is almost impossible to predict correctly where the Church is not. If the definition is specific, unambiguous, then it does not stand up to criticism, because it leaves beyond its scope a set of church phenomena. For example, in the Catechism of the Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret, the following definition is given: “The Church is society of people established by God, united by Orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy and the Sacraments.” But the robber who was crucified to the right of Christ and who entered the Paradise on the same day (Luke 23:43), did not take part in any society, did not even have a concept about “hierarchy” and the Sacraments. And many holy ascetics–deserters hermits tried to keep away from both the hierarchy and the community of believers.

If the definition is broad, multi-valued, then it includes many completely non-church phenomena. For example, Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) said, that the Church is a gathering of people, believers in Jesus Christ. But “even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19), and the followers of the church of satan also believe in Jesus Christ. Another broad definition was given by A. S. Khomyakov: “The Church is the organism of love”. However, examples of love can be found and in non-Christian societies. In addition, it is one thing to talk about love, and quite another—to show it actively. By the way, the Historical Church, shows many more examples of not love than love.

At the same time, God does not belong to a particular religion or confession (Acts 10:34–35). “He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). He does not discriminate, but looks at the heart of a person. A person can be mistaken mentally, but be pure in heart and pray truly, and maybe vice versa.

Thus, all the verbal definitions of the Church are similar to the description of a temple as an architectural work. You can go to it for years, but do not understand its difference from any other building. And you can sit in the silence of an empty temple and feel that this is the place of meeting with God, the place of his particular presence. Similarly, one can understand (or not understand) what the Church is. The definitions of the Church describe it only from the outside, from within it is the mystery of the life of the soul in God, the mystery of meeting, presence and intercommunication. People are attached to this mystery in varying degrees. On the one hand, the members of the Church through baptism are clothed in Christ, through chrismation receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, God does not violently invade human life, and members of the Church have the freedom to sin. Therefore, in the Church there are, as it were, different currents. All people are sons of God by vocation, that is, sonship is already there, but at the same time it is still in the stage of formation, in the stage of building a miracle of mutual love and love for God. This is another paradox: Christians have already achieved the goal, but at the same time only on the way to it, are attached to the eternal Kingdom of God, but are in the temporal kingdom of this world. History and eternity are inseparably united in the Church: everything is already completed, but at the same time it is still in the making.

Thus, Christianity is paradoxical in every point, but on its historical path it is closely intertwined with its opposite—orthodoxy, which is a consequence of the impact of sinful origin and paganism. However, it should be noted that here the term “orthodoxy” has no relation to the name of the Greek Orthodox Church, which appeared due to the Great Schism of 1054, but applies to all confessions and to the whole history of the Church, including the Old Testament.

St. Cyprian of Carthage said that the custom without truth is only an old misconception. [55] Therefore, a thoughtful interpretation of the whole church history is necessary. It is necessary to separate the good from the bad (Matt. 13:48) and to assess the apparent apostasy of historical Christianity from Christ and the Gospel. A good example is the history of the Israeli people, written in the Old Testament. Everything is frankly portrayed there: the people as whole and individual personalities in one form or another very often adopted paganism adopted the customs of idolaters. Nevertheless, God did not leave them, which is repeatedly emphasized in the Bible. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehend two ways, paradoxical and orthodox, and correcting the approach to spiritual life accordingly. Until it happens in the Church, there will be a terrible contradiction between words and real deeds.

God versus Religion

Any criticism of Christianity as a religion must be preceded by a preamble that it has two components: the “religious” and the “personal” (personal experience). We must say that the “religious” component for centuries been influenced by political, social and cultural factors.

Studying the historical path of Christianity, many theologians have tried to isolate its “personal” component and critically consider the “religious” one. As a result, the output beyond the religious system of some essential part of Christianity in theology is widely spread thesis “Christianity is not a religion”.

For example, the Greek theologian Ch. Giannaras in the book Ἐνάντια στὴ Θρησκεία (Against Religion) carries the idea that Christianity is not a religion; and occurred in the history the transformation of Christianity into a religion is a distortion of its essence. The same idea was expressed by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. [56]

German Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer formulated the concept of “religionless Christianity.” He believed that “to be a Christian does not mean to be religious in some sense . . . but means to be Human” (to realize the human vocation).

An influential Protestant theologian Karl Barth has also denied that Christianity is a religion. In his thesis “Christ—the end of religion” by religion is meant any attempt to reach God “from below”. Ontological chasm between God and a human can overcome only God, and precisely in this sense the event of Christ (as action of God). Through the Incarnation God overcomes this abyss (in Christ God does for the people something that they are fundamentally incapable), because all human efforts are not enough. Similar ideas were close and to Thomas Merton—an influential American Catholic theologian, poet and Trappist monk. He was very impressed by the Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and by books of Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

Throughout the twentieth century, many theologians discussed that “Christianity—is not a religion,” “Christianity—the end of religion,” “Christianity—is the trial of religion” and other theses with the same meaning. In fact, even in the Old Testament, there was a very ambiguous attitude towards religion. The Old Testament righteous (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others) did not belong to any religion. Moses spoke as a messenger of God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 3:15), and not as a representative of any religion.

The first affair of Moses was a struggle with the Egyptian religion, the isolation of the Jews from any influence of religious cults of other nations. For the same purpose served and all the laws of Moses and his precepts about the liturgical rites, and so on and etc. Externally, it was very similar to the cults of other nations, but the purpose was different.

The fire can be stopped with help of an oncoming fire. The best (and sometimes the only) means of combating with forest fires is ignition on the opposite side. [57] Moses established religious rules in order to the Jews as soon as possible moved away from the Egyptian paganism. Over four hundred years of living in Egypt they are firmly assimilate the local religious paradigms. If Moses had acted in any other way, for example, would be talk about non-religious relationships with God following the example of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then no one would understood him. In the New Testament, the apostles abolished the entire complex religious ritualism of the Mosaic Law as unnecessary (Acts 15:19–20). However, people, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament history, still often in practice tended to magic and pagan rites.

The struggle against religion in the Old Testament sometimes took very harsh (“inhumane”, as we would say today) forms, but this was due to the exigencies of the situation. During an epidemic of plague or cholera, they do not always act humanely, and at that time, apparently, the situation was even worse. This is evidenced by the fact that despite all the strict measures, ten of the twelve tribes of Israel nevertheless separated and became half-pagans, and the rest of the house of David two tribes (Judah and Benjamin) are often inclined in idolatry.

The Bible repeatedly states that God opposes religion. Deities of any religion will not reject prayers, feasts, sacrifices, burn incense and other religious rituals in their honor. And through the prophet Isaiah, a completely different thing is proclaimed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem:

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (Is. 1:11–17).

Likewise, no deity of any religion will condone the destruction of its only temple (even by the hands of the Gentiles). The Jerusalem temple was the center and heart of the entire religious life of the Jews. Despite this, God twice allowed the Gentiles to destroy it. God was not worried so much about the destruction of the temple as about the hypocrisy of its servants. There is no such thing in any religion.

On the other hand, the Bible shows that religion opposes to God: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). All the hatred and all the anger that people are only capable of in relation to God was focused in the decision of the Jewish religious leaders to crucify God incarnate. This is evidenced by the parable of the evil winegrowers (Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19) and many other similar passages in the Bible.

To this we can add that in no religion does God say to people: “You are my friends” (John 15:14). And in the Bible this is the main idea, and the main priorities in it are “clean heart” (Ps. 51:10) and sincere love for God and neighbor (Matt. 22:37–40), and not at all religious rituals. Abel and Cain were brothers and made the same (in a religious sense) sacrifice. However, God’s attitude to one and the other was opposite. “The hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem . . . But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21,23–24). This is no longer religious worship, but something more. The main question that God asks man (all of humanity) is, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15–17). And where there is love, there is liberty (including liberty from religion).

It is also important to note another aspect of non-religious Christianity, correctly noted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer: the Christian’s task is to be a real human, that is, to embody God’s plan for a human, to find and realize his true self. It often becomes possible to do this only if a man not looks back at the opinions of others, at cultural, social and even religious stereotypes. The Bible encourages a person to be himself, and not to play a false role (albeit an honorable one) imposed by social or religious paradigms.

For example, King David rode and danced while bringing the ark of God into Jerusalem, like a boy, like a commoner. His wife, Michal, told him that this was a “violation of protocol”, a degradation of the king’s dignity. But David answered her:

“It was before the LORD, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the LORD, that I have danced before the LORD. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in my own eyes; but by the maids of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Sam. 6:21–22).

Likewise, Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector and a rich man, climbed a sycamore tree like a boy to see Jesus (Luke 19:2–4). The head of the tax department is a fairly high rank, and even in that era, such behavior would have caused ridicule of the people. But Zacchaeus, like David, did not think about it, since all his attention was drawn to the Lord.

Some people, being completely turned to God, did not even look back at religious stereotypes. Religious people did not understand this and therefore expelled them from their society. St. Augustinus wrote about this, “Divine Providence often allows even good people to be driven out of Christian society, because of some extremely violent indignations of the carnal people . . . The Father, who sees the secret, secretly prepares a crown for such. People of this kind are rare, but examples are not lacking; there are even more of them than you might think.” [58]

And of course, there can be no religion in a baby in the womb. The greatest of all the prophets, John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth joyfully greeted the Virgin Mary, who also bore Christ in the womb at that time (Luke 1:41,44). Naturally, he did not even think about any religion at that moment. In Christian Tradition, there are many more cases when babies express their feelings for God. Therefore, we can talk about completely non-religious and even pre-verbal communication with God. For example, the gospel call “to be changed and become like children” (Matt. 18:3; 19:14) is just about this. The theologians’ formulas “Christianity is the end of religion” and “Christianity is the trial of religion” will be completely incomprehensible to children. If Christianity is defined as love for God, this will be clear to everyone.

It follows from what has been said that in the modern universal meaning the term “religion” is extremely unfortunate due to its abstractness. In any case, it would be wrong to attribute Christianity to religion in some cases.

Relationship between State and Religion

In one thing, atheists are right: in religions, the human factor plays a significant role, there is much human, sometimes too much human. Religion is a social phenomenon. This is how religions differ from pure metaphysics. One, two, or three people can philosophize about metaphysics as much as they want, but they will never create a religion. And a few people living in a desert will not create a religion. It only occurs in a fairly large society. Therefore, it would be a mistake to view any religion outside the historical, social, and cultural context. Many people are followers of one religion or another, not because they searched for a long time and found some truth in it, but simply because it is the religion of their ancestors, or they were brought up in a certain cultural environment or it is so accepted among their relatives and friends.

Atheists often misunderstand religions as myths about supernatural beings invented by someone. It’s not like that at all. The genesis and existence of religions has many aspects in common with the state. Despite the fact that both the state and religion are often the subject of discussion, there is no single universally accepted definition of these terms. This uncertainty is explained by the fact that both of these concepts are quite complex and multifaceted, and it is not at all easy to express their entire essence with one universal definition.

Hegel said that there can be no definition of the state. However, summing up the various modern definitions, it is possible to highlight its main characteristic features. The state is an institution or a series of institutions for regulating social relations and for providing internal and external conditions for maintaining a certain order in society. These relations are legitimized by ideology and traditions, with which, at least, most of the society agrees.

Much the same can be said about religion. Religion is an institution or a series of institutions for regulating spiritual relations in a society. These relations are legalized by the worldview, ideology, culture and traditions prevailing in a particular society. Religion can be associated with a certain territory, and then it is even more closely intertwined with the state, but much more often religion, like culture, has no geographical boundaries.

Many books can be written on this topic, but for now we will confine ourselves to small comments. The state and religion have a common nature—they are like two channels of one river, two trees from one root. History is replete with examples of diffusion or fusion of the state and religion. As long as there is a certain paradigm of social relations, there is its reflection in religion, and vice versa. There were many theocratic states or those where religion was one of the state institutions. The Byzantine coat of arms, the double-headed eagle, is a reflection of the relationship of almost any state and religion. They have one body and two heads. One head thinks about political or everyday issues, and the other about spiritual ones.

The question naturally arises: what about atheistic states? In them, after all, religion is either prohibited or separated from the state. However, the paradox is that the prohibition of ideology is also an ideology, and the prohibition of religion is also a kind of religion. The nature of the state and religion originates from the socio-psychological nature of man, which cannot disappear anywhere. Therefore, if you “cut off the head” of a two-headed eagle, then in its place will grow another, perhaps not at all similar to the severed, but also head. This also happens in atheistic states. Having banned the old religion, they create a new one in its place. Of course, atheists will avoid religious terminology in every possible way, but, in fact, instead of traditional religion, they create their own religion of unbelief.

For example, in the atheistic USSR, belief in God was replaced by belief in science and the dogmas of Marxism-Leninism. Dissenters (even scientists) have been repressed and discriminated against, so an analogy can be drawn with the Inquisition. There was censorship, and a completely religious cult of veneration of the relics of Lenin in the Mausoleum. Church Councils were replaced by Communist Party Congresses. The glory of the CPSU was sent everywhere (instead of the religious glorification of God), etc. etc.

When a religion is transferred to new soil, it inevitably enters into interaction with previous traditional religious ideas, because it is impossible to start from scratch. The new religion is either built into the previous ones, or there is a kind of diffusion, hybridization. That is why in Judaism there was a strict prohibition even on everyday communication with pagans; and Christians from the Jews were very wary of the conversion of pagans, and the Romans looked wary of Christianity, since they saw it as a threat to their state. History shows many examples of hybridization of religions. In Byzantium, there was often a mixture of Neo-Platonism, Hellenic paganism and Christianity, simply veiled under different names, under different masks. In Latin America and Africa, under the guise of Christian saints, they still worship their ethnic spirits, they simply changed their names and external attributes.

In general, it can be said that every person from birth is influenced by upbringing, culture, national characteristics, traditions of their country, the spirit of the era, and other social factors. On the other hand, a person has his own inner “self”; he is a personality, he can mature his own point of view, and he may even dare to challenge the traditional foundations of society. If there are enough such people, a certain critical number, then a social revolution may occur.

The same happens in religions. It is impossible not to notice that social revolutions, or significant transformations in a state, are immediately reflected in religion in this state. [59]

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Примечания

1

. John Hogan, Scientific American, December 1, 2014.

Вернуться

2

. Франк, Смысл жизни, 19. [Hereinafter, everywhere all translations from Russian are made by the author.]

Вернуться

3

. For more information on qualia, see: Волкодав, Эволюция, 139.

Вернуться

4

. A translation from Russian to English.

Вернуться

5

. The video footage of this debate on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI in eight years have been watched by more than forty one million people.

Вернуться

6

. The Edict of Milan (Lat. Edictum Mediolanense) of 313 proclaimed religious tolerance in the territory of the Roman Empire, and Christianity became legal.

Вернуться

7

. See Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, Part IV—Before The Beginning. Chapter 16—Did The Universe Have a Beginning? Beyond Unreasonable Doubt.

Вернуться

8

. Quoted from: Wetter, A Historical and Systematic Survey, 436.

Вернуться

9

. Legler wrote that during all periods of Soviet history from the 1920s to the time of writing the book (1985), Soviet science (all its areas, including natural sciences) was under the influence of the state (atheistic) ideology. See Леглер, Научные Революции при Социализме.

Вернуться

10

. Academician Nikolai Vavilov (1887–1943) died on death row. He was a famous geneticist, vice president of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. In 1948, all genetic research in the USSR was discontinued. Hundreds of leading professors and instructors have been fired. Biology books based on genetics were seized and destroyed from libraries.

Вернуться

11

. David Hume (1711–1776) was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, economist. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) contains reworking of the main points of the “Treatise”, with the addition of material on free will, miracles, the Design Argument, and mitigated scepticism. Section 10, On Miracles, of the Enquiry, was often published separately.

Вернуться

12

. Lat. “ex nihilo nihil fit”.

Вернуться

13

. In 2003, cosmologists Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved the singularity theorem. It says that the expanding space time does not continue infinitely into the past, but has a beginning, that is, the universe has a beginning. See Borde et al., “Inflationary space-times are not past-complete.”

Вернуться

14

. “In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo), as a result of the established principles of physics,” Edward P. Tryon (prof. of Physics, New York University), “What Made the World?” 14.

Вернуться

15

. Климишин, Релятивистская астрономия, 243.

Вернуться

16

. Зельдович, “Возможно ли образование Вселенной ‘из ничего’?” Природа 4 (1988).

Вернуться

17

. However, in the Afterword to it, Academician A. D. Sakharov considered it necessary “to point out the great uncertainty in our understanding of the situation. This uncertainty is deeply fundamental, even philosophical. Philosophically acute is, in particular, the question of the so-called anthropic principle, which explains the peculiarities of our universe by the fact that only in such a universe could intelligent life arise, in contrast to an infinite number of other, spontaneously arising ‘dead’ universes.”

Вернуться

18

. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, Preface.

Вернуться

19

. Albert Einstein remarked on this topic, “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” (Quoted from: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_110208)

Вернуться

20

. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing. Ch. 10: Nothing is Unstable, 154.

Вернуться

21

. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing. Preface, 18.

Вернуться

22

. Isaac Newton (1642–1727). In Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855), vol II, Ch. 27. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/isaac_newton_387031

Вернуться

23

. Vilenkin, “Creation of Universes from Nothing”, 25–28.

Вернуться

24

. “That same Munchausen” is a Soviet artistic two-part television movie in 1979. The play “The Most Truthful” by Grigory Izrailevich Gorin served as the literary material for the script. It was written in the play, “A serious face is not yet a sign of intelligence, all stupidity on Earth is done with just such an expression.” However, when dubbing the movie, Yankovsky made a reservation, saying, “A smart face is not yet a sign of intelligence.” In this form, the phrase, despite G. Gorin’s protests, remained in the movie.

Вернуться

25

. For example, in the order of the Liturgy in the priestly prayer of the Trisagion Singing (“Who from non-being has brought all things into being”), in The Funeral Service—Eulogetaria for the Dead (You who of old did fashion me out of nothingness, and with your Image Divine did honor me), which was written by St. John Damascene, etc.

Вернуться

26

. John Chrysostom, In Gen. 13. 2; Cyr. Hieros. Catech. 4. 18; Nemes. De nat. hom. 2; Theodoret. Haer. fab. V 9; Hieron. Adv. Rufin. II 10; 5th anathematism of the Council of 561 in Braga—Enchiridion symbolorum. N 455; The fact that everything created was brought into being out of nothingness was written by St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Athanasius the Great.

Вернуться

27

. St. Basil the Great. Hexameron (Six Days of Creation).

Вернуться

28

. Endless and limitless sea of essence (Gr. τί πέλαγος ουσίας ἄπειρον καί ἀόριστον). S. Greg. Naz. Or. 38, in Theophan. 7 // PG. XXXVI. P. 317.

Вернуться

29

. B. Augustini, Conf. XI, 11 // PL. XXXII. P. 813: splendorem semper stantis; aeternitatis cnfr.: De Trinit. V, 1, 2 // PL. XLII. P. 912: sine tempore sempiternum.

Вернуться

30

. B. Augustini, Conf. XI, 14 // PL. XXXII. P. 816: praesens autem, si semper esset praesens nec in praeteritum transiret, non jam esset tempus, sed aeternitas.

Вернуться

31

. Gr. “παρ’ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα”.

Вернуться

32

. Флоровский, “Творение: его начало и конец”, 3.

Вернуться

33

. A priori—knowledge obtained before experience and independently of it, i. e., knowledge, as it were known in advance.

Вернуться

34

. Hereinafter, everywhere by “heart” we mean a metaphor meaning a certain spiritual center or spiritual depths of a person. This metaphor is used very often in the Bible. In general, the “heart” in it is often called the center or depth. For example, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). It is obvious that the Earth does not have a heart (as a physical organ), but has depth.

Вернуться

35

. For example, Acts. 17:22 “Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, ‘Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way’.” Gr.: «Σταθεὶς δὲ ὁ Παῦλος ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ᾿Αρείου πάγου ἔφη• ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, κατὰ πάντα ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ὑμᾶς θεωρῶ».

Вернуться

36

. Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin and other painters, whose work is now estimated at $100 million per painting, lived in poverty and barely made ends meet. Also, in music, the brilliant Mozart and others geniuses lived in poverty, while the less talented were much better off.

Вернуться

37

. See Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus haereses, III, 10, 2 and in the Prologue of the chapter 5); St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Contra Arianos I, 39). Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian said about the same thing.

Вернуться

38

. See Скабалланович, «Что мы ждем от обновленных монастырей?», 20.

Вернуться

39

. Ζητεῖν τὸν Κύριον, εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, καί γε οὐ μακρὰν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ὑπάρχοντα (Πράξ. 17,27).

Вернуться

40

. Quoted from: Антоний Блум (Митр. Сурожский), Труды. Кн. 1, 715.

Вернуться

41

. Антоний Блум (Митр. Сурожский), Труды. Кн. 1, 821–822.

Вернуться

42

. For a large ship, the additional harmful cargo can be several hundred tons.

Вернуться

43

. See Иоанн Зизиулас, Церковь как икона Царствия Божия, 62–63.

Вернуться

44

. For example, Karl Barth, Thomas Merton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

Вернуться

45

. Engels, “Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity.”

Вернуться

46

. Gr. παράδοξος—contrary to the established opinion, unusual, incredible, extraordinary.

Вернуться

47

. The Christmas Kontakion describes five antinomies in five verses: Today, the Virgin bears Him who is transcendent, and the earth presents the cave to Him who is beyond reach. Angels, along with shepherds glorify Him. The Magi make their way to Him by a star. For a new child has been born for us, the God before all ages. Greek text: Ἡ Παρθένος σήμερον, τὸν ὑπερούσιον τίκτει, καὶ ἡ γῆ τὸ Σπήλαιον, τῷ ἀπροσίτῳ προσάγει. Ἄγγελοι μετὰ Ποιμένων δοξολογοῦσι. Μάγοι δὲ μετὰ ἀστέρος ὁδοιποροῦσι· δι’ ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἐγεννήθη, Παιδίον νέον, ὁ πρὸ αἰώνων Θεός.

Вернуться

48

. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. https://biblehub.com/englishmans_hebrew.htm

Вернуться

49

. Quoted from: Антоний Блум (Митр. Сурожский), Труды. Кн. 1, 361.

Вернуться

50

. Quoted from: Антоний Блум (Митр. Сурожский), Труды. Кн. 1, 295.

Вернуться

51

. http://www.saintjonah.org/services/proskomede.doc

Вернуться

52

. Quoted from: Антоний Блум (Митр. Сурожский), Труды. Кн. 1, 328.

Вернуться

53

. Gr.: Ψαλμοκατάρα (from the Greek “ψαλμός”—“psalm” and “κατάρα”—“curse”) is the liturgical rite, which existed in the practice of the Greek Orthodox Church, at least in the twelfth–seventeenth centuries. Ii is described in the Greek Nomocanon of 1528.

Вернуться

54

. Алмазов, Проклятие преступника псалмами (Ψαλμοκατάρα). К истории суда Божьего в Греческой Церкви.

Вернуться

55

. St. Cyprian of Carthage. Letter to Pompey against Stefan’s letter about the baptism of heretics.

Вернуться

56

. Ιt is clearly expressed in the books For the Life of the World and The Diaries.

Вернуться

57

. However, this technique is far from being safer, more rational method is annealing of artificial fire edge.

Вернуться

58

. Augustini Hipponensis episcopi, De vera religione, PL 34, cap. VI, 11, 128. Paris, 1845.

Вернуться

59

. An illustrative example can be the history of the emergence of the Church of England, the transformation in France during the Great French Revolution.

Вернуться