So, I came to the academy with simple faith, but with a rational mind, to which everything needs to be "proved". But gradually, and even quite quickly, this heavy burden of rationalism, of false faith in the power of the mind, began to fall from my spiritual shoulders... I have freed myself from this malignant oppression... I saw the relative value of all "knowledge" in general, and I clearly saw the complete inadequacy of the mind in matters of faith. Little by little, the old fear of lack of proof disappeared from me... Then I even stopped wanting proofs from the mind, as if they were weak. Then I saw other ways of spiritual knowledge, not rational... And I liked them incomparably more than the previous "proofs"... And then I even disliked proofs, but fell in love with "secrets", which I had previously feared cowardly and completely falsely, even from a rational point of view... And so I returned—what a whirlwind! — to the same "simple faith" by which he has always lived, with which he came to the Academy. But now this "simplicity" was guarded not only by heart and tradition, but by the very mind that had previously seemed to be the enemy of simplicity. "Knowledge" helped "faith"; Thus came and passed the second stage of my faith, the so-called "conscious," i.e., when faith passed through the furnace of the intellect, "knowledge," critical epistemology (the doctrine of the ways of knowing). At that time we spoke of a period of faith in which we believe "by conviction," i.e., as if on the basis of reason. In essence, such a definition is completely incorrect: for faith (as we shall see) still remained outside and above reason, but since a rational examination of the abilities of the mind itself showed its inadequacy in the spheres of faith, and thereby removed it from the path of faith, freed it from the imaginary bonds of the mind, to that extent it can be said that an important appendage was added to faith: the elimination of the mind by the mind... In the words of one of the scholars and profound bishops, science has eliminated itself; The mind has eaten itself, as it were. Faith was freed... And only then did the same mind begin to help faith a little: but not by "proving" it, but by bringing up some "auxiliary" supports. Placed within legal limits, the mind has already become a conscientious and humble assistant of faith, as the lower organ for the higher (spirit). Formerly he was considered a master, now he has become a servant. And the well-known expression of scholastic Western theology, that "philosophy is the handmaiden (ancilla) of theology," is partly true: but not to the extent of the scholastic valuation of the mind. Scholasticism believed and thought that everything could be explained by the mind, and tried to do so; but I saw the complete lie of such a high appreciation of intelligence; Nevertheless, he saw a partial benefit of philosophy, namely in the preparation of the soul for faith, in the removal of rational obstacles to it, and then in some subsequent help. The difference is great.How all this happened in my soul – I will write about this in the next part of the notes. And if the first period can be called a "childish" faith, then the next one – the second – I will call conditionally "reasonable" faith. And then there will be the third stage of it. But there is a time for everything... The elder of the Skete of St. John the Baptist on Valaam, Fr. Nikita, and the elder of the Gethsemane Skete of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Fr. Isidore, predicted to Vladyka Benjamin his future path in life (monasticism and episcopacy), when he, as a student of the Theological Academy, visited these righteous men. (See more about them in the books of Vladyka Veniamin "God's People" and "Notes of a Bishop". A story about this is given by Metropolitan Veniamin in Part VI of this book ("Miracles of God"), as well as in his "Notes of a Bishop" – Compilation. ^ The book of the historian Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin (1800-1875) "A Simple Speech about Intricate Things". – Moscow, 1873 – Compilation. ^ The book of Archpriest, Master of Theology Grigory Mikhailovich Dyachenko "From the Realm of the Mysterious. A simple speech about the existence and properties of the human soul as a god-like spiritual entity. With the application of stories and reflections leading to the recognition of the spiritual world in general." In 3 ch. Moscow, 1900. And an addendum to the book — "From the Realm of the Mysterious. Spiritual world. Stories and Reflections Leading to the Recognition of the Existence of the Spiritual World" (Moscow, 1900) – Ed. ^ The day of St. Alypius the Stylite († 640) is celebrated according to the new style on December 9 – Ed. ^ The Philokalia is a collection of works of the Holy Fathers, mainly of ascetic content: St. John of the Ladder, St. John of the Ladder. St. Nilus of Sinai, St. Abba Dorotheus, Sts. Barsanuphius and John, St. Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, St. John Cassian and other ascetics – Comp. ^ Irmos (bundle) is a hymn that is part of the canon, a work performed at matins and during some other services. The canon consists of nine parts — songs. The irmos "binds" the songs with each other – Comp. ^ The dates of the holidays are given according to the old style – Compilation. ^

Fear of Intelligence

I will begin with the memory that we, intelligent people, were afraid of the mind in the matter of faith. And observing not only myself, but also other people – even to this day – I see how many fairly educated people are infected with this false fear even now! I will say more: theological science itself is still in the thrall of the mind, of "knowledge," of philosophy, and of philosophy, reverencing not it, but itself as a "handmaiden." Theology was introduced into one of the types of philosophy. And all our theologians with extraordinary (and not at all praiseworthy) zeal try to put on the clothes of philosophy. Until the seal is applied: "this is clever," and therefore "permitted by the censorship," our learned theologians still feel uncomfortable, ashamed of their "faith"... If science itself has proved to be so timid before the "mind," then what can we say about ordinary average educated people who are unable to understand the depths of the epistemology of faith and so-called "knowledge"? Where can an ordinary intellectual, who is not sufficiently experienced in religious life and superficially educated philosophically, understand the relationship between faith and knowledge, if even theologians do not all accept this, but follow the path of revaluation of the mind trodden by scholasticism? More than once I have heard the following judgment about him: he is great and brilliant as a writer, but not at all profound as a thinker. And this is quite true: as a philosopher he did not rise above the mediocre level of the average Russian intellectual. His attitude to the supernatural world, in particular to all that is miraculous in the history of the Gospel, is so stereotyped and superficial that it does not differ in any way from the views of some nihilist teacher: he did not overcome the rationalism of his epoch, he placed reason above faith, he subordinated to it, to his judgment, questions that were completely not subject to him — as we will easily see now. contributing to the destruction of faith by imaginary "reasonable" objections. True, he did not become a pure atheist, as even more frivolous intellectuals did; he developed his own very confused religious outlook — without a personal God; And which one? This is extremely unclear. He still recognized the greatness of Christ, but only as a moralist, and not as the Son of God; he denied and even blasphemed the Church (all of them), and twice he sought to go to the Optina Monastery to the "elders" [1], and in the last days of his life he circled around these monastery walls, visited his sister, a nun of the Shamordin Convent, Maria Nikolaevna... And he died in bewilderment and anguish: "And the peasants, the peasants are dying...", he shouted, recalling the peaceful death of the Orthodox peasants... "And that's it?! And nothing more?" he asked himself in front of others.Yes, Tolstoy ended his life bankrupt. And others rely on it completely incorrectly. One of his friends once asked Chekhov: "What do you think about faith?" - Chekhov replied skeptically: "Uh! If Tolstoy himself broke his neck here, then where can we, little people, decide anything?" And indeed, he did not solve anything to the end. But to his credit it must be said that he did not become an atheist either; But such was this infected age that an intelligent, so-called educated, intelligent person of our time was not supposed to believe: faith was, according to the general current opinion, incompatible with reason. If, however, other ideas that came from philosophical circles sometimes made their way into this darkness of the intelligentsia—that faith is not the enemy of reason, but, on the contrary, that the road is completely open to the intelligent man for faith, the purest faith, and not the curtailed one—then such ideas did not find wide acceptance, but seemed to be some dark ghosts of the "Middle Ages," of the superstitious past, the unlived prejudices of idiots, almost a sign of political fanaticism. A liberal man, this supposedly really intelligent European, had to be either an atheist nihilist, or at best he could be a skeptic, an agnostic who stopped between faith and unbelief. And this state of mind passed into the post-revolutionary period. The correspondence of the population carried out by the Soviet authorities several years ago [2] testifies to the fact that, along with open atheists, the type of "agnostic" has also been preserved. When census takers, not always sufficiently educated, asked for an answer to the question of whether a citizen believed, they sometimes, mainly from more qualified intellectuals, received the statement: "I am an agnostic." And the perplexed census takers did not know where to place such a terrible citizen, among the believers or non-believers? There were cases when one of these scribes advised his friend: "Write it to the faithful." "No, that's not true," protested the agnostic. "I am not a believer." "So what? Are you, then, an unbeliever?" — "No, and I am not an unbeliever: I am an agnostic, I told you..." Illiterate copyists were completely lost in front of such a sophisticated citizen-comrade.Exactly the same thing I had to hear personally from American intellectuals. A student at Harvard University, a very sympathetic person by heart and quite widely educated, in response to my question about faith, immediately declared that he was an agnostic... And his friend, with whom he was staying, was a priest, and no less educated. On another occasion I asked one of the noble women, who was a member of the so-called Society of "Christian Knowledge," whether she believed in Christ as the Son of God. She replied with embarrassment: "I don't know"... So she remained perplexed. Many times I have had to convince myself that, apparently, this vague attitude to faith is widespread in American society: "I don't know." It cannot even be called "philosophical agnosticism" proper: it is practical indifference, the half-asleep state of people who have not thought deeply and have not fully solved anything. The spirit of rationalism, of idolatry before reason, knowledge, and science, has penetrated to such an extent into all the cracks of our age that we, even in spite of our personal inclinations, have been infected with it: everything true must be intelligent, i.e., justified from the mind, "proven." And since it had been decided beforehand by "someone" that faith is not reasonable, that faith is not justified by reason, another law inevitably followed from this: an intelligent person must be an unbeliever! Although our spirit instinctively protested against such an abominable prejudice, and we seminarians even liked to dispute it, I confess that in the depths of my soul I was still tormented by this hidden fear: "It is not in the nature of an intelligent person to believe!" continued to believe as before, simply, with a childlike faith... And he calmed down on it... I also remember the experience of a theological school, when I was afraid to believe the Psalmist that only the "fools," not the wise, say, "In their hearts, there is no God." I wanted to believe this, but I was afraid: is it so? And in the seminary, too, the theological sciences, following the Psalmist, in essence tried to prove the same thing about the reasonableness of faith and the folly of unbelief, but the poison of the rational age, the worship of the mind, the recognition of its superiority over faith, prevented us from believing... And this is not accidental, and not from bad teachers, but from the most rational system of study. Namely. As I have already said, our theological scholarship and the spirit of modern representatives – authors and teachers – rested on the principle: everything must be proved! And they tried to prove it. But it was with this warning—everything is reasonable, everything must be understood—that instilled in us a terrible fear of mind control. And since it was quite easy to see that some (for the time being, I will say at least this: some) truths of faith were inexplicable by the mind, or, as they were confused then, "contradicted" the mind, our faith in the wisdom of the dogmas of faith was easily undermined. Indeed. God is one, but in three persons... Three and one... What mind can understand this? And if it is not clear, then according to the intellectual-seminary catechism, it is also incorrect or, in any case, doubtful... you still need to "prove" it... And it is impossible to prove... And we fell into a vicious vicious circle of bewilderment. But faith in the mind remained unshakable even then. This idol stood firm. No one dared to throw it down, as St. Vladimir did with the pagan Perun, throwing him into the Dnieper to the horror of the simpletons, our ancestors.True, in some small doses we were taught – mainly in theology and dogmatics – that the truths of faith are mysterious in their essence and are not subject to rational explanation; but these doses were suppressed by such a weight of rationalism, faith in the power and superiority of the mind, that they very soon dissolved in idolatry before "science", knowledge, reason; And we were afraid to admit to ourselves that we believe and can believe, we have the right to believe in mysteries inexplicable by the mind... The fear of "mysteries" – this rationalistic poison of all intellectuals, from the seminarian to Tolstoy – was inherent in me for a very long time, until I became convinced by experience, and not by science, of its enormous falsehood and danger. And I affirm that never in the seminary, and perhaps even in the academy, did I have to hear not only solid judgments, but even a slight warning or suggestion that an intelligent person need not be afraid of mysteries and unknowability in general, and in faith in particular. And yet, if this were explained to us, and inculcated, and proved, which was not difficult at all, then the free road to faith would be dissolved for us... Alas! On the contrary, we were brought up in the view: "Everything is understandable"... And our sciences, having said a few words about mystery, immediately, as if afraid of it, shunned in the opposite direction, and thousands of words flew into our heads and hearts — with the opposite purpose: "to prove." The antidote was suppressed by poison... And later, when all the falsity of rationalism was already revealed to me, I could not help but see how the spirit of the mind prevailed in the lectures of the professors of the Academy and in the books... I am not afraid to say now that it was an evil spirit, a demonic spirit, a diabolical delusion – in the true sense of these words. This spirit contradicted the Gospel, the Epistles, the epistemology of the Holy Fathers, and in general the essence of the truths of the faith; but this poison has infected our educated society extremely deeply, preventing us from believing simply or even destroying faith, as was the case with the unfortunate Tolstoy and millions of intellectuals. But at the same time, and even more firmly, I carried through the seminary the simple faith that I had had since childhood: it was in my heart and in my life, and rationalism was only in my head, and even then more like a temptation repugnant to my soul. However, it bothered me like a tooth constantly aching with pain: and I did not know how to pull it out; and the doctors, my teachers, did not teach me this art. And only the childish faith directly overcame this morbid poison, drowned it out, until at last I myself coped with this delusion... And moreover, he coped with the same path of mind as he was poisoned, according to the proverb: "Knock out a wedge with a wedge", "The more you hurt, the more you are treated". In his book "God's People" (chapter "Optina"), Metropolitan Veniamin wrote the story of one of the inhabitants of the Optina Hermitage (Fr. Joel, who witnessed Leo Tolstoy's visit to St. Ambrose of Optina († 1892): "Father Joel, an old monk, told me a small episode from the life of Leo Tolstoy, who was at the skete. He spoke with Fr. Ambrose for a long time. And when he left him, his face was frowning. The elder followed him. The monks, knowing that Father Ambrose had a famous writer, gathered near the door of the shack. When Tolstoy went to the gates of the skete, the elder said firmly, pointing to him: "He will never turn to Christ! Gordy-ynya!" – Ed. ^ A census was conducted in late 1936 and early 1937. The respondents had to answer, among other questions proposed to them, the question of belonging to a religion. The census was declared "wrecking", its results were not published. He mentions it in his book "I believe..." writer L. Panteleev (Panteleev L. I believe...: Poslednie povesti. L., 1991. S. 63 — 65). – Ed. ^

The Process of Overcoming Glamour

This is how it happened, as far as I remember in essential features. Of course, the process of the struggle between faith and reason went on in my soul gradually and in many layers, along different paths. And the plant reveals its life imperceptibly; And it needs the warmth of the sun, and the juices of the earth, and the exchange of air, and moisture. And you don't see how the flowers have already appeared overnight, and there is not far from fruit. This, undoubtedly, was the case with my soul: it grew gradually and imperceptibly, using various methods of its own satisfaction and comfort. And now I can write down the former complex process in a simplified way, in a few clearly concentrated points. However, in order to clarify the question of the growth and process of faith, these points are precisely needed as the main milestones of the path. Now the following more important methods are outlined in my consciousness, which helped to overcome the rationalistic poison: rational, or philosophical, then experienced, or heart, or psychological, and, finally, grace-filled, mysterious, mystical. I will write about them here.This process took place mainly in my own soul. And this is always especially important. Then everything we acquire is clear, convincing, and lasting. Your own experience is the best teacher. And when we receive knowledge only from others, from outside, then it is easily forgotten or evaporated, having no deep roots in ourselves. And what has passed through the crucible of our soul, then seems so simple and obvious to us that it even seems strange: how can others not see it? I will say even more: now I think that my thoughts expounded here seem to me so simple and elementary that it is even shameful to prove them to thinking people. After all, all this is so clear and self-evident. But at one time these thoughts were like a "revelation" for me, how could I not have seen it before?! Therefore, I venture to assume that it is likely that for others, too, my mental process, if it does not seem to be a revelation, will nevertheless confirm or clarify their own experiences; And maybe it will be interesting news for them... After all, our soul is generally the same, and therefore the experiences are similar. But he was undoubtedly helped by the experiences of other people before me: I mean mainly the works of writers, both ancient and modern. But these books only helped or went towards the process that was in my soul.Here I can remember with the greatest gratitude with a kind word the book of Vl. A. Kozhevnikov (may he rest in peace!) on the relationship between faith and knowledge. In it, he examines the main objections of "knowledge" to faith. The book is quite small, up to 100 pages, published by Rel.-phil. library (M. A. Novoselova). It represents, it seems, a series of lectures given by Vladimir Alexandrovich in a circle of Moscow youth. And I would recommend that anyone interested in these questions not only read it, but simply study it, study it in the most thorough way: then the reader will be relieved of the need to study multi-volume philosophies.Through him, I learned a number of other books in the same direction.Reading the Holy Fathers, which I began to study from the first year of the Academy, especially participating in the student "Zlatoust" circle [1], also brought me great benefit. True, I do not remember any of the outstanding special treatises on the question of the relationship between faith and knowledge. But isolated passages, brief sayings, deep thoughts accidentally dropped in passing sometimes gave a strong impetus to my mind, enriching and strengthening it and explaining the nature of faith and knowledge. Remembering now the works of the Holy Fathers, I can mention the names of St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Isaac the Syrian, St. John of Damascus, the Holy Fathers of the Philokalia, St. Simeon Nov. Theologian, Chrysostom, from whom I found the most material on the questions that interested me. It would be extremely important to collect in a system their views on belief and unbelief. I will now recall – not having at hand their works – two or three outstanding sayings (even if not literally). Anthony the Great said: unbelief is frivolous audacity. St. John Chrysostom: Faith is the lot of grateful souls. Damascene: God is above all concept and all being, and therefore is completely incomprehensible. St. Gregory the Theologian: sometimes everything is so clear about God; and another time you fall into the abyss of ignorance. Consequently, the states of unbelief and lack of faith were familiar even to the saints. Chrysostom: If you do not understand something, then accept it by simple faith; Ah, how beautifully the Holy Fathers speak! And how nice it is even just to rewrite their golden words. It is known that many amateurs have long collected their emerald sayings.I will write a few more excerpts from the book of the Holy Fathers.His own: "If it is impossible to explain the method of conception by natural action, then how can it be explained when the Spirit worked miracles?.. Let those who seek to comprehend a supernatural birth be ashamed.. Nor do you think that you have learned all things when you hear that Christ was born of the Spirit.'" Christ came from us, from our composition, from the Virgin's womb, but how? "You can't see it." And so: Thou shalt not seek either; but believe what is revealed; and do not try to comprehend what is silent.'" Do not investigate: how is it? Where God wills, there the order of nature is conquered." Basil the Great: "Let you not have an excessive desire for reflection"... "I confess the inaccessibility to thought and the inexpressibility to human words of the image of the Divine Nativity." "Let superfluous questions be silent in the Church of God; let faith be glorified; let it not be tested by wisdom." Theodotus, bishop. Ancyra: "I tell you a miracle: give up your studies!" "The natural man, clinging to earthly things and testing everything with the thoughts of the mind, considers the miracles of God to be madness; because they are inexplicable according to the laws of nature." "Signs and wonders are received by the faith of God, and not tested by the mind." "If thou wilt know this (incarnation), know that thou hast been made; (a) How he was made, this is known only by the Miracle Worker." "The divine nature is inaccessible to the concept of the human mind; it is higher than what is comprehended by our senses. And so: we have no knowledge of God, because of the superiority of His nature." Demetrius of Rostov: "The mysteries of God, the more we talk about them, the more hidden and incomprehensible they are." Scripture, in the Word of God. But I did not gain this then. Scripture is so sure of the existence of God that it does not even raise such questions. And I, too, with my lack of faith in the Word of God in the seminary, did not even want to look for answers there... And only later did I see here the main revelations about faith and unbelief. For example, the Lord says to the Jews: "Search the Scriptures, for you think by them to have eternal life; but they bear witness to Me. But you will not come to Me (author's italics – Ed.) that you may have life" (John 5:39-40)." How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and do not seek the glory that is from the One God?" (v. 44). There is no humility." Why do you not understand My speech? For you cannot hear My words." And why is that? Because "your father is the devil, and you will fulfill the lusts of your father" (John 8:43-44); and "he is a liar" and "a murderer" (44). Unbelief is from the devil." Whoever is of God (emphasis added. – Ed.) hears the words of God... you are not of God" (47). Faith is from God." Whoever wants to do His (the Father's) will know about this teaching, whether it is from God..." (John 7:17). Experience shows the truth of faith." But you do not believe, for you are not of my sheep"; and "My sheep obey My voice" (John 10:26-27). Unbelievers are strangers in spirit to Christ God. On the contrary, believers are akin to Him, like children, like their parents." And wisdom (truth) is justified by its children" (Matt. 11:19), i.e. by those who are kindred to it in spirit. Even the ancients said: like is known by like. The truth about God is revealed by Christ Himself. The True Word of God: "... No one knows the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son wants to reveal Him" (Matt. 11:27).But if people do not accept His revelations, it is because of their own hardness and stubbornness: "they could not believe," because they themselves blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts (John 12:39-40). the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16, 17). He will "teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (v. 26); He will "guide you into all truth" (16:13)." "Stiff-necked," says Stephen to his fellow Jews, "ye always resist the Holy Spirit, both your fathers and you" (Acts 7:51). "And to this day they persist." We are from God; he who knows God hears us; he who is not of God heareth not us" (1 John 4:6). — How many times has it been pointed out that faith is from God: in whom God is, in him will be faith. And vice versa. Consequently, it is not at all a matter of the mind, not of knowledge, but of the spirit, of the heart, and even more deeply: in God, who lives in the heart and reveals Himself to it. And in whom does God dwell? "He who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him" (1 John 3:24). for God is love" (1 John 4:8); "... if we love one another, then God dwells in us..." (1 John 4:12)." We know also that the Son of God came and gave us (light and) understanding, that we might know (God) the true..." (1 John 5:20). Christ is the foundation of faith.Our faith is "not on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:5). "But to us God has revealed it by His Spirit" (2:10)." Whoever thinks that he knows anything knows nothing as he ought to know" (1 Corinthians 8:2). "But whoever loves God has been given knowledge from him" (v. 3). However, all of it teaches faith. But not in a philosophical way, but in incomparably more different ways: by direct revelation about the manifestations of another world, by facts, and so on. We will talk about this later; And now let's talk about faith and the attitude of knowledge and science to it... This is what I come to. The organizer and soul of the "Zlatoust" circle was Bishop (then Archimandrite) Theophan (Bystrov), who studied the works of the Holy Fathers with students "beyond the program." The circle received its name because students began their acquaintance with the works of the Holy Fathers with the works of St. John Chrysostom. – Ed. ^

Do scientists believe?

In wide circles of intellectual society, as is well known, a terrible prejudice has been established that science is incompatible with faith; And it must be said that in fact there was a reason for this: our comparatively educated classes in the last century have undoubtedly shown a great inclination to unbelief. Unbelief has become almost a sign of a "thinking" person. All of us Russians know this from our school experience, from our outstanding writers, and simply from the life of the intelligentsia. Faith left the intelligentsia.But here is the question: why? Usually it is answered that formerly people were "ignorant", unenlightened, blindly believed everything, and now they seem to have become clever and see that all this is only fiction necessary to deceive simple-minded people. The reason for the disbelief of our educated classes is different: not in science, but in their will; not in the mind, but in the heart. And that this is so is quite easy to prove, although the unbeliever will always resist self-evident proofs. But we are not writing for "stiff-necked" stubborns, but for seekers of truth. If, indeed, learning and faith were incompatible in their essence, then no scientist would be a believer. And vice versa: if at least some truly learned people still remain believers, then it is obvious that science and faith are compatible in themselves. If, therefore, there are learned unbelievers and learned believers, intelligent atheists and clever Christians, then it is quite clear from this that the cause of faith and unbelief is not in the mind or lack of mind, but in something else. There are many such collections abroad, in foreign languages; they also appeared in Russia, in view of the growing atheism of the intelligentsia. I know of a later collection by the English investigator of this subject, Tabrum, precisely on the question of whether modern scholars believe. First, I will tell you about foreigners. In order not to refer to other similar sources, I will dwell on it, especially since I was lucky enough to get hold of this book recently from Russia... This is what this interesting and serious work of our contemporary gives us. It turns out that out of 100 modern scientists requested, only about 10% declared themselves non-believers; and the remaining 90% openly recognized themselves as religious people. True, their answers were different, according to their religions; but all of them declared their faith in God.It makes no sense to mention their individual names, because we, Russians, do not know them, except, perhaps, with the exception of a few of our scientists. I will only remind you of the most learned Oliver Lodge. But the Russian people have not even heard this name; but every educated person knows the name of Charles Darwin. His name is not mentioned in Tabrum; Because he belongs to an older generation. But this is not the point, but the fact that his name was and is still being abused: he is presented as a pure materialist and an opponent of religion. Judging by his earlier statements, Darwin was not a pure atheist, but recognized some creative force that created the first types of organisms. And even if he later inclined to unbelief, it is still impossible to recognize him as an unbeliever. And our materialists are already correcting him, now speaking of "neo-Darwinism," now referring to his letter to K. Marx, that "he consciously avoided talking about religion and limited himself to the field of science." What of this? There have always been atheists. This is not what we are talking about. But about the fact that many scientists were believers: of former times – Newton, Leibniz, Kant, etc. There were and are believers from the scientific world. That is, we "know", that is, we experience the existence of this world and its functions (actions); but we do not "understand" or "perceive" either its initial appearance or even the functioning of its manifestations. We observe the facts, but we are not able to explain them. Recently, I had a meeting with a professor of botany who had worked at the university for forty years; Then he retired. And now he is interested in religion. I saw theological books in his possession.In the conversation, I asked him a simple question. We all "know" from experience roses: pink, red, white, yellow.— Do you, as a professor of botany, understand why (not for what, but exactly why?) roses are diverse in color?— No! We will not increase the number of examples, although they could be given without number! No one can deny this! But we do not "know" how all "this happens" (we do not say: how did it happen?). If this happens in the earthly, natural world, then what can we say about the so-called "supernatural"?And therefore it is wrongly said that this world is "known by the mind", and the supernatural – "by faith". Both are perceived by direct faith and experience, as facts. And we cannot "understand" them. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish only between objects (objects) of perception and the organs by which we perceive them: there are thoughts, but we do not "see" them; love exists, but we do not "hear" it with our ears, etc. And the way of cognition is the same: "direct perception" is experience. And it is preceded by faith (trust). But there will be a special talk about this later.We can point to another book on the question of scientists and believers. Dennert (a German) also gives a lot of examples on this topic.Of the Russian writers, it is necessary to refer to the professor of the University of Kiev (former), Archpriest. Svetlov [1], who even sharply ridicules those who think that "scientists" and "science" have long ago consigned to the archives the question of the superiority of science over religion. By the way, I will write about the famous Frenchman Voltaire. Readers know that he not only did not believe in God, but even jokingly blasphemed. But almost no one seems to know the end of it. A priest came to him... And Voltaire wrote the last words, that he was dying a believer. This recording was kept in the Paris Library. Whoever doubts this, let him look into the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron and read his exact words. Let us not count which of the scholars is greater – non-believers or believers? But there is undoubtedly a connection between unbelief and so-called education.In any case, among the Christians of the first period, believers came mainly from the "simple", so-called lower class. Namely. The Apostles were recruited by the Lord from the fishermen, and of the educated there were few: Nicodemus, Saul-Paul, etc. On the contrary, the "educated" (for that time) leaders – the chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, Pilate (a skeptic who does not believe in anything: "What is the truth?" – and left without waiting for an answer from the Lord), etc. – not only did they not accept Christ, but also crucified Him. But it can be said with certainty that the majority of Christians came from the working class, as evidenced by St. Luke. Paul: "Look, brethren," he addresses everyone in general, "who are you who are called: not many of you who are wise according to the flesh (by outward learning), not many who are strong (powerful), not many who are noble..." (1 Corinthians 1:26).And now the faithful come mainly from the working class: they fill our churches, monks were recruited from them, and the clergy were replenished from there (before the seminaries, i.e., until the middle of the eighteenth century, and now); and most importantly, the Church of God stood on the "people", these are indisputable facts! In what exactly? Or more simply, in pride! At least, this is my observation. Learning distinguishes people from the mass of ordinary workers, gives them advantages over the latter, self-conceit grows, wealth is added: and with all this comes pride." Faith is humility," says St. Barsanuphius the Great. But this is not the main thing; A learned person begins to believe in himself: in his mind, in his knowledge, and not in God, not in the grace of God. Thus says the same Apostle: "Therefore God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the strong; and God hath chosen the lowly things of the world, and the despised things, and the things of no importance, to abolish the things that are important, that no flesh should boast before God" (1 Corinthians 1:27-29). And of himself the Apostle says: "And my word and my preaching" consisted "not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of the Spirit and power, so that your faith may be established not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (2 chs. 4-5). 19, 27, 29). Let us now turn to our Russian scientists. We, Russians, are no less authoritative and, of course, much more known and convincing are the names and information about our Russian learned believers. Not having such collections at hand, I will refer to well-known Russian outstanding people who openly confessed their faith. I will only list their names; sometimes I will say two more words about them. N. V. Gogol. In his letters there are a great many religious thoughts; he has an explanation of the Divine Liturgy. But who knows about this? And were we told about this in gymnasiums and seminaries?.. Alas, no! The "Inspector General" was taught as the commandments of God; they read "Dead Souls" and his short stories. And they haven't even heard of letters. And the meaning of "The Government Inspector" is not known to this day, although N. V. Gogol himself explained it: the true inspector is the Lord. A. Zhukovsky. A great deal of reasoning of a philosophical-religious nature has remained from him, and precisely on the question of faith and knowledge. But I am sure that 1:1000 intellectuals have even heard of it! And ballads were learned by heart. M. Dotoevsky. Who did we all know that he was not only a believer, but also an Orthodox Christian? But even this giant could not turn the modern intelligentsia, which had deviated into liberal unbelief, to the path of faith. Dostoevsky did not have any direct students and heirs. Most have followed the Westernist path of atheism and humanism. But it is enough to mention the name of Fyodor Mikhailovich for a decent intellectual to be ashamed to classify all intelligent people as atheists.I spoke about Tolstoy and Chekhov above.Of the new writers, the bright name of Shmelev should be mentioned with respect; I personally know that he confessed and communed of Holy Communion. Mysteries at the Sergius metochion in Paris, when I was there. And after the service, I invited him to have tea with me.May the name of S. I. Gusev not be forgotten either. Even if there was darkness in his past: he refused his priesthood. But in his old age, he sincerely, consciously, and at the same time simply heartily prays to God, asking for the salvation of his soul. A few other less important names could be mentioned... But I will not disturb their pride: let them be saved in silence.Incomparably more faithful from the philosophical circle. It can be argued that the vast majority of them were believers. And this will be clear later. And now I will only point out that a superficial education can distance a person from faith, and deep knowledge will at worst make a person an "agnostic", and at best it will lead to faith, or in any case will not make a person a "conscious" atheist. And it is understandable: philosophers know the limits of the human mind and its impotence in the field of faith.Of the many philosophers, it is enough to name the Slavophiles: Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Strakhov, Danilevsky... After that, Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov, who left several volumes of philosophical and theological works and had, not only in his time, but also to this day, a great influence both on the university youth and on the intelligentsia society in general... However, even he was unable to stop the cart of intellectual Russia sliding into the abyss of nihilism: godlessness and materialism stepped over Solovyov as well. He has many non-Orthodox thoughts, but this is a private matter; and his faith is beyond doubt. And one of his close friends told me during his lifetime that, dying, V. S. Solovyov humbly and repentantly said: "The work of the Lord is hard." He also frightened with his union with Catholicism, but even here he was looking for the "Kingdom of God," only misunderstood by him.Of the other philosophers, let us recall the names of the professors of Moscow University: Lopatin, S. N. and E. N. Trubetskoy; but in particular, it is worth dwelling on the living and hitherto living professor of St. Petersburg University, N. O. Lossky. In a secular university, a professor who openly believes in the Holy Trinity is inadmissible, as he himself told about it in one of the editions of his fundamental work on "Intuitionism".Let us also recall the names of our contemporaries, philosophers: S. L. Frank (formerly a Jew, now Orthodox), N. A. Berdyaev, Vysheslavtsev, and others. Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov's father, Sergei Mikhailovich... His contemporary, Professor of Russian History of Moscow University M. I. Pogodin. This man left behind a very interesting book under the intriguing title: "Simple Speeches about Tricky Things". In fact, the more serious part of the book is the first, where he expresses his thoughtful and thorough feelings and thoughts about the relationship between faith and knowledge.In the second part, he collected many facts (not sufficiently equivalent, however) about phenomena from the other world. In the third, he challenges the theory of Darwinism, which at that time captured almost the entire reading world.At the beginning of the last century, everyone knew the name of Chancellor Speransky, who left behind special theological books. From modern times, it is necessary to recall with reverence the name of the political economist Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodtsev, who wrote abroad the book "On the Social Ideal", in which, among other things, he openly declared to the entire intellectual world the collapse of the false idea (still Solovyovskaya) about the "Kingdom of God on earth". Modest for all his education, he swept like a brilliant star across the political and philosophical horizon. Konstantin Leontiev [2] — who ended his life in the Optina Monastery near the elders; "This is ours," Fr. Ambrose said of him. Let the memory of Professor Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky of Kharkov University remain in posterity. A member of the Duma... Gosh! Gosh! What a sad uproar his acquaintances and party members raised when, before his death, he invited a priest (my colleague in the Academy, Fr. S.) and confessed and communed of Holy Communion. Secrets. But he acted according to the judgment of his conscience, contrary to the intellectuals' nihilism.The name and works of another professor of political economy, S. N. Bulgakov, are more widely known. He also went through a fall into godlessness, was a Marxist, and then returned to faith and ended his life in the priesthood... All his science did not prevent him from returning to the Orthodox Church. There is a conviction that scientists of this type especially suffer from atheism, although there are no special reasons in the world sciences themselves that would necessarily lead to atheism. And even if this is partly true. But the deepest scientists, both of the ancient and modern world (and especially among the latter), physicians, who were believers, are known. Of the Russian luminaries, I will name three names. The intellectual world, especially our predecessors, our grandfathers, knew the name of the famous doctor, biologist, surgeon Pirogov. Until recent years, medical societies were named after him. But few people know his diary with thoughtful notes. There he not only testifies to his faith, but even reveals his own experiences of his sense of the manifest existence of demons. But who has read about it?The name of the world-famous chemist Mendeleev is even greater. His doctrine of the periodic table of elements is accepted by the entire scientific world as an alphabet. Few people know his interesting and instructive work "To the Knowledge of Russia" and others. And this giant of science was a deeply religious Christian. And at the same time, he remained a realist in science. His realism helped him to remain the same in faith: every conscious believer is a realist, not a dreamer.Everywhere they have spoken and will continue to talk and write about the last giant of science, I. P. Pavlov, who died not so long ago in Russia. He was born in the family of a priest. An interesting and instructive legend has developed about him - and legends are more important than facts. Whether he was riding a tram or walking around St. Petersburg, a church appeared on the way. Pavlov took off his hat and crossed himself. A fellow worker who was there, for whom all questions about faith were "resolved" in the party program, condescendingly pats Pavlov on the shoulder and says: "Oh, darkness, darkness!" Soviet writers are trying to remove the question of Pavlov's religiosity, but the historical legend will defend the testimony of his faith even more stubbornly. The name of A. V. Suvorov is dear to the Russian people. He was a man of extraordinary personal holiness. An ascetic of Orthodoxy. But why have we not been revealed his image from this side, even in theological schools? They wrote about his jokes and even buffoonery. But they did not talk about faith. But at one time he even wanted to take monastic vows. And what were his orders to the soldiers! Here we always hear about God. For example, before the capture of the Izmail fortress, he gives the order: "Pray for a day, fast for a day, and take Izmail on the third!" ... And they took... And how not to take it, if people prayed and fasted?! Then – Kutuzov, the Muravyevs and many, many others – all these are people of strong faith! Of the names of recent times, we can name at least Davydov, Varlamov, Savina, Shalyapin ... The latter had as his confessor abroad the Parisian archpriest. S. — go. And shortly before his death, he confessed and took communion. And the names of the musicians Rimsky-Korsakov, Balakirev. Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Smolensky, Kastalsky, Grechaninov — who dedicated their talents to the Church and its hymns — testify to the faith of their authors! Ivanov and others. and so on. — have given themselves to the service of faith. I personally had to know a little bit of Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov... What modesty with genius! Well, who would dare to say of all of them that they were illiterate "darkness" in their faith? Many of them were professors of science at universities; almost all of them had gone through higher school, were gifted with genius abilities.It is fair to recall, without fear of reproach by modern atheists, many statesmen who held the position of ministers... Not to mention the tsars themselves... It can be said that in former times an atheist minister was even simply unthinkable. And such names as Stolypin will go down in history.Finally, it remains for us to mention a huge class of theologians: hierarchs, spiritual fathers, professors of the academy, secular religious writers. How many people among them were not only talented and broadly educated, but even brilliant... And if our testimony is not enough, then we can at least refer to Herzen. He once dropped a word: "I have seen a lot of untalented governors; but I have not yet seen a single stupid bishop"... Even if this is exaggerated about the hierarchical class in general. But there is no doubt that among the saints there were not a few very learned people. Here is Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, a man of genius abilities, a versatile expert in theological sciences, an adviser to the tsars; the wise administrator: his resolutions are studied as examples of prudence: a deep and eloquent preacher: a holy life, though hidden in asceticism. And they rightly called him "Philaret the Wise." Theophanes the Recluse of Vyshensky, the author of commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. He was the translator of the Philokalia and the author of many other books (The Path to Salvation. "Letters on Spiritual Life", "Outline of Christian Moral Teaching", etc.). The most learned man of his time in general. He left the episcopate and went into seclusion for 30 years for spiritual life... He did not do this in vain, but out of the deepest conviction of his vast mind and experience. Ignatius Brianchaninov, a brilliant student of the Engineering School, left everything and went as a novice to a monastery, then a bishop, and then again in retirement in the monastery: he left behind 5 volumes of works. And also: Archbishop of Kherson, Russian Chrysostom. Innocent; another Kherson bishop-philosopher Nicanor; Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow, are all highly learned people. And among the clergy and secular professors, one can name dozens of brilliant and profound minds: the famous Bolotov, the philosopher Nesmeyanov, the philosopher Karinsky, the learned Professor Glubokovsky, the Golubinskys, and others. and so on... All these are people of learning on a global scale and are Orthodox. And now let us ask: did all these people believe because they were poorly learned, unintelligent, and simple-minded? On the contrary, it is not difficult to understand that no one else thinks so much about his faith as a believer and at the same time an educated person. In fact, he who decided to be an unbeliever would simply renounce everything, brush aside all questions; I don't recognize anything, they say... And he is "free": think nothing, refute nothing! It is quite another thing for an educated person to be a believer: if I have recognized the faith, then I cannot stop there. Not only can others ask me, but my own inquisitive intelligent spirit asks me about a thousand questions that are difficult for the mind: why do I believe in God at all? And why do I recognize the One God in the Trinity? How is the incarnation of the Son of God conceivable? What is the grace of the Holy Spirit? How can you receive the sacraments of the Church? How are the bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Lord? Are sins absolved in confession? Why icons and a cross? How are miracles that transcend the laws of nature conceivable? Is prayer powerful? Is there an afterlife? Are there angels and demons? and so on..." "Answer all this to yourself! Think it all over! And how many such questions... And how constantly they can stand before our enlightened consciousness! Take, for example, the sacrament of Communion: a layman now usually takes Communion once a year; and we do it weekly and more often. And we may constantly be faced with an inquisitive question: why do you believe? Is it so? — and according to the well-known law of the association of ideas, we are completely unable to prevent the emergence of these questions; Therefore, it is necessary to find answers: it is impossible to brush it off. Yes, it is quite true that no one thinks so much about faith as an educated believer, especially in a spiritual rank, or a theologian! And therefore unbelievers speak of us with extreme light-mindedness, as if we "unconsciously" believe. No, they really don't think much about it; and we must not think: if not for others, then at least for ourselves.A layman has to think no less if he decides to be a believer, especially in the midst of today's society of little faith.Such an extraordinary person was, by the way, the famous Slavophile A. S. Khomyakov. A man of many things, he later became a theologian. And at the same time, he strictly fulfilled church decrees, even in fasting. The Samarin family. Aksakovs, teachers K. D. Ushinsky, S. A. Rachinsky and others. — the smartest people of their time, who were not afraid to go against the opinions of their stereotyped age — they were believers, of course, not because of "darkness," but because of a deeply enlightened inquiry. On the contrary, non-believers should ponder over us, educated Christians: why do we, with all our outstanding enlightenment, believe? One of the Russian writers, an acquaintance of mine, was once asked by his acquaintances: "How is it, N. N., that you are so clever, and at the same time you believe?" There are many people much smarter than I am, and yet they believe. And this is absolutely true: after all, the vast majority of people of little faith and unbelief have thought very little or even not at all seriously about faith and unbelief... And they decided: there is none of this.. And therefore, at the conclusion of this section, I thoroughly throw an accusation at our accusers: they, in the overwhelming majority, became unbelievers not because they were learned, but, on the contrary, because of their lack of learning and frivolity; not because they thought too much, but precisely because they thought too little about what they had renounced. St. Anthony the Great said about them quite accurately: "Unbelief is frivolous impudence." This is true darkness! And now I ask in turn: why don't you unbelievers believe? Tell us: what scientific evidence has led you to the necessity of unbelief? We believers can tell you why we believe. And what do you say?.. And I know from experience that an unbeliever usually cannot give serious reasons for himself. They do not so much prove and justify their unbelief as they object to our faith. What then? We also accept this method of fighting. But for the time being, after what has been said, we invite them to forget once and for all their false and frivolous prejudice that all scientists do not believe, that faith and knowledge are incompatible, and that only people who are illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated can be believers. This lie is refuted by thousands of contrary examples of people, scientists and believers. And examples prove the truth more powerfully than any words. If someone were to say: all swans are white, but there were also black swans (I saw them in the Crimea), then after such examples one should forget once and for all the former opinion about the whiteness of swans, we will have to say later that there are white swans and there are black swans. So it should be said about scientists: there are unbelieving scientists, and there are believing scientists. Consequently, learning in itself does not necessarily lead to unbelief. It is necessary to look for other causes of unbelief. All this is very clear! "And in ordinary life we see similar cases. There are two different brothers in the family: one is religious, the other is of little faith. Two seminarians, students: one is a believer, the other declares himself an atheist. Husband and wife are approximately equal in mind, but different in faith. Even the same person is a believer, then loses faith, and then returns to it again. From this it is easy to make an observation: this difference in faith is not from the mind, but from something else... We will talk about this later: why exactly? Only not from the mind, not from learning. On one occasion I gave a young man who had graduated from high school a book by Tabrum [3] "Do Scholars Believe?" He read it. But it did not seem to leave any impression on him: he was and remained an unbeliever! Perhaps now he will no longer dare to say that faith and science are incompatible; But he personally did not even think about why such great scientists all believe? Shouldn't he think about it too? Should we overestimate our unbelief? No, he remained cold as before. It is clear that it is not his intellect, not his learning, that hinders him, but something in his soul, deeper and more dangerous.And I do not think that by the previous references about learned believers we will be able to direct the unbeliever to the path of faith. But there is no doubt that by these examples we are knocking out of the hands of our opponents one of the most popular and false weapons of unbelief. And if we do not convert the stubborn atheists to faith, then by such facts we ease the path of faith for those who sincerely seek it, and even more so for believers, by removing the scarecrow that reason and faith are incompatible. And this alleviation of the obstacle alone is not useless. Unbelief is refuted by examples, and now let us proceed to the analysis of objections to faith. Professor of the Kiev University of St. Vladimir, Archpriest Pavel Yakovlevich Svetlov is the author of a course in apologetic theology, the compiler of the remarkable bibliographic work "What to Read in Theology: A Systematic Index of Apologetic Literature in Russian, German and English" (Kiev, 1907). – Ed. ^ Philosopher, writer, publicist Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev (1831 — 1891) lived in Optina for a long time, working on his works with the blessing of St. Ambrose. At the end of his life he took secret monastic vows with the name Clement. – Ed. ^ Tabrum A. Religious Beliefs of Modern Scientists; Lane. Ed. by V. A. Kozhevnikov and N. M. Solovyov. Moscow, 1912. – Ed. ^

Objections from the mind to faith

In wide circles of intellectual society, as is well known, a terrible prejudice has been established that science is incompatible with faith; And it must be said that in fact there was a reason for this: our comparatively educated classes in the last century have undoubtedly shown a great inclination to unbelief. Unbelief has become almost a sign of a "thinking" person. All of us Russians know this from our school experience, from our outstanding writers, and simply from the life of the intelligentsia. Faith left the intelligentsia.But here is the question: why? Usually it is answered that formerly people were "ignorant", unenlightened, blindly believed everything, and now they seem to have become clever and see that all this is only fiction necessary to deceive simple-minded people. The reason for the disbelief of our educated classes is different: not in science, but in their will; not in the mind, but in the heart. And that this is so is quite easy to prove, although the unbeliever will always resist self-evident proofs. But we are not writing for "stiff-necked" stubborns, but for seekers of truth. If, indeed, learning and faith were incompatible in their essence, then no scientist would be a believer. And vice versa: if at least some truly learned people still remain believers, then it is obvious that science and faith are compatible in themselves. If, therefore, there are learned unbelievers and learned believers, intelligent atheists and clever Christians, then it is quite clear from this that the cause of faith and unbelief is not in the mind or lack of mind, but in something else. There are many such collections abroad, in foreign languages; they also appeared in Russia, in view of the growing atheism of the intelligentsia. I know of a later collection by the English investigator of this subject, Tabrum, precisely on the question of whether modern scholars believe. First, I will tell you about foreigners. In order not to refer to other similar sources, I will dwell on it, especially since I was lucky enough to get hold of this book recently from Russia... This is what this interesting and serious work of our contemporary gives us. It turns out that out of 100 modern scientists requested, only about 10% declared themselves non-believers; and the remaining 90% openly recognized themselves as religious people. True, their answers were different, according to their religions; but all of them declared their faith in God.It makes no sense to mention their individual names, because we, Russians, do not know them, except, perhaps, with the exception of a few of our scientists. I will only remind you of the most learned Oliver Lodge. But the Russian people have not even heard this name; but every educated person knows the name of Charles Darwin. His name is not mentioned in Tabrum; Because he belongs to an older generation. But this is not the point, but the fact that his name was and is still being abused: he is presented as a pure materialist and an opponent of religion. Judging by his earlier statements, Darwin was not a pure atheist, but recognized some creative force that created the first types of organisms. And even if he later inclined to unbelief, it is still impossible to recognize him as an unbeliever. And our materialists are already correcting him, now speaking of "neo-Darwinism," now referring to his letter to K. Marx, that "he consciously avoided talking about religion and limited himself to the field of science." What of this? There have always been atheists. This is not what we are talking about. But about the fact that many scientists were believers: of former times – Newton, Leibniz, Kant, etc. There were and are believers from the scientific world. That is, we "know", that is, we experience the existence of this world and its functions (actions); but we do not "understand" or "perceive" either its initial appearance or even the functioning of its manifestations. We observe the facts, but we are not able to explain them. Recently, I had a meeting with a professor of botany who had worked at the university for forty years; Then he retired. And now he is interested in religion. I saw theological books in his possession.In the conversation, I asked him a simple question. We all "know" from experience roses: pink, red, white, yellow.— Do you, as a professor of botany, understand why (not for what, but exactly why?) roses are diverse in color?— No! We will not increase the number of examples, although they could be given without number! No one can deny this! But we do not "know" how all "this happens" (we do not say: how did it happen?). If this happens in the earthly, natural world, then what can we say about the so-called "supernatural"?And therefore it is wrongly said that this world is "known by the mind", and the supernatural – "by faith". Both are perceived by direct faith and experience, as facts. And we cannot "understand" them. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish only between objects (objects) of perception and the organs by which we perceive them: there are thoughts, but we do not "see" them; love exists, but we do not "hear" it with our ears, etc. And the way of cognition is the same: "direct perception" is experience. And it is preceded by faith (trust). But there will be a special talk about this later.We can point to another book on the question of scientists and believers. Dennert (a German) also gives a lot of examples on this topic.Of the Russian writers, it is necessary to refer to the professor of the University of Kiev (former), Archpriest. Svetlov [1], who even sharply ridicules those who think that "scientists" and "science" have long ago consigned to the archives the question of the superiority of science over religion. By the way, I will write about the famous Frenchman Voltaire. Readers know that he not only did not believe in God, but even jokingly blasphemed. But almost no one seems to know the end of it. A priest came to him... And Voltaire wrote the last words, that he was dying a believer. This recording was kept in the Paris Library. Whoever doubts this, let him look into the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron and read his exact words. Let us not count which of the scholars is greater – non-believers or believers? But there is undoubtedly a connection between unbelief and so-called education.In any case, among the Christians of the first period, believers came mainly from the "simple", so-called lower class. Namely. The Apostles were recruited by the Lord from the fishermen, and of the educated there were few: Nicodemus, Saul-Paul, etc. On the contrary, the "educated" (for that time) leaders – the chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, Pilate (a skeptic who does not believe in anything: "What is the truth?" – and left without waiting for an answer from the Lord), etc. – not only did they not accept Christ, but also crucified Him. But it can be said with certainty that the majority of Christians came from the working class, as evidenced by St. Luke. Paul: "Look, brethren," he addresses everyone in general, "who are you who are called: not many of you who are wise according to the flesh (by outward learning), not many who are strong (powerful), not many who are noble..." (1 Corinthians 1:26).And now the faithful come mainly from the working class: they fill our churches, monks were recruited from them, and the clergy were replenished from there (before the seminaries, i.e., until the middle of the eighteenth century, and now); and most importantly, the Church of God stood on the "people", these are indisputable facts! In what exactly? Or more simply, in pride! At least, this is my observation. Learning distinguishes people from the mass of ordinary workers, gives them advantages over the latter, self-conceit grows, wealth is added: and with all this comes pride." Faith is humility," says St. Barsanuphius the Great. But this is not the main thing; A learned person begins to believe in himself: in his mind, in his knowledge, and not in God, not in the grace of God. Thus says the same Apostle: "Therefore God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the strong; and God hath chosen the lowly things of the world, and the despised things, and the things of no importance, to abolish the things that are important, that no flesh should boast before God" (1 Corinthians 1:27-29). And of himself the Apostle says: "And my word and my preaching" consisted "not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of the Spirit and power, so that your faith may be established not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (2 chs. 4-5). 19, 27, 29). Let us now turn to our Russian scientists. We, Russians, are no less authoritative and, of course, much more known and convincing are the names and information about our Russian learned believers. Not having such collections at hand, I will refer to well-known Russian outstanding people who openly confessed their faith. I will only list their names; sometimes I will say two more words about them. N. V. Gogol. In his letters there are a great many religious thoughts; he has an explanation of the Divine Liturgy. But who knows about this? And were we told about this in gymnasiums and seminaries?.. Alas, no! The "Inspector General" was taught as the commandments of God; they read "Dead Souls" and his short stories. And they haven't even heard of letters. And the meaning of "The Government Inspector" is not known to this day, although N. V. Gogol himself explained it: the true inspector is the Lord. A. Zhukovsky. A great deal of reasoning of a philosophical-religious nature has remained from him, and precisely on the question of faith and knowledge. But I am sure that 1:1000 intellectuals have even heard of it! And ballads were learned by heart. M. Dotoevsky. Who did we all know that he was not only a believer, but also an Orthodox Christian? But even this giant could not turn the modern intelligentsia, which had deviated into liberal unbelief, to the path of faith. Dostoevsky did not have any direct students and heirs. Most have followed the Westernist path of atheism and humanism. But it is enough to mention the name of Fyodor Mikhailovich for a decent intellectual to be ashamed to classify all intelligent people as atheists.I spoke about Tolstoy and Chekhov above.Of the new writers, the bright name of Shmelev should be mentioned with respect; I personally know that he confessed and communed of Holy Communion. Mysteries at the Sergius metochion in Paris, when I was there. And after the service, I invited him to have tea with me.May the name of S. I. Gusev not be forgotten either. Even if there was darkness in his past: he refused his priesthood. But in his old age, he sincerely, consciously, and at the same time simply heartily prays to God, asking for the salvation of his soul. A few other less important names could be mentioned... But I will not disturb their pride: let them be saved in silence.Incomparably more faithful from the philosophical circle. It can be argued that the vast majority of them were believers. And this will be clear later. And now I will only point out that a superficial education can distance a person from faith, and deep knowledge will at worst make a person an "agnostic", and at best it will lead to faith, or in any case will not make a person a "conscious" atheist. And it is understandable: philosophers know the limits of the human mind and its impotence in the field of faith.Of the many philosophers, it is enough to name the Slavophiles: Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Strakhov, Danilevsky... After that, Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov, who left several volumes of philosophical and theological works and had, not only in his time, but also to this day, a great influence both on the university youth and on the intelligentsia society in general... However, even he was unable to stop the cart of intellectual Russia sliding into the abyss of nihilism: godlessness and materialism stepped over Solovyov as well. He has many non-Orthodox thoughts, but this is a private matter; and his faith is beyond doubt. And one of his close friends told me during his lifetime that, dying, V. S. Solovyov humbly and repentantly said: "The work of the Lord is hard." He also frightened with his union with Catholicism, but even here he was looking for the "Kingdom of God," only misunderstood by him.Of the other philosophers, let us recall the names of the professors of Moscow University: Lopatin, S. N. and E. N. Trubetskoy; but in particular, it is worth dwelling on the living and hitherto living professor of St. Petersburg University, N. O. Lossky. In a secular university, a professor who openly believes in the Holy Trinity is inadmissible, as he himself told about it in one of the editions of his fundamental work on "Intuitionism".Let us also recall the names of our contemporaries, philosophers: S. L. Frank (formerly a Jew, now Orthodox), N. A. Berdyaev, Vysheslavtsev, and others. Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov's father, Sergei Mikhailovich... His contemporary, Professor of Russian History of Moscow University M. I. Pogodin. This man left behind a very interesting book under the intriguing title: "Simple Speeches about Tricky Things". In fact, the more serious part of the book is the first, where he expresses his thoughtful and thorough feelings and thoughts about the relationship between faith and knowledge.In the second part, he collected many facts (not sufficiently equivalent, however) about phenomena from the other world. In the third, he challenges the theory of Darwinism, which at that time captured almost the entire reading world.At the beginning of the last century, everyone knew the name of Chancellor Speransky, who left behind special theological books. From modern times, it is necessary to recall with reverence the name of the political economist Pavel Ivanovich Novgorodtsev, who wrote abroad the book "On the Social Ideal", in which, among other things, he openly declared to the entire intellectual world the collapse of the false idea (still Solovyovskaya) about the "Kingdom of God on earth". Modest for all his education, he swept like a brilliant star across the political and philosophical horizon. Konstantin Leontiev [2] — who ended his life in the Optina Monastery near the elders; "This is ours," Fr. Ambrose said of him. Let the memory of Professor Maxim Maksimovich Kovalevsky of Kharkov University remain in posterity. A member of the Duma... Gosh! Gosh! What a sad uproar his acquaintances and party members raised when, before his death, he invited a priest (my colleague in the Academy, Fr. S.) and confessed and communed of Holy Communion. Secrets. But he acted according to the judgment of his conscience, contrary to the intellectuals' nihilism.The name and works of another professor of political economy, S. N. Bulgakov, are more widely known. He also went through a fall into godlessness, was a Marxist, and then returned to faith and ended his life in the priesthood... All his science did not prevent him from returning to the Orthodox Church. There is a conviction that scientists of this type especially suffer from atheism, although there are no special reasons in the world sciences themselves that would necessarily lead to atheism. And even if this is partly true. But the deepest scientists, both of the ancient and modern world (and especially among the latter), physicians, who were believers, are known. Of the Russian luminaries, I will name three names. The intellectual world, especially our predecessors, our grandfathers, knew the name of the famous doctor, biologist, surgeon Pirogov. Until recent years, medical societies were named after him. But few people know his diary with thoughtful notes. There he not only testifies to his faith, but even reveals his own experiences of his sense of the manifest existence of demons. But who has read about it?The name of the world-famous chemist Mendeleev is even greater. His doctrine of the periodic table of elements is accepted by the entire scientific world as an alphabet. Few people know his interesting and instructive work "To the Knowledge of Russia" and others. And this giant of science was a deeply religious Christian. And at the same time, he remained a realist in science. His realism helped him to remain the same in faith: every conscious believer is a realist, not a dreamer.Everywhere they have spoken and will continue to talk and write about the last giant of science, I. P. Pavlov, who died not so long ago in Russia. He was born in the family of a priest. An interesting and instructive legend has developed about him - and legends are more important than facts. Whether he was riding a tram or walking around St. Petersburg, a church appeared on the way. Pavlov took off his hat and crossed himself. A fellow worker who was there, for whom all questions about faith were "resolved" in the party program, condescendingly pats Pavlov on the shoulder and says: "Oh, darkness, darkness!" Soviet writers are trying to remove the question of Pavlov's religiosity, but the historical legend will defend the testimony of his faith even more stubbornly. The name of A. V. Suvorov is dear to the Russian people. He was a man of extraordinary personal holiness. An ascetic of Orthodoxy. But why have we not been revealed his image from this side, even in theological schools? They wrote about his jokes and even buffoonery. But they did not talk about faith. But at one time he even wanted to take monastic vows. And what were his orders to the soldiers! Here we always hear about God. For example, before the capture of the Izmail fortress, he gives the order: "Pray for a day, fast for a day, and take Izmail on the third!" ... And they took... And how not to take it, if people prayed and fasted?! Then – Kutuzov, the Muravyevs and many, many others – all these are people of strong faith! Of the names of recent times, we can name at least Davydov, Varlamov, Savina, Shalyapin ... The latter had as his confessor abroad the Parisian archpriest. S. — go. And shortly before his death, he confessed and took communion. And the names of the musicians Rimsky-Korsakov, Balakirev. Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Smolensky, Kastalsky, Grechaninov — who dedicated their talents to the Church and its hymns — testify to the faith of their authors! Ivanov and others. and so on. — have given themselves to the service of faith. I personally had to know a little bit of Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov... What modesty with genius! Well, who would dare to say of all of them that they were illiterate "darkness" in their faith? Many of them were professors of science at universities; almost all of them had gone through higher school, were gifted with genius abilities.It is fair to recall, without fear of reproach by modern atheists, many statesmen who held the position of ministers... Not to mention the tsars themselves... It can be said that in former times an atheist minister was even simply unthinkable. And such names as Stolypin will go down in history.Finally, it remains for us to mention a huge class of theologians: hierarchs, spiritual fathers, professors of the academy, secular religious writers. How many people among them were not only talented and broadly educated, but even brilliant... And if our testimony is not enough, then we can at least refer to Herzen. He once dropped a word: "I have seen a lot of untalented governors; but I have not yet seen a single stupid bishop"... Even if this is exaggerated about the hierarchical class in general. But there is no doubt that among the saints there were not a few very learned people. Here is Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, a man of genius abilities, a versatile expert in theological sciences, an adviser to the tsars; the wise administrator: his resolutions are studied as examples of prudence: a deep and eloquent preacher: a holy life, though hidden in asceticism. And they rightly called him "Philaret the Wise." Theophanes the Recluse of Vyshensky, the author of commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. He was the translator of the Philokalia and the author of many other books (The Path to Salvation. "Letters on Spiritual Life", "Outline of Christian Moral Teaching", etc.). The most learned man of his time in general. He left the episcopate and went into seclusion for 30 years for spiritual life... He did not do this in vain, but out of the deepest conviction of his vast mind and experience. Ignatius Brianchaninov, a brilliant student of the Engineering School, left everything and went as a novice to a monastery, then a bishop, and then again in retirement in the monastery: he left behind 5 volumes of works. And also: Archbishop of Kherson, Russian Chrysostom. Innocent; another Kherson bishop-philosopher Nicanor; Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow, are all highly learned people. And among the clergy and secular professors, one can name dozens of brilliant and profound minds: the famous Bolotov, the philosopher Nesmeyanov, the philosopher Karinsky, the learned Professor Glubokovsky, the Golubinskys, and others. and so on... All these are people of learning on a global scale and are Orthodox. And now let us ask: did all these people believe because they were poorly learned, unintelligent, and simple-minded? On the contrary, it is not difficult to understand that no one else thinks so much about his faith as a believer and at the same time an educated person. In fact, he who decided to be an unbeliever would simply renounce everything, brush aside all questions; I don't recognize anything, they say... And he is "free": think nothing, refute nothing! It is quite another thing for an educated person to be a believer: if I have recognized the faith, then I cannot stop there. Not only can others ask me, but my own inquisitive intelligent spirit asks me about a thousand questions that are difficult for the mind: why do I believe in God at all? And why do I recognize the One God in the Trinity? How is the incarnation of the Son of God conceivable? What is the grace of the Holy Spirit? How can you receive the sacraments of the Church? How are the bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ the Lord? Are sins absolved in confession? Why icons and a cross? How are miracles that transcend the laws of nature conceivable? Is prayer powerful? Is there an afterlife? Are there angels and demons? and so on..." "Answer all this to yourself! Think it all over! And how many such questions... And how constantly they can stand before our enlightened consciousness! Take, for example, the sacrament of Communion: a layman now usually takes Communion once a year; and we do it weekly and more often. And we may constantly be faced with an inquisitive question: why do you believe? Is it so? — and according to the well-known law of the association of ideas, we are completely unable to prevent the emergence of these questions; Therefore, it is necessary to find answers: it is impossible to brush it off. Yes, it is quite true that no one thinks so much about faith as an educated believer, especially in a spiritual rank, or a theologian! And therefore unbelievers speak of us with extreme light-mindedness, as if we "unconsciously" believe. No, they really don't think much about it; and we must not think: if not for others, then at least for ourselves.A layman has to think no less if he decides to be a believer, especially in the midst of today's society of little faith.Such an extraordinary person was, by the way, the famous Slavophile A. S. Khomyakov. A man of many things, he later became a theologian. And at the same time, he strictly fulfilled church decrees, even in fasting. The Samarin family. Aksakovs, teachers K. D. Ushinsky, S. A. Rachinsky and others. — the smartest people of their time, who were not afraid to go against the opinions of their stereotyped age — they were believers, of course, not because of "darkness," but because of a deeply enlightened inquiry. On the contrary, non-believers should ponder over us, educated Christians: why do we, with all our outstanding enlightenment, believe? One of the Russian writers, an acquaintance of mine, was once asked by his acquaintances: "How is it, N. N., that you are so clever, and at the same time you believe?" There are many people much smarter than I am, and yet they believe. And this is absolutely true: after all, the vast majority of people of little faith and unbelief have thought very little or even not at all seriously about faith and unbelief... And they decided: there is none of this.. And therefore, at the conclusion of this section, I thoroughly throw an accusation at our accusers: they, in the overwhelming majority, became unbelievers not because they were learned, but, on the contrary, because of their lack of learning and frivolity; not because they thought too much, but precisely because they thought too little about what they had renounced. St. Anthony the Great said about them quite accurately: "Unbelief is frivolous impudence." This is true darkness! And now I ask in turn: why don't you unbelievers believe? Tell us: what scientific evidence has led you to the necessity of unbelief? We believers can tell you why we believe. And what do you say?.. And I know from experience that an unbeliever usually cannot give serious reasons for himself. They do not so much prove and justify their unbelief as they object to our faith. What then? We also accept this method of fighting. But for the time being, after what has been said, we invite them to forget once and for all their false and frivolous prejudice that all scientists do not believe, that faith and knowledge are incompatible, and that only people who are illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated can be believers. This lie is refuted by thousands of contrary examples of people, scientists and believers. And examples prove the truth more powerfully than any words. If someone were to say: all swans are white, but there were also black swans (I saw them in the Crimea), then after such examples one should forget once and for all the former opinion about the whiteness of swans, we will have to say later that there are white swans and there are black swans. So it should be said about scientists: there are unbelieving scientists, and there are believing scientists. Consequently, learning in itself does not necessarily lead to unbelief. It is necessary to look for other causes of unbelief. All this is very clear! "And in ordinary life we see similar cases. There are two different brothers in the family: one is religious, the other is of little faith. Two seminarians, students: one is a believer, the other declares himself an atheist. Husband and wife are approximately equal in mind, but different in faith. Even the same person is a believer, then loses faith, and then returns to it again. From this it is easy to make an observation: this difference in faith is not from the mind, but from something else... We will talk about this later: why exactly? Only not from the mind, not from learning. On one occasion I gave a young man who had graduated from high school a book by Tabrum [3] "Do Scholars Believe?" He read it. But it did not seem to leave any impression on him: he was and remained an unbeliever! Perhaps now he will no longer dare to say that faith and science are incompatible; But he personally did not even think about why such great scientists all believe? Shouldn't he think about it too? Should we overestimate our unbelief? No, he remained cold as before. It is clear that it is not his intellect, not his learning, that hinders him, but something in his soul, deeper and more dangerous.And I do not think that by the previous references about learned believers we will be able to direct the unbeliever to the path of faith. But there is no doubt that by these examples we are knocking out of the hands of our opponents one of the most popular and false weapons of unbelief. And if we do not convert the stubborn atheists to faith, then by such facts we ease the path of faith for those who sincerely seek it, and even more so for believers, by removing the scarecrow that reason and faith are incompatible. And this alleviation of the obstacle alone is not useless. Unbelief is refuted by examples, and now let us proceed to the analysis of objections to faith. Professor of the Kiev University of St. Vladimir, Archpriest Pavel Yakovlevich Svetlov is the author of a course in apologetic theology, the compiler of the remarkable bibliographic work "What to Read in Theology: A Systematic Index of Apologetic Literature in Russian, German and English" (Kiev, 1907). – Ed. ^ Philosopher, writer, publicist Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev (1831 — 1891) lived in Optina for a long time, working on his works with the blessing of St. Ambrose. At the end of his life he took secret monastic vows with the name Clement. – Ed. ^ Tabrum A. Religious Beliefs of Modern Scientists; Lane. Ed. by V. A. Kozhevnikov and N. M. Solovyov. Moscow, 1912. – Ed. ^

А) Незнание не есть отрицание

Я думаю, что почти каждому из нас встречались люди, которые на вопрос, почему они не веруют, очень легко и победоносно отвечают: мы не знаем, да есть ли другой мир? И на этом одни, более скромные и разумные, и останавливаются. Но иные, более дерзкие по душе, осмеливаются делать и дальнейший, совершенно ложный, вывод: я не знаю этого мира, а следовательно, его и нет. От своего незнания делают вывод о небытии иного мира.Разберемся в этом возражении. Правда, внимательному и глубокому уму сразу видна вся неосновательность такого вывода — из незнания к небытию. Но в практике до такой степени постоянно приходится сталкиваться с подобными легкомысленными суждениями, что я нахожу не бесполезным разобраться и в этом детском возражении. Кроме того, я и не для ученых пишу, а для людей рядовых, обычных, коим приходится слышать такие суждения. Насколько часто приходится слышать их, приведу несколько примеров.Часто говорят: а кто видел это?В семинарии был такой случай. По утрам, часов в 7, после молитвы, мы шли в буфетную, чтобы получить свою порцию полбулки. Как-то собрались раньше срока, пришлось ждать. От безделия некоторые начали балагурить.. Кто-то упомянул и про Бога. Семинаристы вообще хранили веру. Один из товарищей, Миша Т., никогда не отличавшийся дотоле вольностью мыслей, вдруг выпалил: — А кто Бога-то видел?Мы или не хотели спорить, даже не любили таких болтунов, или же не сумели возразить ему — и молчали. Здесь же присутствовал помощник эконома, почему-то называвшийся "комиссаром", по имени Василий. Видя наше молчание, он обратился к Мише с вопросом:— Барин! (так называли почему-то нас тогда служители).— Что?— Так вы говорите, что коли Бога не видели, так уж и нет Его.— Ну да!А вы мою бабку видели?— Нне-е-т, — робея, ответил Троицкий, чувствуя западню какую-то.— Ну вот! А она и по сию пору жива!Общий довольный смех был ответом молодцу Василию. А Миша конфузливо так и не мог сказать больше ни слова.Случай этот слишком прост и, вероятно, покажется слишком вульгарным, элементарным. Это — верно. Но могу уверять, что тысячи таких Мишей — маленьких и больших — путаются в подобных детских недоумениях, не зная, как справиться с ними. А рабочий Василий справился. Хороший и разумный был человек!Впрочем, этот конкретный случай нужно обобщить в одну отвлеченную формулу, и тогда она покажется более серьезною на вид, хотя такой же детски-наивной по сути; именно от незнания нельзя никогда делать вывода о небытии.Эта формула и выглядит уже будто и серьезнее и умнее. Но ведь всякие формулы являются лишь выводами из самых простых случаев. И хотя разумному человеку совершенно очевидно высказанное положение о том, что незнание еще не есть небытие того, чего мы не знаем, однако остановлюсь и на нем немного подробнее, чтобы устранить с пути веры и этот камень. И приведу еще несколько примеров из жизни: может быть, они кому-нибудь пригодятся.Что такое "не знаю"?"Не знаю" есть не только не знаю. Или иначе: может быть, это есть, а может быть, и нет; может быть, так, а может быть, и не так. Мне, допустим, неизвестно ни то, ни другое; и я говорю: не знаю.А что такое "отрицаю"? Что такое "нет", если я говорю это слово? Если уж я говорю о чем-либо, то я уже знаю об этом достоверно, несомненно, что его нет на самом деле. Иначе: если я что-либо отрицаю, признаю не существующим, то я уже знаю об этом точно.А если бы я не знал о чем-нибудь — есть оно или нет, — то как бы я мог отрицать его или говорить "нет"?!Все это — очень просто и очевидно. И следовательно, если я о чем-нибудь думаю и говорю, что не знаю этого, то совершенно невозможно говорить о том, что его нет.Возьму еще простые сравнения. Я не знаю, например: что думает сейчас мой читатель? И потому не могу сказать: он ничего не думает. Я не знаю, например, есть ли при вас деньги, и потому не имею права сказать: их нет. Я не знаю, есть ли у вас в России родственники или нет; и никак не буду говорить: их нет. Я не видел Австрии, а она есть. Я не слышал какой-нибудь певчей птицы, а она есть. Я не вкушал (а читатель мой, вероятно, и не слышал об этом) пекмеса, а он есть: это густо вываренный сок из арбузов.Пусть все это очень простые примеры, как и вопрос о бабке; но воистину все на свете очень просто в конце концов; а кажется оно лишь мудреным оттого, что люди интеллигентные формулируют простые вещи в кратких "отвлеченных" общих понятиях. "Незнание не есть небытие". И иному это покажется чем-то философским, "ученым", "умным" и трудным для понимания, и нелегким для доказательства. А скажи: бабку мою не видел? — и все будет крайне просто; и справедливо, по-моему, переиначить слова проф. Погодина совершенно наоборот: не "Простые речи о мудреных вещах" — а "Мудреные (умные) речи о простых вещах". И я намеренно припомнил именно этот случай о бабушке: его уж не забудешь: а вопрос станет ясным: из незнания не делай вывода — "нет". "Не знаю" есть только — не знаю. Ничуть не больше.А если кто смеет сказать "нет", тот проявит лишь собственное неразумие, очевидную глупость... И теперь становится совершенно понятным изречение Псалмопевца: "Безумный сказал: нет Бога". Да, именно лишь отказавшийся от ума, от очевидной логики, может сказать это. Если человек не знает ничего о Боге и Его существовании, каковы неверующие, то он только это и имеет право сказать: "не знаю". И конец! А если он дерзнул сказать: "Нет Его!" — то уже пошел против ума; он по всей справедливости оказывается без ума, "безумным". И мое детское недоверие к словам Псалмопевца теперь бы успокоилось: он совершенно прав, называя неверующего безумным, без ума.Скажу даже больше. Если человек говорит о Боге и сверхъестественном мире лишь — "не знаю", то одним этим он становится ближе не к неверию, а именно к вере. Каким образом? Просто. Если я говорю о чем бы то ни было "не знаю", то тем самым я уже допускаю, что, может быть, оно и есть...Правда, я в то же время допускаю и обратное: может быть, того и нет. Но во всяком случае уже совершенно очевидно, что я никак не могу сказать: этого нет. А если я не могу отрицать, то допускаю "есть" — хотя и не знаю о том доподлинно. Таким образом "незнающий" близок к вере. Он близок и к неверию, но чтобы ему стать неверующим, нужно сначала убедиться в небытии Бога; а это невозможно никак! Но и для веры нужно как-то убедиться в бытии Божием: однако если я еще и не убедился в этом, то для моей веры путь всегда открыт: ибо в "не знаю" всегда есть предполагающееся "может быть, есть", "отрицать не смею".И когда человек объявляет себя агностиком, он всегда ближе в душе к вере, чем к неверию. Я это знаю по известным мне "агностикам". И вполне понимаю советских переписчиков, когда они про агностиков говорили: "пиши его в верующие!" Это — логичнее. Я уже не говорю о настроении сердца: именующий себя агностиком, "незнайкой" честнее и умнее мнимого безбожника, ибо он не дерзает говорить глупости о небытии того, чего не знает. А раз он честнее душою и глубже сердцем, то с ним несравненно легче продолжать обсуждение вопросов о вере; и можно надеяться, что он скорее придет к вере, чем упорствующий безумный отрицатель. Про таких "незнаек" можно сказать словами Господа Иисуса Христа ученикам: "кто не против вас, тот за вас". Я это знаю и на личных примерах. А из прошлой жизни мне вспоминается весьма характерный случай, рассказанный в книге Погодина. Припомню его, как он запечатлелся в моей памяти; если детали неверны, это неважно.Как-то, еще в крепостное время, крестьянин вывез на базар продавать возик сенца. Было ли сено его плоховато или покупателей оказалось мало, но только воз его остался непроданным. А в это время один барин (Погодин написал и фамилию его: да я забыл) от нечего делать вышел погулять по Москве и забрел на сенной рынок. От скуки подошел к мужичку с сеном и, попусту болтая, спросил его, почему он не продал своего воза? — Не дал Бог счастья! — смиренно ответил крестьянин. Услышав слово о Боге, барин, человек неверующий, с усмешкой стал трунить над простодушным мужичком: да при чем тут Бог? Да кто видел Его? Да никакого Бога и нет! — И прочие глупые слова.Выслушал крестьянин барские пустые глумления и говорит — а они оба были уже старички:— Эх, барин, барин! Нам уж с тобой и помирать — скоро! А ты — такие слова! Негоже!— Да кто же знает, что есть Бог?! — продолжал отшучиваться барин.Мужичок, оказавшийся умнее господина, скромно задает ему вопрос:— Барин! А ну-ка да Он есть?Барин хотел что-то возразить, но не смог придумать ничего серьезного. А может быть, и сболтнул еще что-нибудь несерьезное. И отошел от мужичка. Пошел домой: а слова крестьянина врезались в память ему: "А ну-ка есть?" И что барин ни делал, они из ума не выходили. Никакие возражения не помогали. Начал барин мучиться: а ну-ка есть? Ведь тогда и суд есть, и отвечать придется... А у него была тетушка, княгиня, лично знакомая Московскому митрополиту Филарету Мудрому. Он поделился с ней своими думами. Та, что могла, объяснила ему, но не в силах была убедить племянника до конца. И посоветовала ему побеседовать с м. Филаретом — предварительно лично ознакомив его с делом... Боюсь теперь сказать, чем кончились беседы бывшего безбожника с митрополитом: кажется, он воротился к вере. Но не в этом теперь соль этого рассказа, а в другом: незнающий — близок к вере. У него всегда может встать этот вопрос мужичка: "А ну-ка Бог есть?"Пришлось мне слышать откуда-то подобный, но еще более странный случай. Один священник, не то переживший неверие, не то лишь притворявшийся им (неверующим), сдружился с местным помещиком села, открытым безбожником. Они проводили время в картах и ночных попойках: а потом священник, как ни в чем не бывало, шел служить литургию в храм. Так продолжалось долгое время. Но как-то священник, за картами, говорит партнеру по-приятельски:— А какие мне стали приходить мысли! Все чаще приходит в голову вопрос: а что, если Бог и на самом деле есть? Ведь тогда страшно... Что же мне будет за мое лицемерие и обман людей! Помещик со смешком стал что-то говорить, но успокоить священника не мог. Наоборот, доводы последнего стали действовать и на помещика. И они оба никак не могли устранить страшного вопроса... Кончилось, кажется, тем, что оба стали верующими: или этим путем умный батюшка "догадливо" (Лк. 16, 8) привел заблудшую овцу к вере — уж не помню. Но смысл рассказа все тот же: не знающий близок к вере, ибо никак не может доказать ни себе, ни другим, что Бога нет.И если уж вы довели кого-нибудь или он сам дошел до ясного убеждения — а это совершенно легко, как мы видели, — чтобы он понял свое "не знаю", то такой человек "недалек" от Царствия Божия.А если ему еще привести для аналогии примеры из жизни, что мы очень многого не знаем, а все же принимаем на веру, тогда ему еще легче прийти к ней; или во всяком случае такому человеку легко будет отбить нападения от неразумных безбожников "незнаем-отрицателей".В самом деле, давно уже замечено, что большинство из наших знаний принято нами не потому, что мы сами все это узнали, да проверили, да поняли собственным умом, нет — большая часть наших знаний принята на веру от других. Это — очевидная истина, но о ней не все знают. А знать крайне легко.Возьму примеры.Все первые знания мы приняли на веру от родителей, а не от собственного опыта: не бери, не касайся; это можно, а это нельзя; здесь обожжешься, там пальчики отморозишь; это ешь, а то не ешь; делай то, не делай этого — и прочие без конца советы: все это мы приняли от отцов на веру. Потом, поступивши в школы, стали принимать на веру сведения от учителей: где какие страны, какие города, народы, их жизнь; какова жизнь природы, животных, небесных светил. От Солнца столько-то миллионов верст до Земли: верим. Или вот еще лечение: как мы верим докторам, совершенно не зная, какие именно лекарства и почему именно они действуют на нас, принимаем их с верою: да еще и совершенно слепой. При нашем неведении их любой аптекарь мог бы отравить нас, давши вместо безвредных капель какого-нибудь яду: ведь мы же не знаем разницы в лекарствах! И прочее, и прочее...И, однако же, никто не протестует против такой веры, не требует непременно собственного знания. И да где же это возможно: если самому доходить до всего "собственным умом", для этого потребовались бы каждому сотни лет, да и то всего не узнать бы! И люди благоразумно принимают на веру большую часть знаний.Но на это можно возразить нам, что все (или хоть многие) естественные знания сообщены нам людьми, которые сами непосредственно узнали их и проверили опытно. Верно. Но ведь совершенно то же самое и мы, верующие, говорим, что мы, хотя сами не видели, но другие видели и узнали, а потом и нам сообщили. Все Божественное Откровение дано нам через посредников Божиих, получивших его непосредственно. Когда мы читаем Слово Божие, то нет никакого сомнения, что очевидцы сообщают нам то, что они "знали". Да и сами они утверждают, что говорят о вещах, им совершенно известных, несомненных. Как-то прежде я не обращал на это внимания, а не очень давно меня удивили слова апостола Павла: "Я знаю", "я знаю"... Он решился в защиту своего авторитета открыть коринфянам о чрезвычайном видении, о коем он молчал 14 лет. Но так как оно было слишком необычно, то апостол заранее усиленно утверждает, что это не измышление, не фантазия, а истинный факт, о коем он точно "знает". Но одновременно с этим скромно и твердо сознается, что нечто в этом откровении он не понимает, "не знает". И эта оговорка его о незнании еще более убеждает нас в истинности того, что он "знает". Приведу эти слова, полные силы:"Не полезно хвалиться мне, ибо я приду к видениям и откровениям Господним. Знаю человека во Христе, который назад тому четырнадцать лет (в теле ли — не знаю, вне ли тела — не знаю: Бог знает) восхищен был до третьего неба. И знаю о таком человеке (только не знаю — в теле, или вне тела: Бог знает), что он был восхищен в рай и слышал неизреченные слова, которых человеку нельзя пересказать" (2 Кор. 12, 1 — 4).Апостол несомненно говорит о себе самом. И дальше он прямо дает это понять: "И чтобы я не превозносился чрезвычайностью откровений, дано мне жало в плоть, ангел сатаны, удручать меня, чтобы я не превозносился" (ст. 7).Не говорю уже о видениях ему Иисуса Христа, являвшегося при жизни не менее 5 раз.Так же или подобно этому утверждают свои знания и другие апостолы: "О том, что было от начала, что мы слышали, что видели своими очами, что рассматривали и что осязали руки наши, о Слове жизни" (Иисусе Христе)... — о том (снова повторяет ап. Иоанн), что "мы видели и слышали, возвещаем вам" (1 посл. 1, 1, 3).И ап. Петр заявляет твердо:"Мы возвестили вам силу и пришествие Господа нашего Иисуса Христа, не хитросплетенным басням последуя, но быв очевидцами Его величия. Ибо Он принял от Бога Отца честь и славу,. когда от велелепной славы принесся к Нему такой глас: "Сей есть Сын Мой Возлюбленный, в Котором Мое благоволение". И этот глас, принесшийся с небес, мы слышали, будучи с Ним на святой горе" Фаворской (2 Пет. 1, 16, 18).Но сильнее всех говорил Сам Господь, постоянно свидетельствуя, что Его учение есть прямое откровение Отца Небесного: "Я говорил не от Себя; но пославший Меня Отец, Он дал Мне заповедь, что сказать и что говорить. И Я знаю, что заповедь Его есть жизнь вечная. Итак, что я говорю, говорю, как сказал Мне Отец" (Ин. 12, 49 — 50)."Вы (евреи) не познали Его (Бога), а Я знаю Его, и если скажу, что не знаю Его, то буду подобный вам лжец. Но Я знаю Его" (8, 55)."Я говорю то, что видел у Отца Моего; а вы делаете то, что видели у отца вашего" диавола (8, 38. 44)."Мое учение — не Мое, но Пославшего Меня" (7, 16)."Я пришел не Сам от Себя, но истинен Пославший Меня, Которого вы не знаете", а "Я знаю Его, потому что Я от Него, и Он послал Меня" (Ин. 7, 28, 29).И еще говорил он Никодиму ночью:"Истинно, истинно говорю тебе: мы (Господь тут включает и всех апостолов, и всех веровавших Ему христиан) говорим о том, что знаем, и свидетельствуем о том, что видели; а вы (евреи) свидетельства Нашего не принимаете" (Ин. 3. 11).Так утверждать о себе могут лишь те, кто действительно знает то, о чем они свидетельствуют. А прежде мы показали, что вообще все Писание написано очевидцами. А если это так, то как же не верить им?! И если мы верим обычно людям, то многократно более и несомненно сильнее мы должны принимать учение и откровение от святых, не лживых людей, а наипаче от Самого Господа, Который сказал о Себе: "Я есмь путь, и истина, и жизнь" (Ин. 14, 6).Следовательно, если чего мы сами не видели, то за нас видели другие. И совершенно неоспоримо, что наши свидетели без сравнения достовернее земных отцов учителей, очевидцев, рассказчиков: их святость, да еще засвидетельствованная потом и смерть за проповедуемую истину, ручаются за достоверность их свидетельств. И если люди верят другим очевидцам, то тем более должны бы все верить нашим. А если иные не верят им, то совсем не потому, чтобы наши свидетели были недостоверны, а оттого, что не хотят верить, как это было и с евреями: "Иисус возгласил в храме, уча и говоря: и знаете Меня, и знаете, откуда Я" (Ин. 7, 28), но "не хотите принять".Но упорствующие против истины, как и евреи, будут искать все новых возражений и самооправдания. Так и с нашими вопросами о вере отрицатели могут говорить дальше:"Но всякое наше человеческое знание каждый может проверить и сам на опыте; и тогда вера обратится у него в собственное знание".Допустим — и так. Но то же самое можно сказать и про религиозное знание. Если верующий будет искать подтверждения своей веры опытом, то и он доступен ему в разных степенях. Об этом будет особая речь дальше. А пока заметим лишь, что и в естественных знаниях лишь кое-что немногое мы может проверить опытно; а большая часть — особенно же о последних основах бытия — останется совершенно недоступною не только почти всему человечеству, но и самым ученейшим людям. Это будет показано в следующем отделе, к которому я и перехожу сейчас.Заканчивая же этот отдел, мы совершенно уверены, что всякому очевидно поставленное раньше положение:Из незнания нельзя делать вывода о небытии. И если это усвоить, то навсегда будет убран с пути к вере этот досадный и детски-наивный камень, коим злоупотребляют или неумные люди, или злонамеренные упорники против истины.Но это тупое оружие их обращается потом против них самих: незнайки, осмеливающиеся, однако, отрицать то, чего не знают, оказываются очевидно неумными, обнаруживают этим самым собственное безумное "безумие". Мало того, проявляется в то же время и их злостное настроение сердца, не желающего принимать истину, заранее злонамеренно хотящего отрицать веру, вопреки логике.А через это они подрывают сами собственное неверие, и тем должны оттолкнуть от себя порядочных честных людей, действительно ищущих истины.

Б) Непостижимость не есть небытие

Если предыдущее возражение о "незнании" является поверхностным, то второе, подлежащее нашему рассмотрению, несколько тоньше, хотя по существу является продолжением предыдущего. Доселе говорилось о личном нашем незнании вещей, которые все же могут быть познанными кем-то другими. А теперь нужно рассмотреть тот случай неведения, который ни в коем случае не может быть постигнут умом. Предметы веры нашей являются в последней глубине тайнами, совершенно не подлежащими уму.Идолопоклонникам "ума" захочется заранее торжествовать над таким нашим утверждением о тайнах веры: мы-де умные люди, потому и не можем принять веру, что у вас там все — тайны. Мы же никаких тайн знать не желаем, а признаем лишь разумное, понятное!Торжество это — преждевременное и ложное. Но как оно понятно нам, интеллигентам! Я и по своему опыту знаю, как мы, воспитанные в поклонении уму, боялись тайн. Хорошо помню, что верить в неоправданные "господином" умом догматы считалось у нас почти неприличным. И потому, если уж мы не могли чего объяснить, то все же старались делать вид, что-де понимаем. А если уж вынуждены были в конце концов признаваться в непостижимости религиозных тайн, то мы считали это "последним делом", проявлением нашей умственной убогости; и стыдились ее. "Доказывать" какую-либо истину веры текстом Слова Божия нам казалось признаком нашей несчастной безвыходности.Да и какое же это доказательство?! Ведь умом тут ничего не объясняется, а лишь повторяется тайна веры другими словами — "от Писания". И верно: Писание было лишь свидетельством, а не убеждало доказательством от ума. И у нас образовалась другая боязнь, происходящая от первой: боязнь ума привела нас к "тайнобоязни".И эта тайнобоязнь, боязнь непостижимости истин, веры, приносила нам огромный вред. И когда я понял ложь этой болезни, то я был этому очень рад, точно разорвал путы на себе. И с той поры я уже не боюсь тайн.Мало того: считаю их необходимыми. Еще больше: теперь люблю тайны. А бестаинственность считаю неразумием для веры. Слава Богу! И я хотел бы теперь помочь и читателям понять все это и придти к таким же успокоительным выводам. Через это мы сбросим с дороги веры гораздо более тяжкий камень, чем два прежних — о неверии ученых и об отрицании "незнаек". И это тоже нетрудно. Сначала поясню свою задачу очень простым примером, который мне часто припоминается.Я был студентом Духовной академии. Из Юрьевского университета проездом на родину заехал ко мне товарищ по семинарии, Г. М. Конечно, мы скоро подняли вопрос о вере. Миша Г. с самого начала заявил весьма авторитетно:— Мы (непременно "мы", а не "я"!) принимаем лишь то, что понимаем, а никаких тайн и гипотез не принимаем!Всякий знает, что во всех науках и были, и есть гипотезы (прежде ими были атомы, эфир и пр.); но забудем о них, будем говорить уж прямо о тайнах в собственном смысле, т. е. о вещах, действительно и очевидно непостижимых для ума.Выслушав товарища, я случайно взглянул на его сапоги (пусть читатели не посетуют на меня за такой "грубый" пример: так было тогда), хорошо блестевшие от ваксы:— Ты не признаешь тайн. Допустим. А скажи вот, почему блестят твои сапоги? Ты это понимаешь? — спрашиваю я.— Конечно: свет падает на гладкую поверхность, отражается, падает на наши глаза, и мы видим его.— Хорошо. Уж тут есть тайны: почему именно свет отражается от гладкой поверхности? И почему этот угол падения равен углу преломления? Да и самое "видение" — тайна: как от раздражения сетчатой оболочки нашего глаза получается точное впечатление предметов, а не сливаются они в пятно? Глаз — чудесный аппарат! Но не буду уж говорить об этом, а вот лишь — о сапогах. Почему же поверхность их стала гладкой?— От ваксы.— Ладно. Но и тут далеко не просто: если ваксой намазать лишь сапоги, то они будут темными, а не блестящими; и еще нужно ваксу потереть щеткой, чтобы она заблестела. Почему она блестит от трения? Знаешь ли ты это — не знаешь! А спрошу тебя я еще дальше: почему именно вот вакса натертая заблестит, а если мы смажем сапог дегтем или салом, то, сколько ни три, отражения не будет. Ну скажи: почему это? Почему вакса блестит?— Ну, уж это — такое свойство ваксы! — ответил более скромно Миша.— Вот и кончилось тут все твое "понимание". И как скоро? Да и о каком пустом предмете — о сапогах! Если уж ты не мог сказать ничего больше, как сослаться на "свойство ваксы", то этим самым ты отказался от дальнейших объяснений: за этим для тебя стоит тайна, о которой ты никогда не думал и не подозревал даже. Сознайся!Он молчал. Да и что тут скажешь? Тут и ученейшие люди станут в тупик.Вот другой пример, уже от лица ученого профессора. В нашей СПб академии был философский кружок. Профессора и студенты читали доклады по разным вопросам, а потом происходил обмен мыслей. Однажды на самоуверенное объяснение какого-то вопроса профессором С-м я — с тайным умыслом — задаю ему вопрос дальше:— В. С.! А это почему?Он что-то сказал. А я опять дальше:— А это почему?С великими натяжками профессор выбросил и последний балласт своего ума.— А это почему? — намеренно шел я дальше.— Ну послушайте, Ф. (назвал он мою фамилию), так нельзя спрашивать: почему да почему!— А почему же нельзя? — будто в недоумении спрашиваю его.— Да просто потому, что если так спрашивать все дальше и дальше, то на ваши "почему" скоро не скажешь ничего!— Да я вот именно этого и добиваюсь: послушать вас, вы будто все знаете, все понимаете. И нам внушаете такую же веру в ум. На самом же деле в конце концов человек стоит перед тайнами. Получается обман.— Ну конечно! — ответил умно ученый профессор. — Мы знаем лишь очень немного; корни же вещей для нас непостижимы. Это из Канта известно: мы познаем лишь феномены (явления), а сущность их вне разума.— Профессор! А я думаю, что и феномены мы не "познаем", т. е. в смысле понимаем, а только принимаем, как факты.— Ну, это другой уже вопрос, — сказал он. И мы воротились к докладу. Довольно и этих примеров, чтобы противники тайн сразу сбили спесь свою. В самом деле, если уж в этом мире мы постоянно сталкиваемся с бесчисленными тайнами, то не тем ли более мы должны ожидать тайн в мире ином? Если скоро "не скажешь ничего" о мире естественном, то можно ли требовать полного знания о мире сверхъестественном?А что в этом мире все полно тайн для ума, — это нетрудно доказать. И я приведу еще несколько примеров: они сильнее запечатлеют в нашем сознании эту простую, но далеко не всем очевидную истину. Не помню — где-то я, вероятно, читал, — как профессор СПб университета Хвольсон, начиная курс физики своих лекций, (сказал) студентам:— Г.г. студенты! Вам в гимназиях ваши преподаватели физики все "объясняли", и вы думали, что мы все понимаем. Я же курс лекций начинаю с того, что утверждаю: мир есть тайна.И действительно, лишь поверхностному уму может казаться все доступным пониманию. А внимательному наблюдателю — совсем даже не профессиональному ученому — нетрудно узреть это. Возьмем несколько совершенно очевидных примеров.Мы ежедневно видим небо. Кто не задавался вопросом о том, кончается ли оно (пространство вообще) или не имеет конца? И какой бы ответ мы ни приняли, оба будут равно непостижимыми уму. Если мы скажем, что пространство где-то кончается, мы тотчас же спрашиваем себя: а что же дальше? "Ничего" мы не можем ни принять, ни вообразить. И как будто кажется легче допустить, что за этим "концом" начинается снова бесконечное пространство! Тайна! Если мы примем другое решение: пространство бесконечно, то и это представление совершенно не вместимо нашему уму: на опыте мы ничего без конца не знаем и допустить не можем; а если бы и допустили — по той необходимости, что не можем понять конечности пространства, то все равно вообразить этого не можем. И таким образом, мы постоянно пребываем в полной беспомощности: ни конца, ни бесконечности мы не понимаем. Вот одна из нагляднейших тайн этого мира!Совершенно подобно этому мы не можем понять и происхождения мира, начала времени. Принимаем ли мы религиозное учение о творении мира из "ничего", мы этого не понимаем нисколько: из ничего ничего не бывает; и мы не можем представить себе это "ничего". Если же допустим, что мир существовал "вечно", всегда — и это непредставимо: мы ничего не знаем без начала.А у нас всегда будет стоять вопрос: откуда же и когда он начался? Непостижимо, или — как говорят иногда по-латински — "crux super rationem" (крест над разумом). Снова тайна.Если мы обратимся к более частным вопросам, об отдельных силах природы, то замечаем лишь действие их, а понимать самые силы не в состоянии. Что такое закон притяжения? — тайна: это сознавал и говорил сам Ньютон; что такое электричество, радио — откуда такие силы в них? — тайны, нами не понимаемые. Мы даже и не задумываемся над ними, хотя и пользуемся этими силами.А мир животных — разве не полон тайн? А особенно — высшее из животных существ — человек? Душа и тело, мозг и ум сердце и чувства — полны таинственности. Как это серая мозговая кора думает? Как красный кусок мяса чувствует? Какая поразительно премудрая организация всего нашего существа! Да сколько мы в нем не понимаем! Например, что такое сон? И по чему многие органы во время сна бесчувственны (слух, осязание и проч.), а желудок продолжает работать, сердце бьется, легкие дышат? Как происходит, что у одних волосы черны, у других — белы, у третьих — рыжи? Разве мы понимаем это? Нет! — Как зарождается живое начало в существах? Не знаем. Естествоиспытатели все хотели бы открыть, что жизнь зарождается самопроизвольно из мертвой неорганической материи: им не хочется признавать учение о творении жизни Богом. Но допустим, что они и сумели бы достигнуть этого.Разве чудо было бы от этого меньше? Так же, как в самом происхождении (или "вечности") мира тайна, так и зарождение жизни из материи было бы тайной: из мертвого — живое.Да и не перечесть всего дивного и непостижимого в мире! Смотрю я на цветы: какое чудо! Из одной и той же земли и воды произрастают розы, лилии и прочие бесчисленные цветы. И как это из зеленого ствола вдруг выходит совершенно иного цвета какой-то венчик? И почему именно такого, а не иного цвета? И почему одни розы — красны. Другие — белы, третьи — желты, четвертые — розовые? Никакая наука не открыла разницы в существе розовых семян; а цветы из них разны. Разве кому-нибудь это понятно? А если бы и открыли какую-нибудь разницу в семенах, тогда станет последующий вопрос: а почему эта разница в семени производит желтый или красный цвет? И опять ум остановится: опять на "почему" скоро "не скажешь ничего". А трудолюбие и мудрость пчел и муравьев! Известно ли, например, всем, что форма сотов — шестигранные цилиндры — является идеальной для того, чтобы в известном пространстве положить как можно больше меду, а в то же время дать восковым стенкам большую при этом сопротивляемость? Круглая форма сотов была бы еще более прочной, но зато между круглыми цилиндрами оставалась бы напрасная пустота; или ее нужно было бы бесплодно заливать повыше воском. Четырехгранные соты вместили бы меду не меньше, но стенки их были бы меньше прочны. Восьмигранные соты не могли бы соединяться без промежуточной пустоты. И только шестигранная форма является наилучшей! Ну кто их научил? Говорят: инстинкт.Но этим, будто бы "умным" и непонятным словом люди прикрыли лишь собственное бессилие ума! "Инстинкт" означает непонятную нам силу природы. "Инстинкт" — это означает отказ от дальнейшего рассуждения и понимания. Между тем неверующие не хотят признавать таинственного в мире религиозном, а на каждом шагу вынуждены считаться с бесчисленными "инстинктами" в мире низшем.Из многих непостижимых "инстинктов" мне пришлось слышать об особенно поразившем мою память и ум — "чуде" про петухов. Это — быль! В одном из полков Белой армии, эвакуированных из России в 1920 г. в Галлиполи, офицеры разговорились как-то о религии. Озорники мысли начали недостойно шутить над тайнами, чудесами сверхъестественного мира. Среди них, по обычаю, присутствовал и священник. Слушая их пустые речи, он вдруг задал им вопрос:— Вот вы, умники, все хотите понимать о Боге и загробном мире. А я и в этом-то мало чего понимаю. Скажите, пожалуйста, мне вот о чем: почему петухи поют по ночам и притом в определенные три срока, точно часы хорошие?Офицерам этот вопрос сначала показался смешным. Но священник просил совершенно серьезного ответа: частный пример был очень прост сам по себе, но общий вопрос о тайне многих непостижимых вещей этого мира стоял глубоко и неотразимо. И офицеры "ничего не сказали" отцу духовному.— Ну вот то-то и есть! — кончил батюшка. — Нужно о себе скромнее думать. Где уж нам над небесными предметами глумиться?Прошу и я тех, кто будет когда-нибудь читать мои, в сущности полудетские, эти записки, скажите-ка, почему, в самом деле, петухи поют в ночные "стражи"? — Я ничуть не понимаю этого. А вы?Пришлось мне рассказать про это на одной лекции. Неожиданно (обычно все молчат) инженер-слушатель, с самодовольной улыбкой знатока, стал возражать мне:— Это объяснимо! Петухи — хорошие самцы. И они своим криком и хлопаньем крыльев отпугивают возможных врагов — зверьков от курочек.Я печально подивился: и как это "умникам" не хочется признаться в своей ограниченности? "Умобоязнь" — старая болезнь.Конечно, это выдуманная теория. Но допустим ее на минуту; тайна лишь передвинется, а не уничтожится.— Хорошо. Допустим. Но тогда скажите мне: почему же стерегут так своих самок одни лишь петухи? А почему не индюки, не гусаки, не орлы, не воробьи? Почему не псы, не кони, не быки? И они имеют те же инстинкты самцов, и они могли бы и кричать, и лаять, и ржать. А они спят себе и даже не просыпаются ночью. Но если бы далее допустить, что все самцы охраняли бы своих самок, как петухи, почему же тогда не кричать бы, не ржать, не вопить им с самой тьмы до восхода солнца? Разве враги приходят лишь через три часа по ночам? Не вся ли ночь в их распоряжении? Почему же так? А если одни петухи выделяются из всего животного царства, то чем объяснить это чудо? — Не знаю! Нет, дело совсем не так просто, г. инженер!И читателя своего прошу: не глумиться над случаем с петухами. В мире нам многое кажется по привычке простым; а на деле — мудрено!Почему из совершенно одинакового тела животных у самцов оперение красивее, чем у самок? Почему у львов грива, а у львиц нет? Почему и у людей: у мужчин усы и борода, а у женщин нет; хотя (на голове) волоса одинаково растут? Почему мужчины выше женщин? Кругом — тайны и тайны. Многие из нас замечали, что прежде под телеграфными проводами были белые подставки, а теперь их заменили зелеными? Никто и не задумывался! Один инженер объяснил мне, что, оказывается, электрическому току проводов зеленый цвет мешает меньше, чем белый. А почему? Этого и специалисты не понимают. Случайно заметили такое полезное свойство зеленого цвета и применили его; а почему — не знают.Один из ученейших физиков сказал: "Мы замечаем лишь последовательное сосуществование (порядок: одно следует за другим), но ни сущности причин, ни происходящих процессов не понимаем!"Это кажется нам, простым людям, будто уже очень мудреным; а на деле все проще.Например, я зажигаю спичку о коробочную корявую стенку: появляется пламень. Почему? Произошло трение одного материала о другой; получилась, говорят, теплота, а она перешла в огонь. Будто понятно? А мне — нет. Тут целый ворох тайн: почему теплота перешла в огонь? Почему невидимое сделалось видимым? Как это? Почему от трения происходит теплота? Почему известным материалам легче нагреваться, чем другим? Не понимаю, не понимаю! Не вижу процессов при этом!.. Тайны. Вижу: одно всегда следует за другим (последовательное сосуществование); и по привычке говорится: А (трение спички) есть "причина" В (огонь). Но слово "причина" ничего не объясняет тут, а лишь повторяется: за А следует В. Только! Тайна же процесса остается!А теперь — радио... Что за диво! Слышим за десятки тысяч верст! Весь мир полон бесчисленнейших звуков, а нам он кажется тишиной; поставьте же дивный приемник радио — и все запело, заиграло, загудело, зашумело, зашептало, зазвенело... Диво! Отчего? — "Таково свойство радио!" — ответят нам. А почему? — тайна... И тайна ничуть не большая, чем случай с сапогами: "такое свойство ваксы" там, то же самое — и здесь."Дивны дела Божии!" — говорит русский мудрый народ... А раньше его Псалмопевец в 103-м псалме дивился миру. Он даже дивился такому привычному явлению, как "вино"; "вино веселит сердце человека"...Истинное непостижимое чудо: вольет в себя человек воды, молока — веселья нет; выпил вина — веселье: "пьяному и море по колено". Скажут, спирт, алкоголь. Хорошо, ну почему у "спирта" такое свойство? Почему в иных жидкостях спирт?И восхищенный пророк заканчивает: "Вся премудростию сотворил еси, Господи!" Премудро все! Больше: непостижимо все! Все дивно, чудесно! И лишь слепой упорец не хочет видеть этого.Теперь очень легко сделать вывод: если уж в этом земном мире столько тайн, то тем более их должно быть в другом мире, высшем нас.И следовательно, если кто дерзает думать и говорить, что из непостижимости следует вывод о небытии, тот "рассуждает" (совсем не рассуждает, а вопреки рассудку лжет) не только по-детски, а просто бессмысленно. И такому человеку следовало бы сначала отречься от этого мира, столь непостижимого для него. Но он этого не делает благоразумно. Из "я не понимаю" не делает вывода "я не признаю". Один профессор немец встретил бывшего своего студента по университету. Молодой человек с самохвальной развязностью скоро заявил прежнему учителю, что теперь он уже не верит в иной мир.— Почему же? — спокойно вопрошает опытный профессор.— Я не признаю ничего непонятного.— А вы мясо кушаете?— Кушаю.— Какое: сырое или вареное и жареное?— Не сырое же!— А почему?— То вкусное, сырое — противно.— А вы понимаете, отчего это?— Не задумывался никогда.— Ну, в таком случае я бы вам посоветовал и тут быть последовательным: не принимать мяса, раз вы его не понимаете. А когда уже поймете, тогда и ешьте!Смутился молодой умник, но, вероятно, и потом продолжал есть мясо, не понимая ничего: не любят люди беспокоить себя думами, да еще — о непостижимом; а отрицать, хотя бы вопреки смыслу, любят: дерзка душа легкомысленного человека! Глубоко же умный человек никогда не спешит делать этого: он знает, сколько тайн разлито вокруг него и в нем самом, даже в порядке естественном.Тем более — в сверхъестественном.Да и просто не глупому человеку очевидно, что вообще непостижимость не есть небытие.Непостижимость есть только непостижимость: не больше. Тайна есть только тайна, а не отрицание ее.Можно бы на этом кончить поднятый вопрос: разумному человеку довольно с избытком: это совершенно очевидно. Но я нахожу практически полезным коснуться одного частного вопроса веры: чудес. Очень уж часто легкомысленные люди злоупотребляют им в борьбе с религией. На этом споткнулся и Толстой. Его повторяют рядовые интеллигенты; дерзко издеваются и неграмотные рабочие, особенно партийные "безбожники".О чуде есть целые исследования (в русской литературе есть магистерская работа архим. Феофана, впоследствии епископа Калужского). Но вопрос совсем не сложен; считаю нужным его добавочно разъяснить, хотя все главное уже дано в предыдущем: если в этом мире столько непонятного и дивного, то чему же удивляться в сверхъестественном? И если непостижимость сил и явлений этого мира не ведет к отрицанию его, то еще более чудесность другого мира никак, ни в коем случае не свидетельствует против его бытия. Наоборот, утверждаю я, эта чудесность не только неизбежна в ином мире, но составляет одно из непременнейших условий и форм его бытия. Чудесность не только не говорит против иного мира, а, наоборот, подтверждает истинность и реальность его. Без чудесности был бы не только сомнителен, но и просто невозможен "тот" мир. Все это, собственно, очень ясно. Я даже стесняюсь "доказывать" вещи очевидные...

В) Необходимость чудес: неподобие не есть небытие