St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

This paper is devoted to the question, is it possible to increase knowledge in the field of theology like as it is possible in humanities in general. The main difficulties first of all consist in (1) confessional character of each theology, (2) in its plurality when each theology has its own concept system and original epistemological framework, (3) in the resulting incomparability of theologies. Discussing the presumably scientific character of theology, it could be useful to discern between premodern and modern understanding of the term “science”. The author argues, there do not exist insurmountable obstacles for theology to strengthen its argumentative basis, namely, theology possesses opportunity to get closer to the human sciences if it relies on empirical researches, for instance, of psychology of religion. This thesis is illustrated on two different examples from different regions and contexts: the theory of structure of religious experience by K. Girgensohn and W. Gruehn, and the theory of political aspect of religious conversion by I. Martín-Baró. The both theologies base their generalization on correct empirical research data, — like it occurs in philosophy of religion or even human sciences. The both cases demonstrate increase of knowledge: the first on from which elements does religious experience consist and how it is developing; the second on how religious conversion is tied to change of political views and social behavior of believers. Such contact of theology with empirical science of religion is in no way harmful for the both sides; it can be initiated in various traditions, which adopt the focus of broadly understood Western-born rationality.

epistemology of humanities, criteria of science, theology, psychology of religion, secularization, K. Girgensohn, W. Gruehn, I. Martín-Baró

1. Al-Khusht М. ‘U. (2001) Madkhal ʼilā falsafat al-dīn [Introduction to philosophy of religion]. Cairo (in Arabic).
2. Belzen A. van (2015) Religionspsychologie. Eine historische Analyse im Spiegel der Internationalen Gesellschaft. Berlin.
3. Canesi A. (1936) “Vorläufi ge Untersuchungen über die Psychologie des Gebets”. Archiv für Religionspsychologie, vol. 6, pp. 13–72.
4. Demmrich S., Wolfradt U. (2019) “Die ‘Gottesidee’ als Wesensmerkmal der Religion im Denken Karl Girgensohns”. Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte, vol. 26 (2), pp. 86–103.
5. Dussel E.D. (1994) “Teología de liberación y socialismo”, in I. Ellacuría, J. Sobrino (eds) Mysterium Liberationis. Conceptos fundamentales de la Teología de Liberación, 2 ed., vol. 1, Madrid, pp. 115–144.
6. Feil E. (1986–2007) Religio, in 4 vols. Göttingen.
7. Girgensohn K. (1924) Grundriss der Dogmatik. Leipzig.
8. Girgensohn K. (1925) Religionspsychologie, Religionswissenschaft und Theologie. 2 Aufl . Leipzig.
9. Gruehn W. (1924) Das Werterlebnis. Eine religionspsychologische Studie auf experimenteller Grundlage. Leipzig.
10. Gruehn W. (1925) Ein baltisches Gelehrtenleben. Karl Girgensohnʼs religionspsychologische Entwicklung. Hamburg.
11. Gruehn W. (1926) Religionspsychologie. Breslau.
12. Gruehn W. (1936) “Empirische Theologie. (Zur Einführung)”. Archiv für Religionspsychologie, vol. 6, pp. IX–XVIII.
13. Martín-Baró I. (1989) “Sólo Dios salva”. Sentido político de la conversión religiosa. El Salvador.
14. Martín-Baró I. (1998) Psicología de la liberación. Madrid.
15. Raitz von Frentz Е. (1925) “Das religiöse Erlebnis im psychologischen Laboratorium”, in Stimmen der Zeit. Monatsschrift für das Geistesleben der Gegenwart, vol. 109, Freiburg im Breisgau, pp. 200–214.
16. Wulff D. M. (1985) “Experimental Introspection and Religious Experience: the Dorpat School of Religious Psychology”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, vol. 21, pp. 131–150.
17. Zolotukhin Vs. V. (2020) “Rozhdenie nauk o religii iz dukha teologii” [The birth of religious studies from the spirit of theology]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 92, pp. 76–97 (in Russian).

Zolotukhin Vsevolod

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The subject of the paper is prochronism, e.g. the teaching which says that the world was created with the appearance of old age. It is shown that the sources of prochronism could be traced to the medieval doctrine of double truth and philosophy of Descartes, who suggested that cosmological theories on the origin of the Universe are purely conditional, while in fact the world was instantly created complete and mature. The idea of apparent, but non-existent past gained much credence during the first half of the 19th century, when paleontological and geological discoveries raised a question on how to square the age of the Earth and the life on it with the six days of Genesis. The hypothesis of prochronism was most fully developed in «Omphalos: an attempt to untie the geological knot» (1857), the book by the English naturalist P. Gosse. During the Darwinian time the interest in this doctrine was shown not only by Christian thinkers, but also by secular philosophers and science fiction writers. Elements of prochronism were also present in the writings of Scriptural geologists in the 19th century and their successors, the young earth creationists in the 20th century. The main objections against prochronism are critically considered. According to the most popular of them, if God had made the world appear older that it is, He thus would have deceived people. But from the point of view of prochronism, the creation of traces of never existed past was necessitated by the logic of causality, which required God to actualize all the consequences of historical epochs skipped by Him. The link between prochronism and the problem of pre-human sufferings is outlined. The conclusion is made that this doctrine, despite being counter-intuitive and rather notorious, is intellectually consistent and immune to the criticism.

science and religion, evolutionism, six days of creation, young Earth creationism, occasionalism, Divine hiddenness,

1. Bianchi L. (2017) “From Pope Urban VIII to Bishop Étienne Tempier: the Strange History of the ŸDoctrine of Double Truth″”. Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie, vol. 64, pp. 9–26.
2. Darwin C. (1957) Recollections of the Development of My Mind and Character. Moscow (Russian translation).
3. Darwin C. (1950) Selected letters. Moscow (Russian translation).
4. Descartes R. (1989) “Principia Philosophiae”, in Sochineniia [Works], vol. 1, Мoscow, pp. 297–422 (Russian translation).
5. Farmer P. (1996) Behind the Walls of Terra. Moscow (Russian translation).
6. Gould S. J. (1985) “Adam’s Navel”, in The Flamingo’s Smile: Refl ections in Natural History. New York, pp. 99–113.
7. Gould S. J. (1987) Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time. Cambridge; London.
8. Hale P. J. (2012) “Darwin’s Other Bulldog: Charles Kingsley and the Popularisation of Evolution in Victorian England”. Science & Education, vol. 21, pp. 977–1013.
9. Hallam A. (1985) Great Geological Controversies. Moscow (Russian translation).
10. Hitchens C. (2007) God is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything. Crows Nest.
11. Khramov A. (2019) “Teisticheskii evoliutsionizm i problema teoditsei” [Theistic evolutionism and the problem of theodicy]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, no. 83, pp. 26–44 (in Russian).
12. Khramov A. (2019) “Dni tvoreniia i geologicheskoe vremia v britanskoi bogoslovskoi i nauchnoi mysli pervoi pol. XIX v.” [The days of creation and geological time in the British theological and scientific thought of the fi rst half of the 19th century]. Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, no. 2 (26), pp. 75–97 (in Russian).
13. Klose J. (2021) “Philip Gosse’s Omphalos and the Creationist Problem of Measuring Miracles”. Theology and Science, vol. 19, pp. 406–421.
14. Murray M. J. (2008) Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford.
15. Russell B. (1922) The Analysis of Mind. London.
16. Sayers D. L. (1946) Unpopular Opinions. London.
17. Schellenberg J. L. (2021) Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. Moscow (Russian translation).
18. Yeo J. J. (2010) Plundering the Egyptians. The Old Testament and Historical Criticism at Westminster Thelogical Seminary (1929–1998). New York.
19. Wittgenstein L. (2010) Culture and Value. On Certainty. Moscow (Russian translation).

Khramov Alexander

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

P. Singer is called one of the most influential living philosophers in the world, and one of the most controversial. The author of "Animal Liberation", "Practical Ethics", "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" created his own project of preference utilitarianism, in which he placed animals as moral subjects equal to man. In this, he questions Christian anthropocentrism: a human in his system of ethics is intrinsically no better than a chimpanzee or a dog. He recognizes the uniqueness of all species, speaking out against speciesism (discrimination on grounds of species). Singer's ethics is completely independent of religion. Raising issues related to abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc., the philosopher inevitably arrived to confrontation with Christian ethics and religious worldview in general. Religion, especially Christianity, plays a significant role in his works, since he considers many of the provisions of Christianity: the special position of humans in the natural world, the attitude to the sanctity of life - to be morally problematic. The article analyzes Peter Singer's critical theses on the Christian religion, including Christian ethics. The second section considers the responses of a number of modern religious thinkers to Singer's criticism of Christianity. In conclusion, the arguments of both sides are analyzed, their strengths and weaknesses are outlined, involving a broader tradition of secular-religious dispute. Conclusions are made about the validity of P. Singer's criticism of religion. Although said criticism is broadly integrated into the works of the philosopher, it is hardly a focus point - rather a tool to solidify Singer's position on practical questions like abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc. The negative attitude to religion has roots in Singer's early acquaintance with the Bible and the unhappy past of his family (two of the philosopher's grandparents died in concentration camps). The question of the meaninglessness of suffering largely determines the philosophy and practical ethics of P. Singer. Arguing with theologians, he most often resorts to the classical argument from evil. Singer's criticism of Christian religion is limited, reduced to the problem of the meaninglessness of suffering, the Euthyphron dilemma, criticism of the sanctity of human life, the "dominion" of man over nature. With the exception of a detailed analysis of the bias of Christianity against animals, the criticism is not original.

Peter Singer, criticism of Christianity, atheism, humanism, animal protection, speciesism, sanctity of life, utilitarianism, Holy Bible

Kolesnikov A. (1978) Svobodomyslie Bertrana Rassela[Freethinking of Bertrand Russell]. Moscow: MYSL'(in Russian).Henri Lubac de (1997) La drame de l’humanisme athée. Milan:Hristianskaya Rossiya (Russian translation).Eremeev A. (transl.) (2013) Thomas Aquinas. Summatheologiae. Moscow (Russian translation).Appolonov A. (transl.) (2015) Thomas Aquinas. Summatheologiae. Moscow (Russian translation).Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. Peter Singer –Ethics Without Religion (2011). available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WA9I4AaFg (04.06.2022).Atkinson D. J. (1990) The message of Genesis 1-11:the dawn of creation: The Bible speaks today. USA: Inter-Varsity Press. Beed C., Beed C. (1998) “Peter Singer’s Interpretation of Christian BiblicalEnvironmental Ethics”. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology,vol. 2 (1). pp. 53–68.Camosy C. C. (2012) Peter Singer and Christianethics: beyond polarization. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.Clough D. (2014) “How to respect other animals: lessons for theologyfrom Peter Singer and vice”,inGod, the good, andutilitarianism: perspectives on Peter Singer. New York: Cambridge university press, pp. 160–177.Graham C. (2002) “Singer on Ghristianity: Characterized or Caricatured?”, Rethinking Peter Singer: a Christian critique. Ill: InterVarsity Press, pp. 95–106.Perry J. (2014) God, the good, and utilitarianism:perspectives on Peter Singer. New York: Cambridge university press.Premier Unbelievable? Andy Bannister vs Peter Singer.Do we need God to be good? (2018). available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVTT75B3cug(15.06.2022).Singer P. (2009) “An Intellectual Autobiography”, in Peter Singer underfire: the moral iconoclast faces his critics. Chicago: Open Court, vol. 3. pp.1–74.Singer P. (1990) Animal liberation. New York:New York Review of Books: Distributed by Random House.Singer P. (2014) “Engaging with Christianity”, in God, the good, andutilitarianism: perspectives on Peter Singer. New York: Cambridgeuniversity press, pp. 53–67.Singer P. (1995) “Je mehr wir für andere leben, desto zufriedener lebenwir”.Aufklärung und Kritik, № 1. pp. 80–82.Singer P. (1993) Practical ethics. Cambridge;New York: Cambridge University Press.Singer P. The God of Suffering? (2008) available at: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-god-of-suffering/russian(07.06.2022).Singer P. (2009) The life you can save: acting nowto end world poverty. New York: Random House.Cavalieri P. (ed) (1996) The great ape project:equality beyond humanity. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Vawter B. (1977) On Genesis: a new reading.London: G. Chapman.White L. (1967) “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”. Science,vol. 155 (3767). pp. 1203–1207.

Korostichenko Ekaterina

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The work is supported by a grant by the Ministry of Education and Science and the Council for Grants of the President of the Russian Federation for state support of young Russian scientists (MK-4357.2021.2, “On the way to dialogue: discussions about religion and the church in a secular public space”), 2021-2023.

Abstract: This article analyzes the proofs for the existence of God offered by Jonathan Edwards. The notes known as "Miscellanies" as well as several other documents are the subject of the analysis. Edwards admits that it is not easy to prove the existence of God because of the corruption of human nature. If we did not already know a theistic thesis, we could hardly discover it ourselves, with our own reason. But this thesis is already known, and our disposition toward order, our search for causes, and our thirst for justice point to a disposition to seek proofs for the existence of God. A study of the sources shows that Edwards used various strategies to justify the thesis of God's existence. I show that these strategies depend on different types of assumptions and produce different results. The cosmological argument from contingency is supported by the idealist argument, the Eleatic-style reasoning, and the ontological argument. The idealist argument is based on J. Locke's assumption that solidity is an intrinsic characteristic of physical things. Edwards shows then that physical things do not possess an independent existence, for solidity can be reduced to resistance, and resistance is always resistance to something. What might be called the Eleatic argument is to prove the existence of something eternal. It depends on the referential understanding of the term "nothingness." The ontological argument proves the existence of something necessary. It depends on the meaningfulness of the concept "there is non else besides him". The cosmological argument from contingency therefore can only justify the existence of something necessary, eternal, and immaterial. However, this is not sufficient to justify theism. The cosmological argument from causality is based on the self-evidentness of the law of causality and shows the existence of a necessary first cause. The various teleological arguments justify the claim that there is an intelligent creator. The analogy between the mind of the creator and the human mind serves Edwards to refute deism and justify the need for religious worship of God.

Edwards, proofs for the existence of God, theism, atheism, deism, American philosophy,

1. Anderson W. E. (1980) “Editor’s Introduction”, in Edwards J. Scientific and Philosophical Writings (The Works of Jonathan Edwards Series, Volume 13), New Haven and London, pp. 1–143.
2. Howard L. (1963) “The Mind” of Jonathan Edwards. A Reconstructed Text. Berkeley; Los Angeles.
3. Loginov E., Ιunusov A., Mertsalov A., Sattar A., Basov A., Chugainova Y. (2017) “Prolegomeny k probleme bozhestvennogo sushhestvovaniia” [Prolegomena to the problem of divine existence]. Finikovyi kompot, vol. 12, pp. 3–45 (in Russian).
4. Sokolov V. V. (1984) Evropej skaja filosofija XV–XVIII vv. [European Philosophy of the XV– XVIII Centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Wainwright W. (1995) Reason and the Heart. A Prologomenon to a Critique of Passional Reason. Ithaca; London.
6. Wainwright W. (2001) “Jonathan Edwards and the Hiddenness of God”, in P. Moser, D. Howard-Snyder (eds). New Essays on the Divine Hiddenness, Cambridge, pp. 98–119.

Loginov Evgeny

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The reported study was funded by RSF, project No. 22-28-00752 "The problem of the demonstration of God's existence in English and American theology of the XVIII and XIX centuries"

The article examines George Berkeley’s philosophy of the 1730s, a period that is seldom analyzed by commentators. The article puts forward two theses. First, in 'Alciphron’ (in particular, in dialogues IV and VII) Berkeley offers a new metaphysics in comparison with immaterialism, which can be described as descriptive, using P.F. Stroson's terminology. Second, in Berkeley's philosophical system, 'Alciphron’ should take the first place — the place of introduction. These theses are supported by analyzing the argument for the existence of the Christian God, presented in the fourth dialogue. The article shows that this argument, which is considered by most researchers only as plausible, can be strengthened by referring to the content of the seventh dialogue. The analysis of the seventh dialogue shows the importance of the so-called natural notions for Berkeley's argumentation in 'Alciphron’. Natural notions are accepted by us without any theoretical justification, they are rooted in human nature. Such natural notions include the concept of accountability. It is connected to many other concepts that characterize our attitude to the actions of free agents (for example, guilt and merit). Our reactions to human actions are similar to reactions to the language of the Creator revealed to us in nature (in the case of God our reaction is praise based on admiration for nature). Natural concepts underlie Berkeley's descriptive metaphysics, the main idea of which is that we cannot but consider phenomena as the result of the actions of free rational agents (finite and infinite). This is justified by a transcendental argument: the condition for the existence of society is belief in natural concepts; society exists and is a natural state for man; therefore, we believe in natural concepts. The use of transcendental argumentation supports the thesis the metaphysics of 'Alciphron' is descriptive.

George Berkeley, descriptive metaphysics, proof of the existence of God, physico-theological proof, transcendental argumentation, free will, accountability.

1. Berkeley G. (1978) Sochineniia [Works]. Moscow (Russian translation).
2. Berkeley G. (2016) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge and Other Writings. Moscow (Russian translation).
3. Berman D. (1993) “Introduction”, in D. Berman (ed.) George Berkeley: ‘Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher’ in Focus, New York, pp. 1–16.
4. Berman D. (1994) George Berkeley: Idealism and the Man. New York.
5. Besedin A. (2018) “George Berkeley’s Conception of Accountability”. Ruch Filozoficzny, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 115–133.
6. Breidert W. (2010) “Die Ambivalenz von Vorurteilen bei Berkeley”, in L. Jaff ro, G. Brykman,C. Schwartz (eds) Berkeley’s Alciphron: English Text and Essays in Interpretation, Hildesheim, pp. 287–295.
7. Degenaar M., Lokhorst G.-J. (2021) “Molyneux’s Problem”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/molyneux-problem/ (accessed 05.08.2022).
8. Gryaznov A. (1989) “K voprosu o ŸTranstsendental′noi argumentatsii″” [The issue of “Transcendental Argumentation]. Kantovskii sbornik, vol. 14, pp. 99–106 (in Russian).
9. Hooker M. (1982) “Berkeley’s Argument from Design”, in C.M. Turbayne (ed.) Berkeley: Critical and Interpretative Essays, Minneapolis, pp. 261–270.
10. Kline D. (1987) “Berkeley’s Divine Language Argument”, in E. Sosa (ed.) Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley, Dordrecht, pp. 129–142.
11. Luce A. A., Jessop T. E. (eds) (1948–57) Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne, in 9 vols, London.
12. Papineau David (2021) “Naturalism”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/naturalism/ (accessed 05.08.2022).
13. Pearce K. L. (2017) Language and the Structure of Berkeley’s World. New York.
14. Roberts J. R. (2007) A Metaphysics for the Mob. The Philosophy of George Berkeley. New York.
15. Strawson P. F. (2009) Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. Kaliningrad (Russian translation).
16. Szécsényi E. (2021) “The aesthetics of the invisible: George Berkeley and the modern aesthetics”. History of European Ideas, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01916599.2021.2009364 (accessed 05.08.2022).
17. Winkler K. (1989) Berkeley, an Interpretation. Oxford.

Besedin Artem

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation № 22-28-00752, https://rscf.ru/project/22-28-00752/.

As an integral part of Marxism-Leninism, scientific atheism was being protected fromcriticism with the help of an information blockade. Teaching its basics (from 1959) in higher education institutions formed such a theoretical attitude to religion, which practically excluded from the socio-cultural and scientific space any full-fledged knowledge about religion, religious institutions, religious figures and thinkers. But if atheism in the USSR was planted using the full power of ideological services and the entire system of higher education of the country, then resistance to it was an individual matter. And it remained so throughout the entire Soviet period. Realizing the negative attitude of society towards the anti-religious and anti-church campaigns, Soviet leaders stopped to destruct churches. Shortly after the fall of N. Khrushchev, the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPiK) was created, which began to be legal opposition to anti-church policy. Since the late 60s , religious samizdat has begun to develop. Our article is devoted to two special cases from the history of destruction in the scientific space of the information blockade on religious and ecclesiastical matters. This blockade breakthrough was carried out by employees of two major Soviet ideological institutes: the editorial office of the Philosophical Encyclopedia and the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences (INION of the USSR Academy of Sciences). Preparation of The Philosophical Encyclopedia started during the years of the anti-religious and anti-church campaign. It seemed that the situation itself excluded any resistance to the ideological policy of the CPSU. But it was in this edition that the young philosophers, led by Renata Galtseva, with their articles on Russian religious philosophy, dealt a tangible blow to the monopoly of scientific atheism. The second blow was inflicted by INION employees with their abstract collections. They managed to show what role religion and churches have played and continue to play in people's lives, in socialist countries including. The author was a contemporary, and in some cases a participant in the events described in the article.

scientific atheism, information blockade, individual resistance, Philosophical Encyclopedia, Institute of Scientific Information, abstract collections, "samizdat", religious revival.s

1. Alekseev V. (1992) “Shturm nebes” otmeniaetsia? Kriticheskie ocherki po istorii bor′by s religiei v SSSR [“The assault on heaven is cancelled?” Critical essays on the history of fight against religion in the USSR]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Alekseeva L. (1992) Istoriia inakomysliia v SSSR. Noweishyi period [The history of dissent in the USSR. The current period]. Vilnius; Moscow (in Russian).
3. Berger J. (2017) “INION kak seredina zhizni” [INION as a midlife], in Belen′kii I. (ed.) FBONINION: Vospominaniia i portrety [FBON-INION: Memoirs and Portraits], available at http://heritage.inion.ru/storage/pdf/FBON-INION_Vypusk_2.pdf (accessed 23.08.2018; in Russian).
4. Filippov B. (ed.) (1985) Problemy molodezhy v evropeiskikh sotsialisticheskikh stranakh [Problems of the youth in European Socialist countries]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Filippov B. (1989) Ioann Pavel II. Politicheskii portret [John Paul II. Political portrait]. Nauka i religia, vol. 2, pp. 12–20 (in Russian).
6. Filippov B. (ed.) (1981) Tserkov′ v sotsialisticheskikh stranakh [Church in Socialist countries]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Filippov B. (ed.) (1991) Papstvo v sovremennom mire [Papacy in contemporary world]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Filippov B., Orlov B. (eds) (1987) Obshchestvenno-politicheskie vzgliady Ioanna Pavla II [Social and political views of John Paul II]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Galtseva R., Filippov B. (eds) (1988) Problemy pravoslaviia v zarubezhnykh issledovaniiakh [Problems of Orthodoxy in foreign studies]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Kanterov I. (1979) Klerikal′nyi antikommunizm [Clerical anticommunism]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Kariakin Y., Plimak Y. (1960) “Berdiaev N. A.”, in Filosofskaia entsyklopediia [Encyclopaedia of philosophy], vol. 1, p. 148 (in Russian).
12. Kimilev Yu. (ed.) (1983) Religiia i politika [Religion and politics]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Krupinin A. (2009) “Interv′iu s vdovoi akademika Sergeia Sergeevicha Averintseva — Natal′ei P. Averintsevoi” [Interview with N. Averintseva, widow of Sergey Averintsev], in Vospominaniia ob Averintseve [Memories about Averintsev], available at https://bookscafe.net/book/averincev_sergey-vospominaniya_ob_averinceve_sbornik-183948.html (accessed 07.10.2020; in Russian).
14. Latynina A. (2012) “Dar very i dar fi losofskogo voproshaniia” [Gift of faith and gift of philosophical questioning]. Znamia, vol. 10, pp. 184–190 (in Russian).
15. (1981) O religii i cerkvi. Sb. vyskazyvanij klassikov marksizma-leninizma, dokumentov KPSS i Sov. gosudarstva [On Religion and Church. Collection of Quotes from Classics of Marxism- Leninism, Documents of CPSU and Soviet State]. Мoscow (in Russian).
16. Plugin V. (1974) Mirovozzrenie Andreia Rubleva (Nekotorye problemy). Drevnerusskaia zhyvopis′ kak istoricheskii istochnik [Andrei Rublev’s worldview (several issues). Old Russian paintings as a historical source]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Razumovich N., Salmin A. (eds) (1983) Katolitsizm i politika [Catholicism and politics]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Smirnov M. (2018) “Nauchnyi ateizm v sovetskom vysshem obrazovanii: periodizatsiia i soderzhanie” [Scientific atheism in Soviet higher education]. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni A. S. Pushkina, vol. 3, pp. 144–171 (in Russian).
19. Smolkin V. (2021) A Sacred Space Is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism. Moscow (Russian translation).
20. Staszewski M. (1976) Państwo a związki wyznaniowe w europejskich krajach socjalistycznych [State and religious unions in European Socialist countries]. Warsaw.
21. Staszewski M. (1979) Socialisticheskoe gosudarstwo i religioznye ob′edineniia. Na materialakh evropeiskikh sotsialisticheskikh stran [Socialist state and religious unions. On the material of European Socialist countries]. Moscow (Russian translation).

Filippov Boris

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

In memory of Renata Galtseva

Abstract: The article presents the author’s attempt to apply the ideas of Lev S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology to the analysis of the nature of religious consciousness. Cultural-historical psychology is offered as an adequate alternative to such fields as cognitive religious studies and evolutionary psychology of religion, because it does not ignore and does not reduce the social and cultural determinants of mental development. Based on the ideas of Lev S. Vygotsky and his studies of magical thinking and semiotic mediation of mental functions, the author from the psychological point of view considers religion as a special system of historically formed cultural (semiotic) means that contribute to mastering one’s own mental functions and behavior. It is suggested that these semiotic tools be referred to as religious or supernatural mental tools. The following groups of these tools are distinguished: 1) religious objects (natural or artificial); 2) religious actions (rituals); 3) religious images (objectified or subjective); 4) religious meanings (concepts). The nature of religious consciousness viewed through the lens of cultural-historical psychology by Lev S. Vygotsky is revealed by the author in a number of provisions: religious consciousness is a mental functional system resulting from the process of assimilation, mainly verbal semiotic means of a particular religious tradition; religious consciousness is constituted as dynamic systems of meaning that integrate the believer’s intellectual and affective processes; religious consciousness is social in origin and is formed in activity; semiotic mediation of mental functions and human behavior is the mechanism to form religious consciousness. Further work on the application of Lev S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology to the analysis of religious consciousness must include the development of experimental research methodology, the advancement of experimental hypotheses, and the consideration from the perspective of this approach of explanatory models and facts obtained in other approaches – cognitive religious studies and evolutionary psychology of religion.

religious consciousness, cultural-historical psychology, Vygotsky, mental tools, psychology of religion, cognitive studies of religion, evolutionary psychology of religion

1. Akopov G. (2010) Psikhologiia soznaniia: voprosy metodologii, teorii i prikladnykh issledovanii [Psychology of consciousness: issues in methodology, theory and applied research]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Atran S. (2002) In Gods We Trust. The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. New York.
3. Barrett J. L. (2011) “Cognitive Science of Religion: Looking Back, Looking Forward”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 229–239.
4. Belzen J. (2019) “What, Why and How? Meta-refl ections on Cultural Psychological Approaches to the Scientific Study of Phenomena Called Religious”. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 158–187.
5. Belzen J. A. (1997) “The Historicocultural Approach in the Psychology of Religion: Perspectives for Interdisciplinary Research”. Journal for the Scientifi c Study of Religion, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 358–371.
6. Belzen J. A. (2010) Towards Cultural Psychology of Religion: Principles, Approaches, Applications. Dordrecht.
7. Boyer P. (2017) Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. Moscow (Russian translation).
8. Chuprikova N. (1999) “Mozg, psikhika, soznanie” [Brain, mind, consciousness]. Mir Psikhologii, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 84–97 (in Russian).
9. Davis K. (1940) “Extreme Social Isolation of a Child”. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 45, pp. 554–565.
10. Ferrari M., Robinson D. K., Yasnitsky A. (2010) “Wundt, Vygotsky and Bandura: A Cultural- Historical Science of Consciousness in Three Acts”. History of the Human Sciences, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 95–118.
11. Freud S. (2020) Totem und Tabu. Moscow (Russian translation).
12. Galperin P. (1966) “Psikhologiia myshleniia i uchenie o poetapnom formirovanii umstvennykhdeistvii” [The psychology of thinking and the doctrine of stage-by-stage formation of mental actions], in E. Shorokhova (ed.) Issledovaniia myshleniia v sovremennoi psikhologii [Research on thinking in modern psychology]. Moscow, pp. 259–276 (in Russian).
13. Gesell A. (1941) Wolf Child and Human Child. The Life History of Kamala, the Wolf Girl. London.
14. Keiler P. (2012) “ŸKul′turno-istoricheskaia teoriia″ i Ÿkul′turno-istoricheskaia shkola″: ot mifa (obratno) k real′nosti” [“Cultural-historical theory” and “Cultural-historical school”: From myth (back) to reality]. Dubna Psychological Journal, no. 1, pp. 34–46 (in Russian).
15. Leontiev A. (1976) Problemy razvitiia psikhiki [Problems of mental development]. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Lewin K. (1931) “Der Übergang von der aristotelischen zur galileischen Denkweise in Biologie und Psychologie”. Erkenntnis, vol. 1, pp. 421–466.
17. Malevich T. (2016) “Evoliutsionnoe znachenie religii: mezhdu adaptatsiei i pobochnym produktom” [Evolutionary role of religion: Between adaptation and by-product]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta. Seria I: Bogoslovie. Filosofia. Religiovedenie, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 84–104 (in Russian).
18. Malevich T., Folieva T. (2014) “ŸEstestvennost′″ religii i Ÿestestvennaia religiia″ v kognitivnom religiovedenii” [“Naturality” of religion and “natural religion” in cognitive religious studies]. Filosofia i kultura, no. 11, pp. 1605–1617 (in Russian).
19. Markov A. (2009) “Religiia: poleznaia adaptatsiia, pobochnyi produkt evoliutsii ili “virus mozga”?” [Religion: a useful adaptation, a by-product of evolution or a “brain virus”?]. Istoricheskaia psikhologia i sotsiologia istorii, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 45–56 (in Russian).
20. Mikhelson O. (2013) “Podkhody k izucheniiu religii v sovremennoi evoliutsionnoi psikhologii” [Approaches to the study of religion in modern evolutionary psychology]. Gosudarstvo, Religiia, Tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 63 –76 (in Russian).
21. Norenzayan A., Shariff A. F. (2008) “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality”. Science, vol. 322, pp. 58–62.
22. Popp-Baier U. (1997) “Psychology of Religion as Hermeneutical Cultural Analysis — Some Reflections with Reference to Cliff ord Geertz”, in J. A. Belzen (ed.) Hermeneutical Approaches in Psychology of Religion, Amsterdam, pp. 195–212.
23. Pyysiäinen I. (2013) “After Religion: Cognitive Science and the Study of Human Behavior”. Religiovedcheskie issledovania, vol. 78, pp. 126–137 (Russian translation).
24. Rossano M. J. (2006) “The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion”. Review of General Psychology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 346–364.
25. Rubinstein S. (2007) Osnovy obshchei psikhologii [Basics of general psychology]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
26. Shakhnovich M. (2013) “Kognitivnaia nauka i issledovaniia religii” [Cognitive science and the study of religion]. Gosudarstvo, Religiia, Tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 32–62 (in Russian).
27. Subbotsky E. (2015) “Nevidimaia realnost′: soznanie v zerkale magicheskogo myshleniia” [The invisible reality: consciousness in the mirror of magical thinking]. Psikholog, no. 3, pp. 33–67 (in Russian).
28. Vygotsky L. (2000) Psikhologiia [Psychology]. Moscow (in Russian).
29. Vygotsky L. (2005) Psikhologiia razvitiia cheloveka [The psychology of human development]. Moscow (in Russian).
30. Vygotsky L., Luria A. (1993) Etiudy po istorii povedeniia: Obez′iana. Primitiv. Rebenok [Essays on the history of behaviour: Monkey. Primitiveness. Child]. Moscow (in Russian).
31. Yasnitsky A. (2012) “Revisionist Revolution in Vygotskian Science: Toward Cultural-Historical Gestalt Psychology”. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 3–15.
32. Zavershneva E. (2007) “ŸPut′ k svobode″ (k publikatsii materialov iz semeinogo arkhiva L. S. Vygotskogo)” [“The road to freedom” (towards the publication of materials from the family archive of L.S. Vygotsky)]. Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 67–90 (in Russian).
33. Zavershneva E. (2014) “The Problem of Consciousness in Vygotsky’s Cultural-Historical Psychology”, in Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-Historical Psychology, Cambridge, pp. 63–97.
34. Zinchenko P. (1961) Neproizvol′noe zapominanie [Involuntary memorisation]. Moscow (in Russian).
35. Zittoun T. (2019) “Sociocultural Psychological Approach to Religion”. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 107–125.

Dvoinin Alexey

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The research was carried out with a financial support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Project “New tendencies of the humanities and social sciences development in the context of digitalization and new social problems and threats: interdisciplinary approach”, Agreement № 075-15-2020-798).