« » – 2014 26 , religio « я (30.09.2014, , 2014 ) -II» 2 86.2 . . . . . . , , , , , - μ . . . , , № 35.1973.2014/ ( - « » « II» (30.09.2014, , - ), . , , . , , , . , , - , - 2 86.2 © ISBN 978-5-9984-0534-1 2 , 2014 1. , Religio, Religion, , , . . . . …………………………..5 , μ , ……………………………………………………………19 . . « » ……………………………………………………………….48 . . …………………...51 . , XIX - . , « »: .( )……………………………………………………………….66 XX . . μ ……………………………………………………………..73 . . ………………………………………………………………...89 . . . : ………………………………………………….……………...120 . . ……………………………………………132 3 . . …………………………………………………………...137 . . religioμ …………………………………………………………………153 . ………………...182 . . « » ……………………………………………………………...212 . ., . . ……………………………………………...…227 . . - ……………………………………………………………………………...251 2. . . 1 DERETIĆ I. DШЬЭШвОЯЬФвμ RОПХОМЭТЧР ШЧ PКЫКНШбОЬ ТЧ HЮЦКЧТЬЦ……………...259 KANDIĆ A. Divine teleology: Dositej, Kant, PlaЭШ……………………………….267 STRAARUP J. Belief in God, Jesus and afterlife, West and East of the Gulf of Bothnia……………………………………………………...279 SHADRINA O. GШОЭСО, MОЭСШН КЧН «NОа EМШХШРТМКХ DТЬМТpХТЧО»……………….318 4 1. , Religio, Religion, , , . . , , , - . . , . , - , , , Д1, 55 – 56]. - . , , , , , , , , , , , , Д1, 6 – 34]. , - . . . , 5 μ , , - , - Д5, 50 – 80Ж. - . . . , , - . . - , , - .« ,— - ,— , » Д6, 673Ж. Д6, 673Ж, , , . - 1 . , ( , ) . priori. ( 1. , , , - , . , , ) [6, 675]. 1 , . , , , , , . , 6 . , - ( 2. , , ). - Д6, 675 – 676]. ( 3. - , . , - , ) Д6, 677 – 678]. ( 4. - , . , , , . ) Д6, 679Ж. . ( ) , , . , , , - , , - . - , , . - , - , . , , - , , , , . , , . , - 7 , — — , - . , , , - , . , . - , , — Д6, 673Ж. , ,— - ,— - . — - — , . , , , , - , . , , — ,— - , , - . , — , — , - , - . . « - » Д6, 673Ж. , , , , , . , , , . 8 , . , , μ , — . , , , , - . - , . , 1. - . - , , Д7, 40Ж. , 2. , - , - , Д5, 34 – 50; 8, 30 – 40]. , 3. , - . Д1, 55 – 66]. , 4. , (« 300Ж , - ...») [10, (« , , ...) Д9, 89Ж , , , . « » « ». - , , . , , , , , , , , , 9 - , , , - ( , . .). , - - , - , , , ( ). - , , , , . . - . , , , , , , ( ) ) ( - , . , . , ( ), - . , . - ( ) . - , — - Д1, 55 – 66] . . - . , 10 , , - « — », — . . - . . . , , , , , . , . . - . , . . , , , , Д2, 123 – 134Ж. . ( ), . . « » , . « », ( , . . , , , , ), . - , . « , , » . 11 - ( ), - . , « , , - » - . , , , ( ), - , , ( - ). , , 1. . - 1.1. ( ), , ( — ) - . . - 1.2. , , . 1.3. . ( ) . ( ( ), ). ( ) — — ( ) . - , . , , ( 12 ). , 1.4. , , , ( - ). . , - , . — ( , . .), , — . . 1.5. , Д1, 55 – 66Ж, - . , , . , 1.6. , ( - ), - . , , , , , , . ., . 2. , , 2.1. « . » , . 13 , , , ( — - ). , . . 2.2. - , , , . . «... , - ,— ,— , - , , ...» Д3, 137Ж. . - , , - , . , — - - [5, 53 – 58]. . 1. , - - , , - . , — - , . , - , . , , . ( ), - . . , , - . - , , 14 , - , . . 2. - - - . , . - - , , - , . - , , - . , , ( ) , - . . , ( )2. . , . . - 2 . . « , , , , , , ...» . , , , ». . , , . , 15 , ( , μ « , , , , ). . , - . «... — . . , ,— ν — , » Д7, 271Ж. , - , . , μ , . . ( , ) - , . - . . , . . , . - , ( ). . , , , . , - , , ( ). , - , - , ( - , ). 16 . . . , , - . - , , - . , , . , , . , . , . , . , , , , ( . - , ), . , , . . , , , - — . . — . , ,— 17 - . , . . , - , , - , , , , . . . , ( ) , . , , . , – . – , , , . - . , . , , , . 1. , . . . – μ « - - ». – 2013. . 2. . 3. . .– μ - . – 1965. . – 1975. 18 3- .– .μ . – . 1. – .– 4. . . .– .μ .– - 1988. . . 5. .– . 6. // . .μ 6- . – 1974. .– .μ – . 3. – 1964. . 7. . « // - . . 8. » . - . – . 1. . « », « », « ». – .μ , 1968. 9. . 10. . // - ., . . . – . X. – . . 2- . . 20. « .μ » // - , 1946. . . , : , Abstract. This article contains the results of a sociological study of religiosity of Vladimir university students Key words: religion, believer, youth, types of religiosity « », , ( ѣ ), ( « » «аēЫ» , « ), » « » , « 19 - » , « « », « », , « » « » » « » « - , »[9]. « ѣ » , , « - » (1037-1050) ( μ « - - , , , ,( ) , , ( ). - , . »// ѣ , ѣ . ѣ - , ѣѣ ѣ , ѣ , ). - ѣ , - « » , , « » , , , « »[22]. , , - ( « »– ) , , . XIX-XX « » 1821, 1882 « 2003 » [35]. « » (1863) . , « ѣ »( , ») « , , « -« ѣ », . . « « » » XIX 20 », « , , , ѣ ». Д17]. , (« « » ѣ », ») (« , »), « « « » 1721 » » ( ), « , » 1815 ( ) « - » ( XIX « « » », . . » « », ), « », , , « « , « » 1761 . . . . « » (1872) , « » (1880). « », 1895 ) , « « » ( , ѣ » « 15 »[57]. , , « » , « », « ( », ) – « – « » « « », » « . . ( », , « , « », », « № 557 1901 . » », . . « 22 », », – « , 20 — . .), . . 1905 , « … », 21 « » « », « ‘ « « ’» [41]. » ѣ », « ». 1905-1917 « » ( 08.04.1929), « », « » « (« )μ » » , , , … « , » ( « » « »)[51]. « » « » « » - « ». . . 1937 , « , « » « , » , « » 56,7% « » 20 », [16]. , « » , . . , , , « 22 »[19]. « », , « » « », , ( , , . .), « » « ». « » , ( , « » « » , , ) « , « » » ( , « », . .) , « . « » , » « – » (« », « » . .), , , , . « « », « , ». », , » , , « - - 23 « » . . « . 1970—1980- ». , « » , , , μ - , « - » « ». « », , , ‘ . , « . . ’ , ‘ « » , - , « », « ’»[50]. « »( »), « , « », , , - . - ( » ) , μ (« , »), , ( - ). « », , , « », « « » , », ’, , ,« , « 24 - , , , - », », « ‘ - », . . « - », , , « , » », . . « « » - , , « - , , »[28]. , « » , « « » », , - « « » « » » », « » »), « », « - « »( « » « - , , - 50 « »[32]. , « », 20% , « ( » μ , » (« - » « , ( , , , « « , ( , » » . .), , « , « « » , ». , - , , - . .)» , , - , . .). « 1) ( 20 , - « 2) »), »[34]. ) , , - - , XIX 25 , « - » « » , . . , « », « « », « » ( , , , . .). « , », , XIX « « » », « - », « » », « .), » ( . . 2012-2013 , , « », « , . . « « », « », » . » . .. , « » , , « ‘ ’ , - ‘ ’ » , ‘ ,« - ’ - ‘ ‘ ’ - ’, , ‘ , ’», ‘ « ’ , , »[36]. « » « , » , , « « » - XIX » » , ». , 26 - , . . « « - , , - , , [4]. - , . .« » - .« – » - , - , - , « »( ) - « » . . . (14 1997 ) « , , , , ,- »[2]. 90- « » - , , - , . - , « ( )» - 90. , , - « » [21]. , , - , ( ) , . . , 2012 27 , , « , - - - »[40]. « , , ( , - , - ), - - , , - », , « », « , , »[56]. - , , - , « », «” ” , . . , », , « , - …»[49]. « » « - » - , , , , , « , ), « »( , , » , [10]. . 28 - , « , – – »[45, C.325, 335]. , « , , » “ ( 60- - « - ”»[47]. ) « » , « »[48]. , - . . (1960- 1970), , . . , « »[42]. « , - , - »[3; C.432; C.32]. , . . . . . . , « [46], » . . . « », . . « » » ( « , « ), - » , « » ( ) [45; - C.4]. , 29 , , , « »[24]. « , « » » - « , , - …», « , , »[37]. . . , « », , « - .… p », p p p p p p в , « p , , - p , »[52]. « . . - » « - »[3; C.433;C.33]. . . , , , 2012 « – - ?», 2001 , « « . 2007 »[18]. » - , - μ« « - » (Comparative Theology) »[1]. 30 , , « » (« - ») - ( « »), »( « « - », - ), , . .. . . , ,« », " , - "»[59]. . « , , , « , , « »( , )»[30]. - « , - »[12]. , « », . . « », , « « » » ( - ) - , , « » « » - « », », « », « - . .. , « , » . « », - 31 « », « »[38]. , , , . . . , , , , - . , « », « »[44]. » , ,« « »( « - , , « , . . « » , » » « , » « - , . » - [5]). ( , ), « - » [23]. . μ« - ( , )?»[27]. « », . . - « » « »[33]. . . , , «… « , », , - , … - ,… »[14;C.77]. - «… « », , , ». , , «… 32 - … »[15]. ( - ) - , « , , »[14; , C.80]. « , - , , , , …»[14; C.82]. , , . . , , « , , , , , , …»[13]. . . , “ ”, “ ”, « - ” ” - ν ” ”, , - »[20]. . . , « », - « - »[54]. , . « , . , , , , - « – - , - »[29], , »( - , »[11]. , , « . 25μ5). , 33 . . ( ) « », « - »[54]. « « », » , – « », « », « », « », « » , « , - . ., - , , … » , - « , , - , « - »[43]. . , , « - », « , , » , « - », « , », « », « - , , »[8]. « » « « » » , 34 - « » 2011 2012 , «PЮЬЬв - RТШЭ»[39]. , . . ,« , - »[55]. . , « , , , , , », « … , , - , , »[25]. « « , » ( \ « ) », », , », « « « »( \ » ), \ », « , , « », – , - [26]. 2013 , 808 , - ( - )[6]. , . . , , », 1 « - »35 « »- - « « », « « » « »- », « » « , « » « ». « , » , » « 65,5%, , » 20,2%, (« « ») – 9%. » , , ( ) – « 44,7 % (35,5 »), « » 50% » « - , . . » (« « »). , « - , » , 9,2 - , , . .« « ѣ » », 1897 » - , - . « 90- - - , « » « « » « »( , . .), , ( , 3-« » , . .), , , . « ( 2013 », ». « - » - μ ( 20 36 ), - ). - , , , , 1905 , , , « », », « « - » « » « . » , « »μ « » ( » ( ) , « » ). ), « - ( - , , « », « » « - , - ». , , « - » « » , . « » « », « ). » (3,74 5 μ« » (3,27) - « » (2,96). , « » (2,23) , - « » (2,12), , « - » (1,75). - « » , , - , , , - XIX-XX « / 37 »( / - ), - « » « »( . . « « », « , », « « « » « »), . . », ». , « » , , - « , « , ») », » - »( - –« « »( –« », « - »). - , « », , , , - « » « « », » , « » » , . . « « , »( . .« »- « « » » ). » « « » . « , - [53], » « », , . [31], « - . – » - . « », « « » »[7]. , 38 - « « » « », , . . , « XIX « - », . » « », « », », « » . . « - », , - , « », « ». , , , « « » » (3,74), » (2,04), « , , , , « - « »), . . »( , », « - « » , (3,50), « « …» 1929 » - « » (« / »), . . », « / « - / », « » / », « ( , )/ ( )». « / , (« », « », « »( « , », » . ., » ( »), , , , « ») », « »( - , », « », « « « « », « », « , ») . », « », « , » « , - , μ « « , , - « - « », « » » « ») - 39 26.09.1997 № 125- " ", « »)[58], » (« - », - « , « » « » . « « » – », , , , , « - » (3.41), « » (3,39), , « » » . , « » « « » , », , « « » . » « » (« », « » ), « ,« » (« », « « « » »- - »( ), « », « » » « - . .). » , « , ,« ». » , » , « 76,2% » (« 36,3 – , »), 10% . »), - « »), (« (39,9) (« - , , XVIII « 9,3% 40 , (« ») « » . « « » 4,3% » « « , » » « , « » - », « ». , . « , » (3,44) « « » (3,14) » « « » « »( », « « », », % , , « » « - » » « » (3,56), « , , ), , - « » « - ». , , « », « » ( « », μ 4,43ν - μ 3,84 μ 3,45) ( μ 3,47ν μ 3,48ν μ 3,15), …μ 2,59 « » - - ( …μ 4,06ν …μ 2,42). « ( )» . « » » « »), « » , « « » « ( - », « - ». , « 41 , », , , , « » « - ». . , - [7]. 1. Encyclopedia of Religion.Second edition / Lindsay Jones, Editor in Chief. Thomson Gale., 2005. V.13. .9125-9142. . . 2. . // . . http://www.gumer.info/ bibliotek_Buks/Literat/aver/bg_kult.php . . 3. . . // . - .μ , 1976 – . . .ЁV. .μ ν // . 4- . .2010. . ., 4. . . - . . . , 2013, № 10. . . - // - μ μ .25. .432. / . - . . . . . .2. – - - , 2013. // 5. http://antimodern.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/ anthony_sourozh/ . ., 6. . . // μ . .2. – μ . . 7. . 8. / . - . « . . . - , 2013. » . 2013, № 2. . // 42 http://www.i-u.ru/biblio/archive/ averianov_xrreligiya/hm21.aspx . 9. ./ .μ . . . . . .μ , 1995. - . . 10. » « ». . μ « - .μ « », 2009. .29-30¸33-34, .. 11. . .– ., 1992. – .4. 12. // http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 13. . . . . / .– μ . ., . , 1992. - .55. . . 14. ., μ . .μ - , 1994. . . 15. . 1. - .μ 1993. - .328. . . 16. 1937 1937 . μ // . " / ". 3-5 ( ЁЁ). . 17. . .I ., 1990 IV. .μ ,1955. . . 18. // СЭЭpμ//КЛТЫОР.ЫЮ/ЛХШРЬ/ОЧНШЯТМФТУИ/?Цp=707ν . . // - http://religion.ng.ru/facts/2001-07-25/6ИЬЭКЧНКЫЭ.СЭЦХν // ЭОШХШРв.СЭЦν http://warrax.net/Satan/Others/ μ http://old.novayagazeta.ru/data/2007/ . ? // . . kentavr03/00.html; . http://www.foma.ru/article/index.php?news=2368 43 , 9, 2007 // . . 19. « » // μ . .2. – / μ . - . . 20. . . - , 2013 . 2- .– . . ., 1993. – .34. - 21. « »μ – . / . . , . . . . . . .μ - , 2007. .60, 76. .– 22. .μ / 927; , 2002. .923- // http://www.eleven.co.il/?mode= // article&id=10890&query=%C2%C5%D0%C0ν μ . 352-355ν 3 . .1. - .μ // μ . .- . ., 1993. - .μ - « - . VII.– .669-695ν », 2004. μ . . – .μ , 2006. – . 197. . . 23. . ., 1989. .190. . 24. . . .– . .μ / . . . . 2003, .7. . 25. // http://www.gtmarket.ru/laboratory/publicdoc/2006/441 26. . - . . . . ., 1992, .258; . μ . . μ . ., . . 1983, . . . μ , 1998. C. 191; . . 44 . .145; - .μ « , . +» « », 2012. .199. . 27. // . .1 / . ., . ., . . . . . . . ., 1996. .14. . 28. . . . ЯЬ. // cogniometry/ ( 28.05.2014) . . 29. , 1997.– . http://polit.ru/article/2012/09/21/ μ - .128. . 30. μ , , //СЭЭpμ//ааа.ЭКНКв.ЫЮ/ЭОбЭ/1646051.СЭЦХ . 31. ν μ . , . . / . . Ж. – .μ - 32. νД . . . , 1998 // http://christforum.info/ news-view-50.СЭЦХ ( 28.05.2014) . . 33. . // . .XLVII. . . 34. \\ μ . ., . . / - .- ., .μ . . ( . .) , 1999. // СЭЭp://ruscorpora.ru/ ( 35. 28.05.2014) , 36. / .- .μ . . . . ν , 2007. 37. // . . . . . . , - . // . , 2006, , 2008, .1245; // // http://epistemology_of_science.academic.ru/795/ / .1043; . . . . ; , 45 . . ; . . . .- / μ , 2010. .383. . . 38. // http://moseducation.narod.ru/st/ponkin/006.htm; " - "// СЭЭpμ//ПШЫЮЦ.МКЧКНК.ЫЮ/ТЧНОб.pСp?ЭШpТМ=36777.0 39. // - http://www.videorusi.ru/publ/14-1-0-59; " ... !"// http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=topic&id=784. 40. // http://actualcomment.ru/news/ 37379/ . . 41. « . .μ », 2011 . . 42. . . // http://www.vestnik.com/issues/97/0624/win/toom.htm 43. . . 44. . .- .μ , 1989. - . 71. //http://russ.ru/Mirovaya. povestka/Byt-hristianinom-po-pЫКЯНОν // . . http://russ.ru/pole/ Teologiya-kak-nauka; / . 2010. .482 . . 45. .μ μ . . 3- .- μ . . 3- .- , 2008. . . 46. .μ , 2008; , . . μ / . . . – . μ . . « , 1979ν .- .μ »,1991. / 47. . .μ ( ), 1940. .274ν / 48. . . . . . .μ , 1963. . . . .μ 46 . . .448ν / , 1975. .408ν / . / 49. μ μ . / μ . . . μ .ν . , . - , 2001. .4. . 50. , 1980. .366. , 2004. .402ν . . .μ - .- .μ , . . . - . . . . . . . .μ , 1995. . 51. . . , 1935 . . 52. μ . « . 4- .- .μ « », - », 2005. .99. . . 53. μ .– .μ , 2003 . . . 54. , μ . . ν 3 ./ . . . . . . . . . . 1. .μ . , 2001. . 57. . .μ 55. " , " http://www.portal-credo.ru/ site/?act=authority&id=1364. ?// СЭЭpμ//ааа.ЭОШ-rgsu.ru/teo.php 56. .. 57. 1937 .μ . 58. // . . . . 2012, №3-4(30) « » // 59. . . .– 1998. – № 9. – .3-4. . // http://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Relig/Schoh/01.php . . 47 ‫»‬ ‫»‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫«‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫«‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‬‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪»,‬‬ ‫‬‫‪-‬‬ ‫»‬ ‫«‬ ‫«‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪),‬‬ ‫« ‪»,‬‬ ‫« ‪»,‬‬ ‫« ‪»,‬‬ ‫« ‪»,‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫»‬ ‫‪»,‬‬ ‫‪)[1].‬‬ ‫—‬ ‫( دي ن‬ ‫« ‪»,‬‬ ‫«‬ ‫« ‪»,‬‬ ‫«‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫)‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪»,‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫«‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫‬‫»‬ ‫»‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫»‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫« ‪»,‬‬ ‫«‬ ‫‪[2].‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪-‬‬ ‫« —‬ ‫«‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‬‫‪-‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫»‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪,‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫«‬ μ ( ( ), ) ( )[4]. , ( ) . - 1891 . . , - , – 1913 .. (1981 . – 2013 .), [3]. , ( - ), « » . μ « » .26μ5 – ( ) « » « . 1.13-14; » - ё ( .1μ26,27ν - ( ) ( – / ). , VI – VII , , ), , - . . , , . , . . - , , , « » . 16 , - (88%). 1 16 2010 2 225 [5]: — 2 050 49 - — 52 — 37 — 23 (« ») — 21 — 10 —8 —6 —5 « »—4 —2 —2 —1 —1 —1 « »—1 — 1. 1. . . .— 2. 39:2; ( .μ )( , 2007. — 400 . μ – - 1μ4, 6:161, – )– . ». , 2013 . . .— 5. ν 3:73 ( 3. 4. ) // . // .: μ / . . . . , 1991. — . 70. .Юг/ //СЭЭpμ// . . 50 , . , . - , , , - . « , , - , - ». μ . - , , , - . . μ ( ), ( ), ( ). , . , . « ». - , . . . 51 - – , - . , , « . - » . μ« ». ( ) - . , , - . , . , , - . , . , - , , . « » , - . – , - , - . ( , ) - (« »), - , « , » . , , 52 , , , - . n, , - . , . - , , . , - , . , - , - . , - , , - , . , . , - , . . , . , , . . 53 , , - . « μ – ». « » , , - . , , , , . , , , , , . , . . , «… μ , - - , , - , , - , , ». , , - , , … . , , . « , , . - , , , , - , »[12]. 54 , , μ «… - , - - , , - »[11; C.55]. « , - ν , , , - . , , , - »[11; C.56]. , , . . - μ« " " »[13]. μ« - , , »[6]. . - , , . , 55 - . - . , , , - . - . , ,« - »[3], , . μ« , , , , , . , - , »[9]. , , , . - , - , , ( , - …). . - , . - , , , . , , . - , 56 . . , - ( ( ) - - ?). - , - . , , . . , . . « ». , - . . « - », «... , , - »[8]. - , . - . , - , , . - , . , . , , , - , . 57 , - – . ( ) , , . « , , , , , , , ν , . - , , , . . , . , - »[4]. – - . , ( ) . , . , , , , - , , “ ”. , . ( ). , , , , , . « ». - , - . , - 58 . , , , . « » . , , . . , . , . , - . , , . , . . , - , . , - , , . . , . , , - . , , , - , , . 59 ( - ) . ( ) , - – . . . ( , « . - ) - » ё - , , . , - , . - , , . – , ( ). , . - , , . , . ( ) – . . , , . , 60 . . . , - , . , - , - . , , , - . , , , . , , - . , . , , – , . , . , - , , . , . - . « » 61 . , « - », . , . , μ« – - ». , . - , - , . , « – - », μ« – ». - . , , - . , . - , , - . - , « ». , - . . - , . 62 , - , . , - . . . ( ) . ( ). , , ,— « - »[2]. , . " , - . , (fiction) - , - , , , « "[7]. , , , ν , - »[1]. , , , , - , . - . , - . - . , - , . , , , , . . 63 , . . . , , - , . , . - , . . , . - , , , - . , , , , . , , » . « , [14] . ё - - . - – « - »[5]. - . , « , , , »[10]. , . 64 - Buryak A.A. THE EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS OF THE TERMINOLOGY FOR DESCRIBING RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA IN THE ERA OF POSTMODERNISM In this paper the phenomenological assessment of the dependency of the philosophical discourse on the terminology is completed. The author outlines the strongest signs of evolutionary changes in discursive methods in the era of postmodernism in general and in the particular case of describing religious practices and interpretations of traditional exegesis. The paper further explores a new aspect of the productive convergence of the philosophical and literary writing techniques. A theoretical attempt is made to forecast the transition of abstract models to provocative text units in sacral ontology. Keywords: Concepts, sacral, noosphere, provocative phrases, theoretical meditation. . 1. / ). Д / )Д .221. , ( Ж // URLμ RШвКХХТЛ.ЫЮ, .233. . 3. ( Ж // URLμ Royallib.ru . 2. , . . . . . / .μ . . 1999. 344 . 4. 5. . , ., " ., 1976. .366. . ? ". 1998. [ ", - - " . ., Ж // URLμ http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/ s00/z0000176/index.shtml . 6. [ URL: http://www.hesychasm.ru/library/dar/tname.htm . 65 Ж // . . 7. / ( . )μ / . . . - . . 1997. .11. . ., 8. « , , - ». .126. - . . 9. , 1987. μ . — .42. . 10. μ / . // . 11. .μ . 2003. N3. .34. , . . , . . / . - . . .μ , 1996. . 12. . Д Ж // URLμ http://www.philol.msu.ru/~forlit/Pages/ Biblioteka_Habermas_PhilosLit.htm . . 13. 14 , 1967 . . 14. μ – .μ , 2004. 384 . . « »: , . , ( XIX - XX ) . , , , - . , - 66 , . - , . , « », . « », , XIX – - . XX . [8]. - XVI , , [3; C.8]. , . - , - , - [12; C.48]. « ». , БVЁ – « , , »[9]. БVЁЁ . - , , « » [12; C.47]. - , . - 67 , . , , - . , 1741 11 , [10]. - . , , . , , XIX . . - , , [3; C.8]. . . 1811). (1741 – « » (1801 .) « . . [6; C.490]. , » - , , - « » [6; C.491]. , μ« , , ν » [6; C.491]. 30 – 40 , - . XIX 68 – XX - , . , « . » (1902 .), . . (1861 - 1913), , - . , , , [2]. . , . (1852—1917) - . « - » (1916 .) - . . , - . » (1901 .)μ « – . - . , « C.589]. « »[7; » , μ . . ( ). . - [7; C.1153]. , « - , - . , - ( ) » [7; C.1156]. , - , ( 69 ), – . , - « . - . « XX » (1901 .) « » , - [5; C.722]. , , « » [5; C.722]μ )ν ( ν ν - ν - ν( ) ν ν ν - ν , . , [5; C.724]. « , , , - .» (1911 .) « . . » (1891 .), » « , μ - , , – , - , – - [11]. « », « - » (1927 .). , . . . (1868 - 1928) - - , , - , . , - [1; C.777], 70 . , - . , , . - μ« » [1; C.778]. , μ « – » [1; C.778]. . . . - , . , , , - , » [1; C.787]. –« , – . , « » - . , , μ , , . - . , . 71 - 1. .- .7 2. .- .μ 1927. – 832 . . . . . - .1 - 3. .μ 1902. – 763 . . . – БЁБ ББ . .- .μ « », . - .1. - - 1998. – 345 . 4. . . μ 1901. – 643 . 5. .- .2 « . .- .μ », 1901. – 1184 . 6. . . - . .1.– .μ , 1801. - 786 . 7. .- .2 . . .- .μ , 1901. – 671 . 8. . . . . – / μ« - », 2005. – 320 . 9. . . ( БVЁЁ .) // , , 28 μ 1999 .— μ БVЁ - - 3- - , 1999. – 100 . 10. . . μ .- . // , 25-26 .μ , .– .μ . . , . , – , 1911. – 284 . . . БЁБ 07.00.02. - - , 2011. – .107 – 112. 11. 12. 2010 – 1917 ., 2006. – 700 . Larisa Y. Veshnyakova 72 .μ . ... - . . μ THE DEFЁNЁTЁON OF “BUDDHЁSM”μ DOCTRЁNE, RELЁGЁON, IDEOLOGY. μ « », , - XIX - XX . μ , , . This article deals with an analysis of the definitions of the term "Buddhism", which were presented by encyclopedic references and Russian research at the XIX - beginning of the XX century. Buddhism; Russian Buddhology; Orientalism. . . : , , . , - . , , . , μ « ( , , , ), , Д ), - Ж ( 73 ( , , ). , - , , , , »[18]. ? , « ,- » - ,-« - »- . – . , . . . (« », « ., 1974), - »( 40)[1]. , - . . , ,« - , - , , »[6]. , « … - »[17]. C . ( ), – ( ). . , , . . . , . 74 - , - μ , . . , . . , « »[19]. , . , я . я - . . , . – « . , , , , , . ». - , - , , , . - . , . μ« , - . . »[11]. , , , , . , 75 - . . - « »(1952 .). , μ 1. , . - , ». « , 2. ( ) , , « - ». 3. , . 4. , - . 5. [9; C.206]. , μ« - - ( ) μ , 3 - – *( . .)ν - , - » [9; C.207]. , . « ». ( , 3 μ 1) ( ), - . 76 ), - , , 2) . - , . , ( ) - . я . . . , - , - [4; C.104]. . . – . , , ( , ). , - , - ,« , » [4; - C.104]. . ,« , , , — μ (1) (2) , - , (3) - (4) , (η) - »[5; C.108]. ( , ) , . , , . – . 77 , . - , « – ё »[7; C.141]. - : « , , , , , - ( . . « - »)ν , , » « ( . . « - - »). , , - »[5; C.142-143]. , . , , ё . , , . , , , . . . , , , , - [7; C.141]. , . , – , « ». - . . / , , - , . . . , , , 78 ( , , ), , , - , - . / , :« - (= , ) , , »[15]. , , , , , . - , – - . , , - , , ( ). я я . - , , . . , . μ « , , - , , , »[17]. , « . . », 79 , « - « » , »[17]. , ( - – ), . - , , . , . . , , , – , - . – « , – , » , . [10]. . , « , - »[13]. - - . . . . , « , », , « , , , »[3]. 80 , - , μ . . , , , , , , . , - , – - . , , - / - . , , « , », – . , , . , , , . , μ ( , - ). – , . , , . , , . , . , 81 - , . - , - , . . , , , . , , . , ,« - , , . - , , , ,« , - »»[14]. , - , , , - , [12; - C.861]. , . - , , - « , , » , , , . , . - , - . - , , , . . , μ – , , 82 - , . , « , « ». « , . . » – , ν , , – - »[16]. μ . , , , - . , - . , , – . , , - . – . . - , , . , - , . . . - , . , , . 83 , , – . / - , . , - μ – , , - , , . , , , - , - , ( ). , , – . - . - , . , - . . , « « » « - » , , , - , . . . , , , . , 84 - , [2]. , . , « « » », - . – , - μ , , ν ( ) ν , ( - )[16]. , – . – , - . , , . . I , - , . . , , . , μ 1. . 85 2. . 3. . , 4. , - . - 5. . 6. « ». , , - . , , , . - , , , . , - , , . , - , , . , , , . , 86 , , , . , . . ., 1. . . , .μ « », 2002. - . . 2. - http://credonew.ru/content/view/299/27/ . . 3. . .μ , 2004 - . . http://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Relig/Vasil1/05.php . 4. . 5. — . .μ - , 2005. . / .μ « »( ), 2004. . 6. . // . . . . . . . .– . . 7. . / .μ . . ., . ., . +, 1998. μ // . 2009. № 11 (149). . . . . 11. μ 8. / . . . – .μ , 2007. 9. . . . » 10. . . . — .μ « , 2001. μ / . . . – 2007, .417 87 .μ , . . 11. 2- , . ., , 1985. . 12. . . . . . 13. , . , 2005. // - .μ 000 " " 14. . . 15. . . . ACT", 2000. . .μ , 1980. // // . - 2011. - N 3. . . 16. , , - http://www.pravmir.ru ., 17. « . », .μ , . « », 1997 .μ - http://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Relig/Eliad_Dict/intro.php . 18. // . . 19. 2- μ . ., .1. ., 1982. Dannenberg Anton Nikolaevich THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM AND RELIGION AS A SYSTEM: THE DEFINITION OF TERMS μ . , . - μ ( ), ( - ). Abstract: the article discusses the systemic nature of religion from the point of view of its internal structure and external socio-spiritual existence. Define the system of religion and religious system, analyzes their relationship. The author 88 draws a conclusion about the need for a dual approach to the study of different religions: from the point of view of historical stage of their development (the religious system), and with regard to their timeless existence (religion as a system). . . . , - , 4 , - . , , - , . – . . . - , , « » « , » 5. , , . 4 5 . .μ μ . . // . , 2008. C.29. . μ . .μ 89 - .- . - , 2011. . 118. . . , . , , - 1950-1960- , , , . 1990- - . , « », . . - . . , . - ν - , . , . - . « ». . . . , , , , , 90 , - , , , , 6 - . , . , « », » « - . . (1898 - 1955), (ЫОХТРТШЧ pЫШpОЫ) - . . , . , . , , 7 - . , . , , (ЭШЭКХТЭв), 8 . . « . » , « - »9. « μ , - 6 . . . 2012. - // . 4 (42). . 62–75. Ёμ . . . . . .: , 2007. .111. 8 Alles G. Wach, Eliade, and the Critique from Totality// Numen. - Vol. 35, Fasc. 1. – 1988. – P.113. 9 Wach J. The Sociology of Religion. - Chicago, 1944. - P.383. 7 . 91 μ »10. . - , . « - » , , - , - , . « » « - » (UХЭТЦКЭО RОКХТЭв)11. - , , . « . , - », - . , - – ν . , . – , . - « - », , 12 , . , . - μ « - , , »13. « » (pЫШpОЫ) . 10 . – . / C.222. , 11 . . « . , // « , . . . . » », : . , . .: Wach J. The Comparative Study of Religions. - New York, 1958. - P. 32 13 Ibid. P.37. 12 92 .- - ., 1994. , . . . . , . . - , . , . . , - , « - , , - »14. , . – . , - . . , . – . , , , . - , , - . . , - . . . , , . . , - . , – , , « . » , , , , . - , 14 . . ( ). C.130. [http://iph.ras.ru/site/sci_spir/papers/zabiyako.html]. 93 . . , , . . - μ - , , . . . , , (1886-1965), - . . , , , . , , . , - , - . . , , , . . , , - μ - , , - . , . « » 15 . , , , . . μ « , 15 . . .μ , 1995. C.450. 94 – »16. « » - . . , μ« , – , , , »17. « « , », ». (pЫОХТЦТЧКЫв ТЧЭОЫОЬЭ). «МШЧМОЫЧ» μ « « » . , (ЬОЫТШЮЬЧОЬЬ), « « » (pКЬЬТШЧ) , « » » (ТЧЭОЫОЬЭ). »18. . , , , - . , , . . , . , - , , « , , , »19. , . , . 16 . ») , . . C.398. - . , - (« . . Brown D.M. Ultimate Concern - Tillich in Dialogue. - Harper & Row, 1965. [http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=538&C=599]. 18 Ibid. 19 . . C.398-399. 17 95 , 20 . « » , . - . , , , , . , ( - . ). - « » , - . , . , , , . - , , - , , , , , . , . - . – . . , , 21 , - . .: Tillich P. Religion and secular culture// The Journal of Religion. – Vol.26, No.2. – 1946. P.82. 21 .: Brown D.M. Ultimate Concern - Tillich in Dialogue. 20 96 . , « « » » , . . . , « , », - , , - « - , » 22 . , , – , . « » 1970- , - « »23. μ - , - , . , - , , μ« , »24. . . « ». (1921 - 2010). μ 1994 , - . . « », », - . , . « « » 22 - . Yinger J.M. Religion and Social Change: Problems of Integration and Pluralism among the Privileged (Lecture II)// Review of Religious Research. - Vol. 4, No. 3. – 1963. – P.134. 23 Ibid. 24 Yinger J.M. Op.cit. P.147. 97 « » (ЮХЭТЦКЭО КХХОРТКЧМО) 25 . « » (pЫШpОЫ ЫОХТРТШЧ) « « » » (СТЬЭШЫТМКХ ЫОХТРТШЧЬ) « μ« « »26. - « - » (аШЫХН ЫОХТРТШЧЬ). . » , - , , - » 27 . « » . « . », , ν ( - , . .)ν . , , , - . - , . μ« (ПЮХХПТХЦОЧЭ) – (МШЧМОЫЧ) Д . .Ж - (ЮХЭТЦКЭОЬ), , (ЮХЭТЦКЭОЬ)ν - , - »28. , , - . , 25 , Smith J.E. Quasi-Religions: Humanism, Marxism and Nationalism. - St. Martin's Press, 1994. P.121. 26 Ibid. P.7. 27 Ibid. P.24. 28 Smith J.E. Op.cit. P.9. 98 « », », « – , . , . . , , . . , (КХТОЧКЭТШЧ) « - (МШЫЫЮpЭТШЧ) ». , , « » - , μ « « » - » 29 . . . , . . . - . ν . , . . - . , . - . . . « », . , , . . - . μ « , Д , 29 , – . .Ж Ibid. P.24. 99 - »30. , . - - « ». , μ« - ,- - . , » 31 . « . » , - , , , , . , . , - , , . 32 . , , , - . , « ». , . « », . . , « », - , , . μ , - , , , 30 Smith J.E. Quasi-Religions: Humanism, Marxism and Nationalism, p.134. Fitzgerald T. The Ideology of Religious Studies. P.106. 32 Ibid. P.102. 31 100 – – , . « », - . (1927-2001)33. , . - , 34 , . . , , . - 35 , - . , , 36 . - , . ( ) , . , . , , - . 33 . . . // . . 2010. №3-4. .137-142. 34 .μ . . . – ., 1985. - .52; . . . .111 35 , .μ . μ // . - №3-4. – 2010. - .155-163, Smart N. Phenomenon of Religion, p. 35, 84-85 et al. . Courtney C. Phenomenology and Ninian Smart's Philosophy of Religion// The International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion.-March.- 1978. – P.41-52. 36 .: Courtney C. Phenomenology and Ninian Smart's Philosophy of Religion //International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. - Vol. 9, No. 1. – 1978. – P.. 41-52. . 7. // . №6. 2010. 101 .93-102; , 37 . . « » . , , « , »38. . , , , . , , . - , - , , , , . « » - 39 . – , . . , ( - , ), - . μ 1. . , 2. , - . 3. ( , ) – . 4. , , , , . . .: Smart N. Social anthropology and the philosophy of religion// Inquiry. – Vol. 6. 1963. – P.287-299. 38 ., , Smart N. Phenomenon of religion. L., 1973.P. 5, 7, 19 et al. 39 .: Saler B. Conceptualizing Religion: Immanent Anthropologists, Transcendent Natives, and Unbounded Categories. - Berghahn Books, 2000; Idem. Conceptualizing religion: some recent reflections// Religion. – Vol.38. – P.219-225. 37 102 5. , . 6. - . , 7. . . μ .( , 1998 - ). - , . , . « » (pКЫК-СТЬЭШЫТМКХ), , 1-3 4-7 – « », , - , , - . . , 40 . - – . ? . , - , . μ« , »41. , , - , . . . , . 40 .: Smart N. Secular Education and the Logic of Religion. - New York: Humanities Press, 1968. – P.104. 41 Smart N. The Religious Experience. - New Jersey, 1996. – P.22. 103 ? - . , , , . . , . . , - , . , , , , . . μ« - , « - » « »42. . , , , , « - » (аШЫХНЯТОаЬ). . « , , , »43. , , , 44 - . , . , , 42 Ibid. P. 26. Smart N. The Philosophy of Worldviews, or the Philosophy of Religion Transformed// Religious Pluralism and Truth. Essays on the Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Religion. T.Dean (ed.). - Albany: SUNY Press, 1995. - P. 18. 44 .: Fitzgerald T. The Ideology of Religious Studies. 2000. P.58. 43 104 , - . , - ( ). - , « » , . , . , - . , - ( , », , , ) . ,« , , « , , , , - ЬЮТ РОЧОЫТЬ»45. . « . . , , », « « »? » . , - .« ,- - ,– , , »46. . , - . 45 46 μ« Ibid. P.58. Smart N. The World's Religions. – Cambridge University Press, 1998. – P.26. 105 - , - . (ЮХЭТЦКЭО) » 47. . , « », . ». « - . , , μ« »48. « », , , . , . . . - « , - . - , ν μ« », « , » – - , »49. (ЦШЯОН) . ? , , ? , , , , 47 - Ibid. P. 12. . : Levine M. Ninian Smart on the philosophy of worldviews// Sophia. – Vol. 36. – 1997. P.18. 49 Smart N. АШЫХН’Ь RОХТРТШЧЬ. – Cambridge University Press, 1989. - P.9. 48 106 . , « », « », « - » . . , ББ . . , , , , , . . , , . , . , , - 50 , . , , - . , , , . . - . . - 2004 - (FЫКЧМТЬ CСТЧР АКС ВТp), 51 , , 2010 52 , . Smart N. Mao. – Fontana Press, 1974. Ching Wah Yip F. Toward a Critique of Capitalism as Quasi-Religion: A Study of Paul Tillich's Critical Interpretation of Capitalism and Modernity. Thesis. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachussets, 2004. 52 Ching Wah Yip F. Capitalism as Religion?: A Study of Paul Tillich's Interpretation of Modernity . - Harvard Divinity School, 2010. 50 51 107 . , , , , ( ). - , , , - , , , « ( )– 53 « - . » - , - (qЮКХТЭТОЬ), - . , , »54. - - , , , . , , , – , , . , - . – « « », « ». », « , , , « , . , , 53 54 », .: Tillich P. The protestant era. P. xvi. Ching Wah Yip F. Toward a Critique of Capitalism as Quasi-Religion. P.62. 108 » - « » « » . - . , « « », », , - , « » - . . 1970- , . , . , 1960- - , , , - . - , 55 – . , , . « » , ,« , , , , - »56. , (AЫЭСЮЫ L. Greil)57. , - 55 .: Hammond P. Reviewed Work: Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion. // Contemporary Sociology. -Vol. 25, No. 3. – 1996. - P. 414. 56 Furseth I., Repstad P. An introduction to the sociology of religion. Classical and contemporary perspectives. – Ashgate, 2006. P.19. 57 . . . // . .15. .1. 2014. 305-313. 109 , , , . . . ( !) , . . . ,« ν , , , - , , , »58. , , , , . - , , , . – , ,« »59. « , »60, , , . « . - , - ,- , , , 58 . - Greil A., Rudy D. On the Margins of the Sacred: Quasi- religion in Contemporary America//In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America, 2nd ed., edited by T. Robbins, D. Anthony. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1990. P.221. 59 Greil A. Sacred claims: the «МЮХЭ МШЧЭЫШЯОЫЬв» КЬ К ЬЭЫЮРРХО ШЯОЫ ЭСО ЫТРСЭ ЭШ ЭСО ЫОХТРТШЮЬ label// L.F. Carter (ed.), Religion and the social order. - Vol.6. – Greenwich: JAI, 1996. – P.49. 60 Greil A., Rudy D. On the Margins of the Sacred. P. 219. 110 . , . – , (ЬШЫЭ-ШП ЫОХТРТШЮЬ)»61. , - , . , , . , , , - , - « » . . , , . « » . , - , . , - , , , , 62 . - , - . , , - 63 . , , 61 Ibid. P. 221. .: Roberts K. Reviewed Work(s): Between Sacred and Secular: Research and Theory on Quasi-Religion by Arthur L. Greil; Thomas Robbins// Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. - Vol. 34, No. 4. – 1995. – P.535. 63 .: Hunt S. Religion and Everyday Life. Routledge, 2005.P. 147-166; Hunt S. Alternative religions: a sociological introduction. - Ashgate Publishing, 2003. – P.221-230. 62 111 , « « » 64 , » (EЭСТМКХ ОКЭТЧР)65. 66 . « - » « » , , , , 67 . μ , , 68 12 , - . , - , - . , . , , – - , , « » (CШЦpКЬЬТШЧКЭО FЫТОЧНЬ), , - . , - - . . – , , ,- - . , , , , - « ». . 64 ., , Harrison T. Elvis People. The Cult of the King. - London: Harper Collins, 1992. 65 .: Hunt S. Alternative religions. P. 221-230. 66 .: Lowe B.M. Animal Rights as a Quasi-Religion// Implicit Religion. - Vol 4, No 1. 2001. – 2001. - P.41-60. 67 .: Brinkerhoff M.; Jacob J. Mindfulness and Quasi-Religious Meaning Systems: An Empirical Exploration within the Context of Ecological Sustainability and Deep Ecology// Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. - Vol. 38, No. 4. – 1999. – P. 525. 68 Hunt S. Religion and Everyday Life. P. 161 112 . , . - , , - ,« » . . . , , , . , . , ( μ « , »69). , , - , , , ( , . .). – - . . - «SЭКЫ TЫОФ», «Д Ж - , . , , »70. 69 Greil A., Rudy D. On the Margins of the Sacred. P. 226. Jindra M. Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon// Sociology of Religion. - Vol. 55, No. 1. – 1994. – P. 50. 70 113 , , , , ? , . . - , « », , . , . - , . « ». 1993 - (pКЫК-ЫОХТРТШЧ). , , « - (ШЬЭОЧЬТЛХв) , - , , - (ЮХЭТЦКЭО МШЧМОЫЧЬ)»71. . (UХЭТЦКЭО CШЧМОЫЧ). « - » . , , , . , , , , . . . ν ( 72 , Amway, Mary Kay ). 71 Greil A. Explorations along the sacred frontier// Handbook of Cults and Sects in America. Vol. A, ed. D. G. Bromley and J. K. Hadden. - Greenwich: JAI, 1993. - P.156. 72 .: Bromley D. Transformative Movements and Quasi-Religious Corporations: The Case of Amway// N.J. Demerath, III, Peter Dobkin Hall, Terry Schmitt, Rhys H. Williams (eds.), Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of Organizations. - New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. - P. 349-363 114 . . . , « « - . - », « », « », « », , , , , , , , » 73 . , « -» (ЫОЬОЦЛХКЧМО аТЭСШЮЭ ТНОЧЭТЭв), , - . - , , , - . 74 . , , – , - , 75 . - , , Hamilton M. EКЭТЧР EЭСТМКХХвμ ЙSpТЫТЭЮКХ’ КЧН ЙQЮКЬТ-ЫОХТРТШЮЬ’AЬpОМЭЬ ШП VОРОЭКЫТКЧТЬЦ// Journal of Contemporary Religion. -Vol. 15, No. 1, 2000. – P. 65. 74 .: Wuthnow R. The new religions in social context// Charles Y. Glock and Robert N. Bellah (eds.), The New Religious Consciousness. - Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. – P.267-293. 75 .: McGuire M. Health and Spirituality as Contemporary Concerns// Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. - Vol. 527, Religion in the Nineties. – 1993. P. 144-154, McGuire M. Religion and the Body: Rematerializing the Human Body in the Social Sciences of Religion// Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. - Vol. 29, No. 3. – 1990. – P. 283-296. 73 115 (ЬpТЫТЭЮКХТЭв). , ,« , - »76, , . . « , - , - Д…Ж « ». « », « , », « « », , », « », « »77. - », , - . , . . » , « , », , 78 . . « , », - « - , - , - , . - , , – , ,- , . 76 McGuire M. Health and Spirituality as Contemporary Concerns. P. 149. Beckford J. A. Social Movements as Free-floating Religious Phenomena// The Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Religion. Ed. by Richard K. Fenn. - Blackwell Publishing, 2003. – P. 243. 78 Ibid. 77 116 , - , , . , , , – - , , « » (ЮХЭТЦКЭО ЦОКЧТЧР)79. , , , . - , ( , - )80. - , , , , - , . . , , « , » , . , « » . 81 . , 79 - Stark R. Reconceptualizing Religion, Magic, and Science// Review of Religious Research. Vol. 43, No. 2. - 2001. - P. 101. 80 .: Ibid. 81 .: Possamai A. (ed.) Handbook of Hyper-real Religions. - Brill, 2012. – P..xi. 117 – . « , ». , , - - , , , - , . , « » . , , - , , . « » , - . , « » (МШЧЬЭТЭЮТЭТЯО ЭОЫЦ), 82 , . . , , . , - . , , . , , . , , , - – Tweed T. MКЫФТЧР ЫОХТРТШЧ’Ь ЛШЮЧНКЫТОЬμ МШЧЬЭТЭЮЭТЯО ЭОЫЦЬ, ШЫТОЧЭТЧР ЭЫШpОЬ, КЧН ОбОРОЭТМКХ fussiness// History of Religion. – Vol.44. – 2005. – P. 254. 82 118 (МШЦЦТЭЦОЧЭ), - - , 83 . . , , , , - , , . , , - , - , « », - , , - . , « » « ». , , - , , , - , . - . - , , - . , . . , 83 .: Demerath N.J. A Sinner among the Saints: Confessions of a Sociologist of Culture and Religion// Sociological Forum. -Vol. 17, No. 1. – 2002. P.18. 119 , , , - . . - , , . , - . « » . . Ksenia A. Kolkunova Quasireligions as a problem for definition of religion In this paper we consider theories of quasireligions, theological as well as sociological in connection with definition of religion and history of religious studies. We study two groups of researchers who used the term quasireligion in their work and consider its connection to definitions of religion and methods used by these authors, as well as examples of quasireligions they provide. Keywords: definition of religion, quasireligion, Ninian Smart, Paul Tillich, John E. Smith, Arthur L. Greil . . . : - . - , , . . 120 - μ « , , - »84. « », - . « , , , , , , , »85. « », « ». « ». – « , , , ». , « « - « ν - - » μ « - »86. , ». », « , - ». « » « , », « ». – « , »87. μ « . ». « , ». , « , , , , » 88. », « . μ« . »- . - « » . . « , - ». 1. « »89. , μ 2. « , ». 3. « μ - ». 4. « μ 84 85 86 87 88 89 . . . . . . . . . 161. . . 162. . . 161. . . 162. . . , , . . ., 1991. . 4. . 161. . 121 ., 1993. . 730. »90. « , » μ «1. , … 2. ». « », , μ «1. ( - 2 Д … 3. – Ж)… 2. μ - , … ν - « - 4. »91 , . . »μ . « « », ». . « , , , » « «cvantas», ». , «spenta» « « », . . – ( . – , ) , , . . , ( )»92. 91 92 . . . . » . . . )ν , , - , . . . , 90 - )ν ( . . « « )ν ( . . , ». » . ( - », «spanah» - « « « ». . . . . . . . 730. . . 730. ., 2001. . 430. 122 , , « » « », . . . , 93 « » « », . - « » , « » « - »94. « »μ , - . , , - , . , , « . », . . « , « , / / « , ». , , . ., . , . , 93 94 .μ . . « . ., 1984. . 63-64. . . 431. 123 ». - . / - , « », »- », , . / , . « , », - ,– . , . . « ». - , . , , μ , – . , « - ». . . « . - » . , , . - « » - . - , « . » . , « »95. « » - , ,, , , . 95 . - . , ., 2008. . 11. 124 , « » , , « », - . « , - »96. , - , , - . , – « ». - . - « » . ,« »« , , »97. « » . , . (6) - μ – 1) «mysterium tremendum» ( )ν 2) – «majestas» ( 3) – « 4) – «fascinans» ( 5) – «deinos» ( – 6) )ν »ν , , , )ν )ν «sanctum», «augustum» ( , - ). . , , , . , . ( . 96 97 . . . . 12. . . 14. 125 , ), - , « » « ». , . . . , . - , « - , , »98. « ,- . , « - . » - , , « ,« . », - , »»99. , . , . , . , « »100. « , »101. numen , numen . numen « ». «Tu solus sanctus». (« « », sanctus».) Sanctus , sanctus, . « 98 99 100 101 . . . . . . 83. . . 83. . . 83. . . 83. 126 numen. Numen - sanctus, » , sanctus , . « - »102. . . sanctus, μ« Д - , – Ж, »103. , - μ« - »104. , . . , , ,- , , , - , - . , , . . , , – , « - . » - « ». - μ« » 105. - , . . . . - .– , , 102 103 104 105 ! . . . . . . 92. . . 93. . . 93. . . 95. 127 - , . , , - ? , ? - , . , ё . , numena? , , . - , , . . « - » . . , , , . ! , . , , « - ». . « . , », . - . , , « », « . »106. - . . , . , . . . , / 106 . . , . . 267. 128 , , , , - . . , . , , . - . . , - . XX XXI - , . , , , , , - . , , . , - , , . . , . , , . ? ? - , , , . , . « », . « 129 ,- . ,- . . , – – »107. . . , « » . , , , - « - , » 108. . », « ». » , « « « ». ,« actus purus»109. . - . « » , « « » . « », « », . - », « « » . - « - » » , ,« » . - ?– , « », . « ,- 107 109 110 . - »110. 108 ,- . . . . . . 177. . . 177. . . 181. . . 181. 130 , « - XX » ( . . - ), . . . , . , . , - . , , « « » . . « », - . ,- »111. . , , , . - , . 112 . , « . – , » , ,« « - « » », , - . .» 113 . . - , , « », « »114. - , « . . , , »115. . - , . 111 112 113 114 115 ., . . ., 1994. . - . 272. . 2009. . ., 1994. . 270. . Ordo amoris // . . . . ., 1994. . 279. 131 . // . μ . ., 1994. . . . . // . . // . 365. . . ν , . . , « - »116. . . . , . . . , . , - , , - , , , . , , - , , , . , « ». , , – » 116 .μ « ( . . , . 132 ., 1999. - ), « , « »( . »( . . ) , . . ). , . ,« - , ( . 338Ж. – « )»Д1, » , , - . . – , . . « , , μ , - , .… , . . , . , , , μ , , - , » Д1, . 381-382]. , , , . , , , « - , »μ « 133 ,- . , , , , - » Д2, . 183-184]. ? , - (religion) (reli- , giousness). – , . .« - . - .… - , . , , , - , , – » Д3, . 195-196Ж. , . . , - , - , μ .« , , ν – , . , - , . . ν , - ». . . Д4, . 175Ж , « - , μ« μ , – Д5, . 35Ж. « » » , , , , . , , , - , - . 134 , . , , - μ« - , - – » Д6Ж. , – « , . . , . μ , , , .… , . - .… - , , , , » Д3, . , 90-92Ж. - , . ? , , . ( – . , - )μ « – . – , , , , , , , . – , , » Д3, . 201Ж. - μ , ν . , 135 , - , , , , , . , – - . , 1. , . , 3. . 3- . – . , « , - .μ The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1990. – 605 . 2. .– . . . . . - .: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 2007. – 816 . , . . .– .μ , . // , , . 2012. № 4 (18)μ 25. . 6. . - », 2012. – 224 . . . 4. . - μ , . . Ё. C. 174-176. : . « .: », 1993. 160 . [ http://oshoworld.ru/library/Osho_books/Zolotoe_ ]. URL: budusheeИ, 15.08.2014 Vera Vladimirovna Matveyeva. RELIGION AS A FACTOR OF INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING IN WORKS OF BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA AND RAJNEESH OSHO. The article compares views of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Rajneesh Osho on the role of religion in well-being of an individual and society. Keywords: Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Osho, religion, well-being. 136 . . , - ( ) . , , , . , , , - . « », , , . , . . « » « », « « », » « », . - , . , . μ« μ " " ". ", " , – 137 ", " ", , - , , - , .… " " ." , "( pКЫп – , , , , - , ) - , - . - " " " " . ." ( pЬцЮНШЬ – ", " )– ". " , " – - , - , - , , - - , , - »[5]. « » , , – , . , - , « . , « μ ( » , , , , )– - , - , »[7]. . « , 138 . « ( » , — , - ё - ё ). - , - , … , , , ё - , - , ё . - »[3], , . « » . . . . , - , - . , – . . . , . [1]μ , - . - , , , - , . ( ) , , - , , - μ ν ( , )ν . . 139 , , , , . - - , , . , . , - . - , . . - , - , . , - , , . ё , , , , ё μ« , - , . - , »[9], « , . . . » « , « . » » - , « 140 - , - , »[6]. , « » » « - , . . - . , - - , – , , . , « » « » , , , , . « , », « « » . »[4] -», « « , » . . « -» - , - , , - . , , , . « » I , - ., ё , – , . ., – - - . - . , , . , 141 . , - . , , . . , , - . « » . - , - . . . « », , . , . « » . - , . , . . « - » . , – , ё. . « »μ », « ». , « - , 142 – , , - . , . . . , , . - , - , . , - , . – . . , . - . . , . , - , , , - . - , 143 - , – , - . « » , - , , . , , , . , , - . , , . , - – . , ё « , . » , ( ) , - . , , - . « », XIX – XX - . , « », . 144 « » . . « , , » « » . . – - . - , - , , , . , . - , , . , , . . . , , . - , , . - , , . , ( 145 - , – , - ) , , . , - , ( , « , - ») . - , ё « » , . . , , . , , - , . , , . , , . , . , , . 146 , . . – , . , - , , , , « , . » , . - . , - , – - , . – - . , , , – . , , , . « . » - , . « » . » – 147 « - .« » - [8]. , . - , , , . – , . - , , - , , – , . - , , . . « » , , , . - , . , , « » . 148 - , , , , , , , . , , - , . , , - « » - , , - . « » . , - , ё « », - . , . , - . « » - « », . , ( ) , . 149 - , , , - . , - . , , , « » . , . ,« » , . . . , , , , , « ». ё , . ё . , , « , » - , , , 150 - , « ». - , - , . « » , - , . , , μ «… , . - , . — in potentia, - , - , , »[2]. , , , . , , , , . . - , - , ( ) - , - . , - ( ), « , » . . , 151 , , , , - . , , . . - , , . « » , - . Anastasiya Vitalyevna Matetskaya Pseudoscience and Pseudoreligion in Modern Society This article analyzes why pseudoscience and pseudoreligion in modern societies are common. The author considers a pseudoscience and pseudoreligion as no a counterfeit science and a counterfeit religion, but as a special kind of knowledge. Its emergence is caused by cultural differentiation that stimulates searches of complete knowledge. The author considers the popularity of these kinds of knowledge a symptom of a cultural primitivization. Pseudoscience, pseudoreligion, pseudohistory, ccultism, cultural differentia- tion, modernization, conspiracy theory ., 1. . μ 2012, . 2. // I, № 1. . . .177 // , 2013, № 18. .57 152 . . 3. , μ // , , . ., - , 2013. .30 . . ( ) // / 4. . . . ., . . . , 2008. . 125 5. . . –Д Ж // URLμ. СЭЭpμ//ХОЧЭК.ЫЮ/МШЧП/ФЮЯКФТЧ/ ( // 6. - . – 23.07.2014). . . ., , 2011. .118 . 7. .« » . . 8. . . . . / . . ., . , 2001. .85 . . ., 2.0. 2010, . 88-89 9. . . . // . 2005. . 75. № 2. . 119 . . RELIGIO: « » . , , , religio Д19, . 2180Ж, . , , , , 153 - , , - - , - . , , , « - », . , , ё - , , 117 . , , , , religio . , (106-43 . , . ) « » (45-44 . . .). ( . 250 – 325), , . , - , . Д16Ж, . – – , - . 118 . . [15, P. 6Ж, , 117 - « » . , , , – , ley, J. Democracy and Reaction / J. Morley // Nineteenth Century. - 1905. - April. 118 , – , , , – , , – . , Д28, . 2-3]. 154 , . . Mor, - , . . ( [12, P. 22Ж IV . . .). . Д24Ж , , . . [18, P. 131Ж. - , , . , « . . Д3Ж, , » - (354 – 430), . . . [11, C. 17-28Ж / , religio . , « ё » « ». , - , . . , , - , - , religio, БЁБ-ББЁ . « » . - , , [20, P. 29Ж. , , , - 155 , - . , [20, P. 33-34], religare ( religio , , , ), . , μ« , , - , . (religati) , , - (a relegendo), »119. , (ЫОХТРКЭТ), . , , ) ), , - ( religiosi, , , relĕgere, ) ), , ( , )ν , . « , ( - , elegantes elegere120 ( diligentes ( ) intelligentes ( ) , diligere ( inteligere ( , - )ν legere ( , ), religiosus»121. , , , religio , , religatio, , , religare, relegere. religare religio, opinari Lactantius, Institut. Div. iv. 28, «Hac conditione gignimur, ut generati nos Deo justa et debita obsequia praebeamus, hunc solum noverimus, hunc sequamur. Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti Deo et religati sumus; unde ipsa religio nomen accepit, non, ut Cicero interpretatus est, a relegendo». . μ Д20, P. 33-34Ж. . 120 elegare ( . . , [20, P. 33]) 121 CТМОЫШ, DО NКЭ. DОШЫ. ТТ. 28. «QЮТ КЮЭОЦ ШЦЧТК qЮКО КН МЮХЭЮЦ НОШЫЮЦ pОЫЭТЧОЫОЧЭ diligenter retractarent et tamquam relegerent sunt dicti religiosi ex relegendo, ut elegantes ex eligendo, itemque ex diligendo diligentes, et intelligendo intelligentes. His enim in verbis ШЦЧТЛЮЬ ТЧОЬЭ ЯТЬ ХОРОЧНТ ОКНОЦ qЮКО ТЧ ЫОХТРТШЬШ». ( . μ Д20, P. 34].) 119 156 opinion ( opinatio), rebellare – rebellis necopinusν rebellio. , lictor, , - ligere ligare. , , religare, - religio , - religare . , , obligatio , obligio, , religio. - , . Relegere neglegere (negligere)122, « , « », , neglegere relegere , ». , , religio , , [20, P. 34-36]. , (iv. 9). , , , religiosus μ «Religentem esse oportet, religiosus ne fuas», religens. « , , Andacht, « , « - , - «e» «i» . intelligo. «e» , , «e», , perlego, praelego ( . . , Д20, P. 35]). 123 Gellius, ed. Hertz, ТЯ. 9. «-osus» , , ЯТЧШЬЮЬ, ЦЮХТОЫШЬЮЬ. μ «Hoc inclinamentum semper hujuscemodi verborum, ut vinosus, mulierosus, religiosus significat copiam quandam immodicam rei super qua dicitur. Quocirca religiosus is appellabatur qui ЧТЦТК ОЭ ЬЮpОЫЬЭТЭТШЬК ЫОХТРТШЧО ЬОЬО КХХТРКЯОЫКЭ, ОКqЮО ЫОЬ ЯТЭТШ КЬЬТРЧКЛКЭЮЫ». «SОН pЫКОЭОЫ ТЬЭК», , «qЮКО NТРТНТЮЬ НТМТЭ, КХТШ qЮШНКЦ НТЯОЫЭТМЮХШ ЬТРЧТПТМКЭТШЧТЬ, religiosus pro МКЬЭШ КЭqЮО ШЛЬОЫЯКЧЭТ МШСТЛОЧЭТqЮО ЬОЬО МОЫЭТЬ ХОРТЛЮЬ ПТЧТЛЮЬqЮО НТМТ МШОpЭЮЬ» ( . . , [20, P. 35-36]). 122 neglego , negligo, intellego », »123. 157 » religio, . « « Andacht , ». , , », , - , religio, , , . « », , religio, , . , , . ν , , , , . » , « « « ». » , , - . , religio , , , . , - religio , , - . , , – , . religio , religio, –« », religio jurisjurandi ( 158 , , - ) metus deorum ( religio ) 124 . , metus CТМ. ТТ. ТЧ VОЫЫ. 4, - 45, 101, ut eam (cupiditatem) non metus, non religio contineret, religio « « metus » « » », , « » – . , , religione et metu ( ). «religio est facere aliquid» 125 - , . - religio , 126 . , , religio est quae superioris cujusdam naturae quam divinam vocant curam caerimoniamque affert ( – , , ). , cultus religio , caerimonia religio 127 (Cic. N. DA. 43, 121, Quis aut cultu aut ЫОХТРТШЧО НТРЧКЬ УЮНТМКЫО (ТЦКРТЧОЬ), , . , perstition. tollitur» ( , religion su- μ «nec vero superstitione tollenda 128 religio , religiones129 ). religio - CТМ. FШЧЭ. Тб. 30. «AЧ ЯОЫШ ТЬЭКЬ ЧКЭТШЧОЬ ЫОХТРТШЧО УЮЫТЬУЮЫКЧНТ КМ ЦОЭЮ НОШЫЮЦ immortalium in testimoniis dicendis commoveri arbitramini, quae tantum a ceterarum РОЧЭТЮЦ ЦШЫО КМ ЧКЭЮЫК НТЬЬОЧЭТЮЧЭ». ( . : [20, P. 37]). 125 LТЯ. ТТ. 62. «UЭ ЧЮЦТЧО КХТqЮШ НОПОЧЬК МКЬЭЫК ШppЮРЧКЫО ТЭОЫЮЦ ЫОХТРТШ ПЮОЫТЭ». 126 Invent, ii. 53, 161. 127 CТМ. N. DA. 43, 121. «QЮТЬ КЮЭ МЮХЭЮ КЮЭ ЫОХТРТШЧО НТРЧКЬ УЮНТМКЫО (ТЦКРТЧОЬ)». 128 De Div. ii. 72, 148. 129 CТМ. ТТ. VОЫЫ. Я. 13, 34. «CШЧЭЫК ПКЬ, МШЧЭЫК КЮЬpТМТК, МШЧЭЫК ШЦЧОЬ НТЯТЧКЬ КЭqЮО СЮЦКЧКЬ ЫОХТРТШЧОЬ». 124 159 , – , 130 131 ) religio . cultus deorum, , sacra ( auspicia ( - ), , , . Auspicia, , , sacra – . , , quae deorum cultu pio continetur132 ( - ). , deorum immortalium133, . . religio . , , « religio , - , », « , , », . « religio ( 562 ), ». , μ «Religionem cogere non possumus, quid nemo cogitur ut invitus credat»134 – « , », religio [20, P. 39]. . . [23, P. 1-2Ж . - N. D. ТТ. 3, 8. «RОХТРТШЧО, ТН ОЬЭ МЮХЭЮ НОШЫЮЦ, ЦЮХЭШ ЬЮpОЫТШЫОЬ». DО NКЭ. DОШЫ. ТТТ. 1. «QЮЮЦqЮО ШЦЧТЬ populi Romani religio in sacra et auspicia divisa sit, et tertium adjunctum sit, si quid praedictionis caussa ex portentis et monstris Sibyllae ТЧЭОЫpЫОЭОЬ СКЫЮЬpТМОЬЯО ЦШЧЮОЫЮЧЭ». 132 N. D. i. 42, 117. 133 Cic. Lael. 25, 96. 134 Variarum Libri, ii. 27. 130 131 160 , , , , religio . , , religio , relegare, .« , , μ religio neglegere, . . relegere, ( – , . . - ), ». , , , , - , . - , « – », . . . [26, P. 23Ж - , , religare, . , , , , . . . Д13Ж, , – , , , , , , , [26, P. 23]. . » . « , 161 - Д13, . 5Ж135. , - , , religio taboo Д13, . 36-37Ж. , , , , loca sacra, - sacer . , - sacra, ) . , loca sacra, , religiosa, , ( - , - loca religiosa. , religio , quae propter sanctitatem aliquam remota ac seposita a nobis sit. , religiosum , - μ quod si faciat adversus deorum voluntatem , videatur facere. , , religio . - , . hinc ad Tarpeiam sedem et Capitolia ducit, aurea nunc, olim silvestribus horrida dumis. , 135 . divinum, . Fasti anni Romani, , . . . , , .: [13, Pp. 5, 94, 95, ]. , , . 162 31 , . . 51 . ., , . ius iam tum religio pavidos terrebat agrestis dira loci : iam tum silvam saxumque tremebant. «СШМ ЧОЦЮЬ, СЮЧМ,» ТЧqЮТЭ, «ПЫШЧНШЬШ ЯОЫЭТМО МШХХОЦ, (qЮТЬ НОЮЬ, ТЧМОЫЭЮЦ ОЬЭ) СКЛТЭКЭ НОЮЬ». (Virgil, Aen. viii. 347-352) – , . . μ« ? – ( . , . . – ». . . . , VЁЁЁ, , - 347-352). , religio, , , . , nefasti, , religiosi, , religio , religiosus Д13, . 41Ж. , « » . 7-8], Д14, - religio , . , – . , , , – , , - - , - , . , 163 - . Religio – , , , - , , - , , . - . , religio - , , , ius divinum, , sacrum, , Corpus Inscriptionum, . , - . Dies religiosi, loca religiosa – - ТЮЬ НТЯТЧЮЦ, , - religio. Religiosum , sacrum , , , , , , - , . , , , religio , ( ), , - , , , . 164 , - , , , , , - . . Religio , , , - , . « , » - , religio μ Alius castra iam capta pronuntiat, alius deleto exercitu atque imperatore victores barbaros venisse contendit; plerique novas sibi ex loco religiones fingunt, Cottaeque et Titurii calamitatem, qui in eodem occiderint castello, ante oculos ponunt. (Gaius Julius Caesar. Bellum Gallicum, IV, 37). , ν , ν - μ 136 - , Д10Ж. , metus , Д14, . 9Ж, - , - religiones, , , - . , ius divinum, . , , , , pШЧЭТПОб ЦКбТЦЮЬ ius divinum, , 136 - , . . 165 , , , - , religio , . , , μ ne corpora modo affecta tabo, sed animos quoque multiplex religio et pleraque externa invasit (Titus Livius. Ab Urbe Condita Libri, 4. 30). , 137 , , - religio , , , . , , religio . , , , . , , , religio - , , , , , - , , - , , , - μ Hominis genibus quaedam et religio ТЧОЬЭ ШЛЬОЫЯКЭТШЧО РОЧЭТЮЦ. (…) inest et aliis partibus quaedam religio (…). religio. (…) , religio (…)138. , , 137 138 . μ [5] , . . , 11, 103. 166 - religio , , . μ Д21, P. 88]. , – – religio. Peculiare vanitatis sit argumentum, quod animalium cunctorum talpas maxime mirantur tot modis a rerum natura damnatas, caecitate perpetua, tenebris etiamnum aliis defossas sepultisque similes. nullis aeque credunt extis, nullum religionum capacius iudicant animal, ut, si quis cor eius recens palpitansque devoret, divinationes et rerum efficiendarum eventus promittant. . . , , , - . , . , , - . , , 139 . , μ , . . Д7Ж. – ( - ) – . , ( Д6Ж ) , , . Д14, . 10Ж superstitiosus, religiosus , , - , . , , , religio, 139 - . , 30, 7. 167 . μ Д22, P. 429]. - , « 9. 1) » (IV. ( . religio )μ religentem esse oportet, religiosus ne fuas ( , ). μ [29], – , , religentem - religiosus – . , , - , , μ , , ( ) , , ( ) [30]. Д14, . 10Ж, religio, , , , - , , , - DО LОРТЛЮЬ ( NКЭЮЫК DОШЫЮЦ ( ). ) De , - . religio Religio est, quae superioris cuiusdam naturae, quam divinam vocant, curam caerimoniamque affert (De Inventione, II, 161). – , ( . - II, 161). De LОРТЛЮЬ μ Suosque deos aut novos aut alienigenas coli confusionem habet religionum et ignotas caerimonias nos(tris) sacerdotibus (II. X. 25). « » « » 140 140 De Legibus 168 μ Д9Ж . , Д14, . 11Ж « », μ« ». constitutio religionum – 141 (II. X. 23); qua mente, qua pietate colat religiones – , (ЁЁ. VII. 15); religio Larum – ( ) (II. XI. 27); quod cum religione coniunctum est – (ЁЁ. XIX. 47); religio est sepulcrorum – (II. XXII. 55)142; / / . religio, . , , , - religio , , , , - , . - , , , - , religio - – - Д19, . 2180, 2184Ж143: , 141 142 , . . . . (Michels A. K. The Versatility of religio // The Mediterranean World. Papers presented in honour of Gilbert Bagnani, Peterborough (Ontario), 1975. . 36-77), religioμ , , – ( . 73-74). 143 169 Maesta civitas fuit vinci insueta; odisse tribunos, poscere dictatorem: in eo verti spes civitatis. Et cum ibi quoque religio obstaret ne non posset nisi ab consule dici dictator, augures consulti eam religionem exemere (Titus Livius. Ab Urbe Condita Libri, 4. 31. 4). ν , . - , , 144 , . . religio - . μ Nunc, Calcas, finem religionum fac: desiste exercitum morari meque ab domuitione, arcere tuo obsceno omine. - , , , Д27, . 14Ж. « ( » religio scrupulus ), , . . , , , , , , - μ At mi unu scrupulus etiam restat qui me male habet (Terence, Andr. 940). , . : dignus es cum tua religione, odium: nodum in scirpo quaeri. (Terence, Andr. 941) , , 144 . , . μ [5] 170 , - , , , religio . , . - religio, , . μ religio Equo Dialem flaminem vehi religio est. (Aulus Gellius. Noctes Atticae. Liber X. 15. 4) - . Acarnanes duo iuvenes per initiorum dies non initiati templum Cereris imprudentes religionis cum cetera turba ingressi sunt. (Liv. 31, 14, 7) , , 145 . ( ). [25, P. 40-54Ж religio, DО NКЭЮЫК DОШЫЮЦ. , , , - . , superstes – ), , ( , . , , - , , (relegerent) - , (religiosi)μ , neg-legere ( , . , intellegere ( leg ). ) - , (pТОЭКЬ) 145 , (relegendo). , relegere, - , μ [5] 171 – - (ТЮЬЭТЭТК КНЯОЫЬЮЦ НОШЬ), - – . , , - , , . « . » - [1, C. 394-402Ж . , , - . , , – - – , . - , , - , . , - ( ), , . – threskeia ( ρ σκεία), . - , , , « , , , . « », , , . , - , , », « , - , . , . ( , religio, - ) 172 religare « », , « μ religio », . , , - religio, . . - , , , , religio. , , , . - , . . « », . , - religio, scrupulus, . . - , . ( . ), , ( ). , μ « , - », , , - religiosus – ; , , . religio – , , , - - , , , , . , , , religio, religio 173 religio ligare legere, - . , , religio. religio . , [16, 17, P. 215-222]. , religio , , , - , , - . , , recordatio, КЧпmЧēsТs. threskeia, - , , КЧпmЧēsТs religio, , recordatio . - , . , , . , religio - , . , , . *** , religio . . , , - Д2, . 866Ж146: 1. , , , , , ; . 146 174 2. , , , ( , , ; 3. , , , ), , ; ; 4. , - , , 5. , 6. , ; ν , 7. ( - , ν , ( ), , ) ; , , , , ; « », - , ; 8. , 9. , , ν ν 10. , , ; , ; , ; ; , , , - ; 11. , , 12. ( , - ; ; - , ; - ; 13. , 14. , , , , , ; ; , 15 , , , , 175 , ; , 16. ; , 17. , ; ; , / - / ;( ) ; , 18. ; - , ; ( ; ) - . , , religio, , « , » . , - . . 1. ./ . μ ν . . . .- .μ . . , 1995. - 456 . . . 2. - .μ « . 2- - ./ . . . », 1976. - 1096 c. . 3. . μ μ . μ - / . . . - . μ , 1997. - 344 . ( 4. (Divinae Institutiones). - .μ - « » , 2007. - 512 . - . 5. μ ). « . », 1989. - 576 . 176 Ё. / .- . . . . . 6. / μ // . . . 7. / . - 5-6. - 2009. - . 105-116. . μ religio . // . . . - . - . - 2012. - № 1 (15). - . 11-18. 8. . 9. . / ./ »-« .- ..μ .μ , 1985. - 381 . « - - », 1994. . 10. - , , , . .: 7, - ./ . « . 11. »-« . μ 2 .- », 1993. - 560 . / .μ .- . . // - , 2002. - . 1. - 461 . 12. Bowie F. The Anthropology of Religion / F. Bowie. - Oxford : Blackwell, 2000. - 284 p. 13. Fowler W. W. The Religious Experience f the Roman People from the Earliest Times to the Age of Augustus / W. W. Fowler. - London : Macmillan and Co. Limited, 1911. - 504 p. 14. Fowler W. W. Roman Essays and Interpretations/ W. W. Fowler. - Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1920. - 290 p. 15. Insoll T. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion / T. Insoll. - London ; New York : Routledge, 2004. - 184 p. 16. Jackson P. Handing Down by Means of Speech: Gesture and Memory in the Exegesis of Religion / P. Jackson // Gestures, Rituals and Memory: A Multidisciplinary Symposium. - Toronto, May 6-8, 2004. http://www.semioticon.com/ virtuals/jackson.pdf 17. Jackson P. The Literal and Metaphorical Inscription of Gesture in Religious Discourse / P. Jackson // Gesture, Ritual and Memory: Special issue of Gesture / Bouissac, Paul (ed.). - 2006. - VШХ 6, № 2. - P. 215-222. 177 18. Jastrow M. The Study of Religion / M. Jastrow. - London : Walter Scott, Paternoster Square, 1901. - 451 p. 19. LТЧНОЫЬФТ Ђ. TСО AЮРЮЫКХ LКа // AЮПЬЭТОР ЮЧН NТОНОЫРКЧР НОЫ RöЦТЬМСОЧ Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung. - Berlin, New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1986. - Vol. II. -16. - 3. - Pp. 2146-2312. 20. Muller M. F. Natural religion. The Gifford lectures / M. F. Muller. - London : Longmans, Green, and Co.; New York, 1892. - 608 . 21. Pliny the Elder. The Natural History. Vol. 3. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 1855. - 536 p. 22. Pliny the Elder. The Natural History. Vol. 5. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 1856. - 523 p. 23. Reinach S. A General History of Religions / S. Reinach. - New York : G. P. PЮЭЧКЦ’Ь SШЧЬν LШЧНШЧ μ АТХХТКЦ HОТЧОЦКЧЧ, 1909. - 439 p. 24. SКХТЛК Ђ. A. «HШЦШ RОХТРТШЬЮЬ» ТЧ MТЫМОК EХТКНОμ AЧ AЧЭСЫШpШХШРТМКХ Evaluation / J. A. Saliba. - Leiden : Brill, 1976. - 210 p. 25. Santucci James A. Religion and Culture / James A. Santucci // Hsi Lai Journal of Humanistic Buddhism. - 2005. - Vol. VI. - P. 40-54. 26. Soper E. D. The Religions of Mankind / E. D. Soper. - New York : Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1938. - 364 p. 27. ŠЭОЫЛОЧМ EЫФОЫ D. SОЦКЧЭТМЬ ШП LКЭТЧ аШЫНЬ religio and ritus / D. ŠЭОЫЛОЧМ EЫФОЫ // HöЫТЧ. - 2008. - № 15. - 13-31. 28. Verkamp Bernard J. The Evolution of Religion : A Re-Examination / Bernard J. Verkamp. - University of Scranton Press, 1995. - 232 p. 29. , , , «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ»μ QЮТН ЬТРЧТПТМОЭ pЫШpЫТО «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ»ν ОЭ ТЧ qЮКО НТЯОЫЭТМЮХК ЬТРЧТПТМКЭТШ ТЬЭТЮЬ vocabuli flexa sit; et verba Nigidii Figuli ex commentariis eius super ea re sumpta. 1 Nigidius Figulus, homo, ut ego arbitror, iuxta M. Varronem doctissimus, in undecimo commentariorum grammaticorum versum ex antiquo 178 carmine refert memoria hercle dignum: religentem esse oportet, religiosus ne fuas, cuius autem id carmen sit, non scribit. 2 Atque in eodem loco Nigidius: «HШМ» ТЧqЮТЭ «ТЧМХТЧКЦОЧЭЮЦ ЬОЦpОЫ СЮТЮЬМОЦШНТ ЯОЫЛШЫЮЦ, ЮЭ «ЯТЧШЬЮЬ», «ЦЮХТОЫШЬЮЬ», «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ», ЬТРЧТПТМКЭ МШpТКЦ qЮКЧНКЦ ТЧЦШНТМКЦ ЫОТ, ЬЮpОЫ qЮК НТМТЭЮЫ. QЮШМТЫМК «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ» ТЬ КppОХХКЛКЭЮЫ, qЮТ ЧТЦТК ОЭ ЬЮpОЫЬЭТЭТШЬК religionО ЬОЬО КХХТРКЯОЫКЭ, ОКqЮО ЫОЬ ЯТЭТШ КЬЬТРЧКЛКЭЮЫ». 3 SОН pЫКОЭОЫ ТЬЭК, qЮКО NТРТНТЮЬ НТМТЭ, КХТШ qЮШНКЦ НТЯОЫЭТМЮХШ ЬТРЧТПТМКЭТШЧТЬ «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ» pЫШ МКЬЭШ atque observanti cohibentique sese certis legibus finibusque dici coeptus. 4 Simili autem modo illa quoque vocabula ab eadem profecta origine diversum ЬТРЧТПТМКЫО ЯТНОЧЭЮЫμ «ЫОХТРТШЬТ НТОЬ» ОЭ «ЫОХТРТШЬК НОХЮЛЫК». 5 «RОХТРТШЬТ» ОЧТЦ «НТОЬ» НТМЮЧЭЮЫ ЭЫТЬЭТ ШЦТЧО ТЧПКЦОЬ ТЧpОНТЭТqЮО, ТЧ qЮТЛЮЬ ОЭ ЫОЬ НТЯТЧКЬ ПКМОЫО et rem quampiam novam exordiri temperandum est, quos multitudo imperitorum pЫКЯО ОЭ pОЫpОЫКЦ «ЧОПКЬЭШЬ» КppОХХКЭ. 6 ЁЭКqЮО M. CТМОЫШ ТЧ ХТЛЫШ ОpТЬЭЮХКЫЮЦ ЧШЧШ КН AЭЭТМЮЦ «ЦКТШЫОЬ» ТЧqЮТЭ «ЧШЬЭЫТ ПЮЧОЬЭТШЫОЦ НТОЦ ОЬЬО ЯШХЮОЫЮЧЭ Alliensis pugnae quam urbis captae, quod hoc malum ex illo. Itaque alter ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ ОЭТКЦЧЮЧМ НТОЬ, КХЭОЫ ТЧ ЯШХРЮЬ ТРЧШЭЮЬ». 7 ЁНОЦ ЭКЦОЧ M. TЮХХТЮЬ ТЧ ШЫКЭТШЧО НО КММЮЬКЭШЫО МШЧЬЭТЭЮОЧНШ «ЫОХТРТШЬК НОХЮЛЫК» НТМТЭ ЧШЧ ШЦТЧШЬК ЧОМ tristia, sed maiestatis venerationisque plena. 8 Masurius autem Sabinus in МШЦЦОЧЭКЫТТЬ, qЮШЬ НО ТЧНТРОЧТЬ МШЦpШЬЮТЭμ ««ЫОХТРТШЬЮЦ»» ТЧqЮТЭ «ОЬЭ, qЮШН propter sanctitatem aliquam remotum ac sepositum a nobis est; verbum a «ЫОХТЧqЮОЧНШ» НТМЭЮЦ, ЭКЦqЮКЦ «МКОЫТЦШЧТКО» К «МКЫОЧНШ». 9 SОМЮЧНЮЦ СКЧМ Sabini interpretationem templa quidem ac delubra, quae non volgo ac temere, sed cum castitate caerimoniaque adeundum, et reverenda et reformidanda sunt ЦКРТЬ qЮКЦ ТЧЯШХРКЧНКμ 10 ЬОН НТОЬ «ЫОХТРТШЬТ» НТМЭТ, ДБЁ.Ж qЮШЬ Об МШЧЭЫКЫТК causa propter ominis diritatem relinquimus. (Aulus Gellius. Noctes Atticae. Li: ber IV, 9). «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ» ν « , ». 1 , , , « » , 179 , (rОХТРОЧs) μ , (rОХТРТШsЮs), , . 2 μ« , «ЯТЧШЬЮЬ» ( ), «ЦЮХТОЫШЬЮЬ» ( «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ» ( ), ) , . «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ» ( ) , , ». 3 , , «ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ» , Д Ж. 4 , , μ «ЫОХТРТШЬТ НТОЬ» ( ( ). 5 , ) «ЫОХТРТШЬТ» ( «ЫОХТРТШЬК НОХЮЛЫК» ) , , - , Д «ЧОПКЬЭТ» ( Ж ). 6 « » μ « , Д , Ж , Д . Ж , (ЫОХТРТШЬЮЬ), Д Ж ». 7 «ЫОХТРТШЬК» ( ) , . 8 Д Ж» « μ «RОХТРТШЬЮЬ» , ν «ЫОХТЧqЮОЫО» ( «МКОЫТЦШЧТКО» ( ) , 180 « Ы Ы »( , ), )». 9 , , – , ,– 10 , «ЫОХТРТШЬТ» , ν , . 11 - [ ]: Tum quod dem ei recte est; nam, nihil esse mini, religio est dicere. (Publius Terentius – Afer. Heautontimorumenos, 2. 1. 16). (religio est) , – », , , 30. . . . . . , , !». – . , « « , , . . μ ( ), . , , , « , -osus ». « religiosus , ( )» (nimia et . superstitiosa religione), , . , , , , . , « religious , » religiosus . Д27, . 18Ж. . 181 . . – , , - , , , , , . , - - , . - - ( ). , , . . , , . , - . , Д 147 , 148 Ж, , . – , , - , , , . . , 2013 Д 134393011.pdf ( 148 . . 147 .10-15. - , μ 500 . Ж // URL: http://www.rfh.ru/downloads/Books/ μ 05.08.14). . . . . . , .μ , . . , , 2009. 182 ( ), , - . , , , . . , , - , – , . , , - . - ,« , … « »( - , « ), » , , … , , - , - , - , », - Д149]. , . , - ( ), , , ( , ). , . . , 149 . . , 2010. .92-93. / . . , .– 183 μ - Д 150 , 151 Ж. – – , . , , , , , . , . , , . , , . - , , . , . , , - μ , - , . , . , , , . , . - μ , μ , , - . , , - , . , . . , . – .μ , .28-29. 151 . . . Д Ж // URL: http://samlib.ru/s/skosarx_wjacheslaw_jurxewich/ zagadkiischeznuwshihciwilizacij-1.shtml ( μ 05.08.14). 150 2009. 184 , , , Д152]. . ( , , ), , . , - . - . – , . . . Д6Ж. - , , , . , , . . . , . , [153Ж. . , , - . , μ , . - , . . 2009. .35-39. 153 . 152 , .– .μ , . . Д Ж // URL: http://samlib.ru/s/skosarx_wjacheslaw_jurxewich/ zagadkiischeznuwshihciwilizacij-2.shtml ( μ 05.08.14). 185 . , . , , , , . - , μ , . - , - , . , . . . . . . - - . , , , . , - (21-22 ), , - - Д154, 155]. , , ( . 46 – . 120 , . , ν , , .), μ« - , - ν - . . , . – .μ , 2009. .46-53. 155 . . . . Д Ж // URL: http://samlib.ru/s/skosarx_wjacheslaw_jurxewich/ zagadkiischeznuwshihciwilizacij-3.shtml ( μ 05.08.14). 154 186 , , - , , , …» ( - . Д156Ж). - , , ( . 428 – ( . 484 — . 347 . . .), . 425 (384 – 322 . . . .), . ). - , , , , , , , , , , , . - , Д10]. - , , , . , , , - , , . , - , , , , . - , , , . Д10]. μ « , , , . 156 Д μ 05.08.14). . . Ж // URL: http://pravoslavnoe.ru/catalog/01150107/81/ ( 187 , 2004 - … , ν - , , » , , - μ« , , , . … , , , - , . , » Д157Ж. , . , , . , μ . , - « « , » μ , - , » Д158Ж. μ - , . , ? ? - , . , « » 17-18 158 ( .201. . . - , - , . 157 . ). . – 288 . .23-24. / . . 188 . – 2.– ., .μ . - .μ . , 2013. . , ,« - » . - , , μ« », , « , , » Д159]. . , , , . - , , Д160Ж. - , , - , ( ). – . , , , - , . μ , , Д14Ж. « , , - , – , « » , . 159 160 - . , 2010. . , 2010. . . .124-126. .78-86, 88-89. / . . .– μ - / . . .– μ - 189 ν , , … … ( , ) ( ) … ». , « , . . » Д14]. , « » - , , - Д14]. , , - , , - . , . – , , . , , , - , , , ., . , , . . 190 . - , , . .), . (1- , , - , , « , , - »μ , . . , . , , - , , , . - . , , μ , , , - , - . , , , , . - , - , . , . , , , . , , , , , , , . ? , , , , - 191 ? , - - , Д10]. – . – 19-20- . ( . , ) , , , . - , - . , - , , , « » , , . « » . , . , , . , - , . . , ., , , . . , , . ? . , « » – - , , , , ( - , ), . , , « ». , . 192 . , – . , , . , - , , . . . – , . « » , , , . , , , , . , , . , , , - , Д10]. . (19-20- ) , . , - , - , , , . , , – - . μ , , , , . 193 . , , . , , - , . , . . , , , , - , , , - . , . , , - . , , , . . . ? , , - , . , - . , - , , . , , , , . 194 , . , , - , ( . , ) , . . , . , - , , ν , . . μ , , . , - . , , , Д 161Ж. , , - . ? , - . - , , ? , - , - ? , , , ? . , 161 . . Ж // URL: http://www.atheism.ru/old/FryAth1.html ( 195 , 2000 Д μ 05.08.14). - , ν , , ν , , - , ν , ... - , . « , » - , , … . – , - , , , , . , , , - , … Д10, 162]. , , , - . , , - ν - , . . , , , , . , , . . « »Д Ж // URL: http://samlib.ru/s/skosarx_wjacheslaw_jurxewich/nastojasheeibudusheeodnojilljuzii.shtml ( μ 05.08.14). 162 196 ν , , . . , - , . - , . , , , , - , 20- . . . , . - , . - , , , , , . , , , Д16]. , , , . «… . , , , , , « » « », - – , . ( ) …» Д163]. ( , , ) . 163 . . , 2010. .90-92. (18-19- - ) / . . . . .– 197 μ - , , , , - , , , . . , - , , – - , . , – . . - , . , , , - , , , - , . - , , , – , . – , , . . , , , , . ( ), , ), , ( - , . , 198 , . , , - , , . , - . - , . , , - . - , , , , . . , . , , , , ( ). , , - , , , . . . – μ , ? ? , ? . , , . - , ? . . , - , , . , , 199 , . - , Д10]. . . , – –« - , , , « »« , »– . . . , , … - , - , , , . . » Д164]. . . , , , . , - – μ« – ... , ... , - . ... . , ... , " "... - » Д165]. , , , 164 165 .479. . . , 2010. .93-95. . . / . . .– / 200 . . - μ .– .μ - , 2013. , . . , - . . . . . (18-19, , ) , . , - . - , , . . , . , - , . , , , , , - , . , - , , , , . , , . - , . ( , ) , . , , . - , , , - . , 201 . , - – Д10]. , – , . , - , , - , ( - ) , , . . . (1916-2009 , , .) Д166Ж. - , , , . - , , , , - , . . . , , . - . - , - . , . , ( ) , - Д10Ж. – , , - . , μ - , , , , . , , , URL: http://www.atheism.ru/library/Ginzburg_11.phtml ( 166 202 Д μ 05.08.14). Ж // , , . . . (1863-1945 , . .), – , , . - , , . - - , μ , , . , . , , , , , , . , « … , », - « , » Д167Ж. , - . , , - , μ , « , , ». , - , « - 167 .208-221. . . / 203 . . .– .μ - , 2013. μ , , » Д21Ж. , - . , , « , » , - . – . . (19- - ), . , - . . , . , , . ,« - , - , ,»( , , - . Д1Ж). , - , , , « … »( . Д 1Ж). , – . , 204 - , , . , , ( ), .« » , , . , , . , , , - , . , - . , . , , - , . , , - , , - , . , , , . , - , 205 . ? ν , ν - , , ν - , ν - ν - , . - . – , - , - . , ( ). , , , - – . - , ( - ) , . , , , , . - . . , . , . . - , , – , . 206 - . , - , . . - . , , , . , - , - . , - , , , , . - , . , , , - [10, 168]. « – »μ , , , , - . , , , . – , – , . , , , 168 .66-67. . . , . . 207 . . . . . - , , .μ , 2009. [169]. « (1913 .)» - μ ( . Д1]). - « ». , . , . , , , . - , . , , , . , , - 1- , , , - . , – , . . , , . , , 169 ( , Ж // URL: , Д http://www.voskresensk.prihod.ru/pravoslavnyjj_kabinet/view/id/1157566 μ 05.08.14). 208 . . , , . . , , , . , , μ , - , , , , … - . , . , , - , . , , … - – , . , , , , , . , - . ( ( ). ? , , – . ) - , μ . μ , ν , , . - . 209 , , , – , , , , - . , , . , , . - , . , . – , . - . . . ( ) . , ( ), . ( - ) , . , , , , , , - . , ( ) 210 - ( , , ). - . μ , « – » , – ? - ? . . Skosar Vyacheslav Jurjevich ABOUT THE ESSENCE AND ORIGIN OF RELIGION The role of religion in human history is discussed. The known hypotheses about ШЫТРТЧ ШП ЫОХТРТШЧ ЛКЬОН ШЧ ТЭЬ pЫШЬpОМЭТЯО ОЬЬОЧМО КЫО КЧКХвгОН. AЧ КЮЭСШЫ’Ь opinion about definition of essence of religion and a version of its origin are proposed. Keywords: essence of religion, hypothesis about origin of religion, relationship between man and God . « » « » , 宗教 (Shūkyō), , «zongjiao», XIX « 211 . - , », , , - « ( ) », « ( , ) », « - , , ». « , , - , , », « , , ( ), Hotoke Д . ДShinkyōЖ, ДSūhaiЖ, — ДShūmonЖ, ДShinkō, ShinjinЖ, ДSonshinЖ, ДNyūshinЖ, Ж ДShūshi], ДKeishin], ДKatsugōЖ, ДKyōshinЖ», , - ДKie], « , , », « , , , , , , , - ». «Shūkyō» «Religion» 1858 ., «Religion» "Shūkyō", "Shūshi" μ "Shūhō". "Religion" "Shūkyō " - 1873 ., - , , , μ« , , ». 212 , , ( . . 1895-1902 , 1836-1912) , , - «religio», , « , »( « »), μ « « » « » « » .26μ5ν .2μ18ν 礼拝 . 1.13-14; » .1μ26,27 共訳 宗教 奉 正教 宗教 う ユジボ教 信心 ゜ゞタボ教 敬虔 - , 1987 , μ « » .26μ5ν 1. 奉 Houji 2. 宗教 Shūkyō 宗 ν 教 Shūkyō « » , .2μ18ν 1. 2. 礼拝 Reihai ν « » . 1.13-14; 1. ゜ゞタボ教 Iudeya-kyō ν 2. ユジボ教 Yudaya-Kyō « » Shinjin . .1μ26,27ν 1. 敬虔 Keiken ( 小 偉一 京大学出版会 1973 2. , いい 213 ン堀一郎監修 信心 ) 宗教学辞典 東 , . . - . 1973 神 曓人 日曓民族 神概念 基 い わ 国 発生 間 よ 展開 伝統的 理念をいう 曓民族祖先 来 神 1932 対 河 宗教的実践 省 れを支え 神 神 生活原理 ある 日曓民族 伝統的信念 地書 神 よ Religions in Japan る人間 多用 織 中 解 反応 総 あり 織り込 れ 生活 主 日 いる生活態度 神 1930 情操 連 神 物 ある 研究 1948 述 教育部 境 (Shintō) p.426 神 日 森 書店 国民 軍総司 曓義 部民間情報 自然的環境 人間的環 日曓人 思想 ある い 行動 組 いる , , . - , , « . , », - « ». 1948 - « (ReligionsinJapan)» , « , , ». 仏教 p.641 (Bukkyō) 214 buddha 仏陀 覚者 ら仏陀 ら る dharma 真理を種々 教え 盛り込ん あ 類編 教え れ 法 い 仏陀 人 り 伝え れ 始 経ン ン論 仏教 称 , 種 る 至 Ж. ДBuppōЖ, buddha-dharma), ДButsudōЖ, (bud- , , る ). Д . . . 類語 ある れらを総括 , dha-mārga) る を 整理ン解説 (Buddha, Bukkyō — 転化 いう buddha-mārga ン仏 真理 釈迦 蔵 いう意味 釈迦 出現 Buddha- āsana 教え 教え buddha-dharma 仏法 ゜ルチ 説い , , (dharma), . , , ( )— ДKyouЖ, Дvinaya, [RitsuЖ (abhidharma, [RonЖ), . 日曓宗教 . - 弘文堂 1985 . 1985 Д 神 神 典 果 宗教 Ж ある い 依然 明確 い ろ ある 神 一度 いう 情 ある 立 日曓 民族文化 民族社会を離れ … 当り前 215 営 日曓人 れ あれ れ 一体 あ い宗教文化 ら 生活 一部を 営 ある点 風土 近 社会 見方 ら れ あり 生活感覚 伝統文化 一端 い いう神 曓来的 宗教 世界 いわ 宗教 前 宗教 初 ら … 現実 あり方 いう … る , . , - - . . Д...Ж , . Д...Ж . - , Д ...Ж Д 仏教 Д…Ж仏教 ある ジ う いう 仏 ある 答える 通り ガヴシブ 悟りを ら 呼 仏陀 ブッジ(覚者 間 仏陀) い い 仏陀 何人 悟 法身仏や報身仏 説 る 教 クホヴクボ(釈迦)族出身 Д…Жブッジ を Ж 日曓 至る れ らい 教えを仏教 漠然 概念 ブッジ れるよう ホダケ る 216 い いる ゜ルチ最初期 者 ブッ 理解 れ 仏身観 死者を意味 仏教 釈尊 い 様々 発展を る用法 出現 Д…Ж仏教 展過程 い あり る れ れ 仏教 れ ある 地域 いう 史 一 中 発 形 仏教 島薗進 鶴岡賀 を提示 学 能 近い 星 英紀 典 丸善 2010 良正 . . . . Д 1990 ろより 宗教研究 背 いう問い 宗教研究 い 法や ムヴロッド れ ある う ある 治文化的力学 . - れる 近現 向 構想 れ よう いる る概念 宗教概念 受 れ (…) 継 い ある 眼差 考えられるよう 近 前 疑問 る 何より 宗教観 批 い 批 ある い ゥモケダ教を出自 宗教 を置い 基 構築性 ムヴロッド ある 宗教を内面的現象 宗教観を近 当 宗教 確信 いう う 宗教 転換を迫られる … 問われる (…)宗教概念批 近 . 客体主義的理解 られるよう 俗 . 編 Ж (…)宗教概念 る性格を 子 . 2010. 宗教 立 氣多 非宗教 る れ り いわゆるフケダカロッ゚ャ批評 差 世界や非西欧圏 宗教研究 中 指摘 適用 部 聖 る 届 批 ある 深沢英隆 1990- . . Д...Ж - 217 . Д...Ж , , , μ , « - ». Д...Ж , , , - Д...Ж . , , , - ( - - ), - . . .( ) 大辞泉 第 版 小学館 2012 2宗教 る ё . 2012. 巻 p1705 神ン仏 ら現 . 超越的 い 在や る 聖 る わる人間 世界各地 営 形態 られ →原始宗教→民族宗教→世界宗教［類語］宗門ン宗旨ン信教ン信仰 ン信心ン敬神ン崇拝ン尊信ン 仰 う ン帰依ン入信ン狂信 , , ( ), Hotoke Д Ж . . 218 ., - . . — ДShinkyōЖ, ДNyŭshinЖ, ДKeishinЖ, ДKatsugōЖ, ДKieЖ, 巻 p.1888 日曓民族 来 神観念 を特 る 世 社を中心 類 る神社神 れる 異端 基 宗教的態度 仏教 を 宗教 自然崇拝ン゚ップゲ 儒教 教 教派神 ン民俗神 仏教 対 信 今易ン七ン 神 給ふ 知る 記ン ン七 神祇 影響を受 ― いう 曒 仕 る 墓 神 ン学派神 宝を 王法を―棄 行 1. , . , - . , , . ( ), ( ё ), ( ( ) ). 2. - .» ( 7-3» 3. . .« 釈迦 世界 . , ». ( 仏教 - . .« 共 - ДKyōsshin]. 神 ヘ ДShūshiЖ, ДShinkō, ShinjinЖ, ДSonshinЖ, [SūhaiЖ, ДShūmonЖ, 2-7) 4. . 巻 p.3176 77 説い 大宗教 実践 より解脱 仏 一 る 人生 教え ある 涅槃 至る を説 219 ゥモケダ教ン゜ケメヘ教 いう ら出発 前 5 世紀 八正 ゜ルチ イル グケ川中流 発展 宗派 起 広 り ゚グ゚ 普及 部派仏教 小乗仏教 6 世紀 伝来 日曓 ン大乗仏教 多 学派ン ある , Д . . Ж. . , - . , , - , . . . . VI ( , ) ( ), . . - VI ., . 新村出 ん らい る 編 広辞苑第 版 岩波書店 2008 宗教 あヴ religion ら 離 神 れ禁忌 連関的体系 p.1317 何ら れ 帰依者 神聖 対 精神的共 自然崇拝ンダヴゾプゲヘ 教 多 世界的宗教 わ あるい 社会 教団 を営 原始宗教 特定 民族 を何ら 卑俗 る信仰ン行 仏教ンゥモケダ教ン゜ケメヘ教 教祖ン経典ン教義ン典礼 religion 超越的絶対者 れら ゚ップゲヘン 信仰 る民族宗 多種多様 形 , , , - , - . ). 220 ( - , - , , . , , - , . . , . , , . 神 あヴ 日曓 来 発生 ン山王神 ン 十 派 立 川神 れ ん 尊崇を中心 る ある仏教ン儒教 影響を受 理 時 神仏習 ン曓地垂迹 あらわれ 両部神 中世 伊勢神 ン 田神 戸時 垂加 流行 明治 降 神社神 教派神 神 前者 洋戦争終了 外来思想 れ 神 p.1459 民族信仰 民間信仰 論家 - 祖先神や自然神 府 大 保護を受 ら , . - , . (794-1185 .) - [Shinbutsu shūgōЖ , ДHonjisuijakuЖ, ё . - , (1603-1868 .). ё- (13 . 仏教 — ), - Д Ж. ヴん p.2464 221 仏陀 釈迦牟尼 興 を開祖 仏陀 正 実践を行う 紀元前 世紀 密教 る世界宗教 説い よ 教え 苦悩 大乗仏教 呼 れる新 展開 一 世紀 対照的 ゜ルチを越え 信仰 融 ら 独自 形態を発展 東 前五世紀 意 四諦 真理 目覚 ら解 れ 涅槃 境地を目指 仏教 誕生 ゜ルチ亜大陸 ゚グ゚全域 ゚グ゚ 東゚グ゚ , 広 り ら ら 各地 れ れ ). - , , Д ё 文化や , . , . . Д を消 ( . . 八 七～八 スベッダ — V ろ゜ルチ - Ж - Ж. Д Ж — , . XIII ., , , , - 松村明 , らあ ら 編 大辞林 . 第 版 省堂 2006 . 神仏 象や 教え 在 3- . . 2006. p.1175 宗教 仏 . を信 経験的ン 対 ら 理的 積極的 を得よう る心 理解 る 意味 制御 価値を 222 えよう ら 神 いよう 現 る信念ン行動ン制 度 体系 ゚ップゲヘンダヴゾプゲヘンクホヴブッゲヘ ントメペル教ン神 ヘ教 世界宗教 英語 religion 民族宗教 ら い る種々 形態 訳語 ら ユジボ教 ゥモケダ教ン仏教ン゜ケメ ある 哲学 彙 1881 載る - ( ) . ( ) . 1. . - . 2. , , , . , , ( , , , ), ) ( ( . ( 1881 . )» . « - « .» .) 神 p.1301 日曓民族固有 度 迦 よ 理念 伝統的 宗教的実践 れを支え いる生活態 … 仏教 p.2224 仏陀 説い 教え 意 紀元前五世紀 開い 宗教 … 新潮国語辞典 第 版 223 1995 一説 前六世紀 釈 p.998 宗教 religion 離 れ禁忌 超自然的ン超人間的 え 神聖 絶対者 信仰ン帰依を軸 神話 諸関連全体 日常世俗 ら 極 る至 ら 無限 超越的 る儀式ン教団組織ン施設ン教義ン法規ン , , , , , , . - . . - , , , . 大槻文彦著 新編 大言海 . μ . p.979 宗教 神仏等 教えを れを行い 人 等 初版 S 31 S.57 富山 旨 心を治 押 立 る れを信 総称 れを 神 仏教 耶蘇教 , , , り 回回教 是れ り . , 神 , . p.1077 ィプノプス 霊妙 る Д…Ж 仏教 ィプノプスを一 武 文武 , 朝 宗教 大中臣意美麻呂 224 如 渡来 立 より り れ 思わるる ろ 称 其子 清麻呂 垂迹 ろ［ 説 拠り 神仏を混 ら を治 両部習 迹説］ ら 8 世紀］より わ あら 中 言い 者を 理を 山崎闇斎 明治 唱ふる 神 ん ある］ 元 照大神 作り出 惟神( 十派 る 細 1. られ れ 仏教 (…)前者を 田神 反曓地垂 無稽 り［ を雜え 唯一神 え 周昒 いう わ 神 変革あり 曓地 教え 起れり ［ る垂加流神儒習 仏徒 内 人 儒 るを 廃 対 唱ふ 仏理を除 作り改 神仏混淆 唯一神 ら) ら 唱え れ 表面 り Д…Ж れる 起り ふ 言い ［占い］ る 起 類 今 神 り いう 尚多 . . 2. , ё « Д » 8 - Ж. 3. - , - — - . , , , . ё , « — », . . 4. , « », , , , . . 5. 225 , , 10 . 仏教 釈迦を祖 印度 る教法 29 れ 80 法 綏靖 百 入る 間 西域を経 より入り 人間万 苦悩 種 り 迷いを破れ 一 れ 釈迦 時 時 を経る を生 説法 る 地論 随い 各宗行われ り クヂ 入り わ 世 執着 聴衆 至れり クヂ 華厳 真言 法相 西蔵 大体 拠る 東西 13 物 無常 り る 迷い り 愛 解説 揆を一 小乗 顕教 密教 論 実 法相 摂論 諸宗顕れ 日蓮 特殊 国 時 系統 涅 念仏 るメブ教 盛 今や世界宗教中 第一 .( 100 « » ( ) 29 uddhodana. , り 大乗 真 蒙 漢 一 域 浄土 浄土 説 欽明 より 入り 信者 多 子 国 物を 真如 異説行われ 華厳 中 印度 行われ 苦悩を去り 種種 真言 爾来 教え 趣旨 頃 uddhodana 35 出家 涅槃 明帝 永 ん 紀元百 ィピメエ［ィピメレ゙ケダゝ］城主浄飯王 生 槃 釈迦 , 35 , , . 80 ). - , - (57-75) . 13 . 226 — , - , , « ». , , . , , , , . , , , , ( , ) , , . , , — ( ё - ), ё , - , , - , - , , , , , , , - . . — . - . . ., . . ( ) ( , , - ). . , - , . « 227 - », , . . , . , , . , - , , . . . . . ё - , ё , μ« – - , - , . - ( ) , – , - . , , , . , , - . . , , . , , , - . , – , . , , - . - , - . , « » . , ЬЦЬ- , –« », 228 ё - . ( ) »170. , « »( . . НТЬМШЮЫЬО, , . НТЬМЮЫЬЮЬ) , ( ё ν ) . μ 1) ( ), 2) ( )171. , - . . , μ « , - , . .»172. , , – ( . ЭОбЭЮЬ – ), , 173 , . - , , , , , 174 . 60- . , » 50- « , , μ« », « - », « », « », « », « - . . // www.philosophy.ru/library/kutyrev/ postmodernphil.html 171 // http://www.philosophy.ru/library/aquino/vocabularium.html 172 . . , , // 20 . ., 1995. . 38. 173 . . // www.philosophy.ru/iphras/library/ philnauk.html 174 . . // www.philosophy.ru/iphras/library/ kruglikov.html 170 229 », « »175. . . - « » « , , . , »: . . – ( – , ), - - - , , - . ( ) ( ). , - , 176 . discursus ( curro – « ), »– , , ё , ν . « –« - », « »( - », ), , - . – - , ё . , - . . , « , », « - , , ( ), , 175 . . . granitsy/molodcova.htm 176 , . , . . - , 2000. . 92. // www.philosophy.ru/iphras/library/ 230 , - »177. . . , ( ( ) ) .« – , , , »178. ( , , ), ν 179 μ . , , , ( , . ν . – ). - – , , « » - ( , , , , ). , , , , , - 20 .μ , , , ( . . ), - – , - . . μ( ) // www.philosophy.ru/iphras/library/kiyaschenko 178 . . // СЭЭpμ//ТpС.ЫКЬ.ЫЮ/pКРО47850562.СЭЦ 179 . . // ааа.pСТХШЬШpСв.ЫЮ/ТpСЫКЬ/ЦКЦМСЮЫ.СЭЦ 177 231 , , , . , - , , . « » , , ν , , , , , « », ( . ). - , , , – , , - . , – , ν 180 - . ё « , »( . ). , - , , . , , , , . ) ( , , 180 - . . // wealtrue/neret1.htm 232 - ааа.pСТХШЬШpСв.ЫЮ/ТpСЫКЬ/library/ , 181 . . – , « » . - ( – ), ( ). . ν , - , - . , - μ , , 182 . . . , , , , , 183 - , . , , , ( 184 μ «… - ), , ν , - ν , , » 185 . « - , . . ., 2003. . 82. Townshend, J. Discourse theory and political analysis: a new paradigm from the Essex School? // The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2003. Vol 5 (1). Pp. 129–142. 183 . . μ // www.philosophy.ru/iphras/library/wealtrue/ogurzova.html 184 . // ааа.pСТХШЬШpСв.ЫЮ/РЮЭЧОЫ/ШЧЭ.СЭЦ 185 . // . . ., 1989. . 73. 181 182 233 μ , , , , - . .»186 net , society, , , , ё , μ« - – , », , 187 - . μ . - , , « - . , - , , - 188 – - ». , - , ν ( . ё - ). - . , ( ) , , - , , - . , - , ( , , , . www.philosophy.ru/library/ibatul/ibatul.html 187 . . , 1996. . 55, 48. 188 . . . ., 1998. . 324. 186 234 - , , М // . .)189. . , - , . , , μ ( ). - - ё μ , - . , , μ 1) , - , , . - ν 2) , , , ν 3) , ё , , , ν 4) , , . , . , , , . . www.philosophy.ru/library/foucault/01/10.html 189 235 // . // , . - . - . – ё μ ν – ν – ν – ν – ( , , , , )ν – ( - – )ν ( ). , « 1) » , , , 2) - μ - , ё . – , ( . . ё ), - .C - . , ( . , . , . , . , . , . – )μ - , - ν – , , ν 236 ν - – , ν , , , , - ν – ( , - ), , . . , , - ν – ν - – , ( ( , , , , ) - . .)ν – , ( ё , - )ν – , , , - ν – ν – , , , , 237 - , , - , . – , , , ν – , ν – - - , , ( , , ), , - , - ( )ν – ( ) ( - )ν – , - ν – , - , , , 190 . , . ( 190 . ), . – - ., 2001. 238 191 . , ё , , , . , μ – , , – – , . – . . - , 192 - . . , ё , , , , , ё μ - μ , , , , , , , - . ( μ , , ), - , - . . , , ё « . » , , . , , – - , , , μ 1) 191 Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis (Dijk T. van), Discourse Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough N.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (Wodak P.R., Meyer M.), Text, Context, Pretext Critical Isssues in Discourse Analysis by (Widdowson H. G.), Discourse: A Critical Introduction (Blommaert J.), Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition (O'Halloran K.) 192 . . // μ μ / . . . . , . . . , 2014. . 87. 239 , 2) , , 3) ( - ). , . ( - ), , , ( , ), - , , , . , - , , , . – , – - . , , ( ), , , , , - ( ). , - , – . , ( ), , - . ( ) – - - , , 2) μ 1) , 3) . , - , - (ЦОНТК ТЬ ЭСО ЦОЬЬКРО). , - , μ ) 240 , ) - , ) « « . », ) - ». , , . , - , . μ , , , . . , . - , . , , – , . , , . . . . - , - , - , . ». . « . - « » (1966) . , - , , - . μ , . ( , , , , , - ). C , - , - . . μ 1) , 2) - , 3) , 4) 241 - , 5) – 193 . - μ 1) ( 2) , ( )ν – )ν 3) ( ( . . - « 4) »194); ( ν , 5) 195 ( ); , - )ν 6) ( 7) )ν ( - )ν 8) , ( – , )ν μ 1) ( , , , , - )ν 2) ( , ё - )ν Keller R. DТЬФЮЫЬПШЫЬМСЮЧРμ EТЧО EТЧПüСЫЮЧР ПüЫ SШгТКХаТЬЬОЧЬМСКПЭХОЫЁЧЧОЧ. SpЫТЧРОЫν 2011. 194 . . ( ) // μ . , 2011. 195 . // . , 2011. . 20. 193 242 3) ( , - , , ,– « « » - »)196; 4) , ( , ). - . – , . ё - , , ( . , . 1). . - . – . - / . ё - , - . , , - , μ« , , , »197. .1 . . 196 . 11. 197 . . // . . . . - / , 2009. . 28. 243 . . . … . - , - , – - . « » - , μ 1) ( . , )ν 2) ( – , – . . , , ). . , . 244 –« , - ( , ) , . (" ") - ") (" - , , »198. , . . ё , , , . μ - , , ( , , , , - .). , . . . , , , - - . , . , , , , . . - , , , μ 1) , 2) , 3) . μ ( » 198 - . ., « - ), . . . 245 ., 1995. . 16 , « »μ ν - . – , , , , μ 1) ? 2) ? 3) ? ё ( , ) ? 4) ? ? 5) ? - ? 6) ? , , . . - , . , , . , . , - 246 . - – , , « » , - , ( , , - ). , , - , , , 20 .μ , , , ( . ), - . – - ν , , . - , μ , , - . net , society, , , , ё μ « , – , », , - . μ - . , . . - 247 . - , , . - - « , , - , - - - ». – , , ν ( . - ё ). . ( , , - ) , - , , - . , , . - , , - , , - . я я ( . )– , , ( , , ) ν , , « ( - » – )ν ν – - . 248 - я ( . )– . я ( . , ) – - ё . Д я я ( . ) – , . я я( . , . ) – - , , , , ( . .ν )ν - ё ( , ) , . я ( . , . )– , , . ν – . – , ν ( , ( )ν , , - ). Д ( . – , , . ) , - ν - . « ЯЬ. ». : – ( . , . 249 , )ν ( . )ν , ( . - ). И ( . )– , - ν , ё - , - ё ( , , ё ). , - , , , - ? я ( . μ - )ν ( . ( . )ν ( . ( . ( . )ν )ν )ν – ). ё , , , . - μ . ББ - , ( , ). , , – - , , - . 250 . , , . . . - – . - , – , ν . , « , » (ЬОЧЬЮЬ ЧЮЦТЧТЬ), . , , , . XX . . - , ё ё . - , , - Das Heilig . , . . , , . . , – . , . 251 , . , . . , . , . , , , . 199 - - « « . »( »). – , , ( . . , . , . , ). , . . , , - , , – , , - . . . , 200 . . , , μ ( - , ), ( , , ) ( ). . – , ( ), ( 199 200 , 2008. . 93. 201 - , - ё - )201. . . . . . ) // μ . . . « . / . . . – 2002. – № 3. . 133-138. 252 Ё. – » . ., 2002. . . .... . . . . ( . . – № 4. ., , ., 2012. . 30-35. . // . ., 1998. . . , . , - , , , , , . , - , - , – , , - , , . , , – - , - - . , . . - . . - , « , »202. - . , - . «ГЮ НОЧ SКМСОЧ ЬОХЛЬЭ!» , . , , ( ё , 16, 35. 1999. . 11. 202 . 3-56. , . . . , ). , . // . . 253 μ . , - . ., , 2004. , . . ( ) - . , - , - , - . , . . φαι ό ε ο –« », ё , . . « « - - - » ». - , .« » ё , - , . ё , - . . « , , μ 1) , - , . 2) , »203. 203 № 1. . 12. . ( ) // 254 . – 1991. – , , .« “ – , , ”. - , , , , – ,“ , ё - … - ” “ ” , - ν – , - – , , »204. . . , - . . . , 1919 . - – - , . , ( ). . ( , , . .) – . , ( μ 204 . . ( , . .) , // ). 255 , . , ., 1975. . 8. - , . , 205 . - . , - . - . ё - . , (НТО АОЬОЧЬКЧКХвЬО НОЬ ЫОТЧОЧ BОаЮЬЬЭЬОТЧЬ). , , « - ». . , , , . . , μ - . , , , . « , ». - . . , - . // СЭЭpμ//ааа.pСТХШЬШpСв.ЫЮ/ХТЛЫКЫв/СЮЬЬОЫХ/ kartesianische_meditationen.html#_Toc35695654 205 256 , . . , . - , . . , , ё , , - . - . - , . - , – . , ё - . , , ( . das Heilig, tremendum, ( . ), )ν ( , ( ), ), / , . , ( μ / , . ) ), ( - , / / . .)206. - - ( ё . ББ . ё - μ , , 206 μ . . . . ( 257 , - ) , 2012. . 57, 60. // , . ё . , «ГЮ НОЧ SКМСОЧ ЬОХЛЬЭ!». - . . , ББ . - . Timoschuk E.A. Annotation The paper develops the topic of intuitive-essential phenomenology of religion (R. Otto, M. Eliade), where religion is taken as a mysterious feeling of the sacred of as a manifestation of it. This trend is criticized from the ingardenian side. Keywords: Phenomenology of religion, Otto, Eliade, Ingarden. 2. . 258 . 1 IЫТЧК DОЫОЭТć DOSTOYEVSKY: REFLECTING ON PARADOXES IN HUMANISM Abstract: In this paper, the author elucidates the notions of higher man, new man, and the panhuman, which КЫО ОХКЛШЫКЭОН ТЧ DШЬЭШвОЯЬФв’Ь аЫТЭТЧРЬ. She will attempt to show that, according to the Russian author, there is an immanent dialectic in the very concept of humanism, which will lead him to overcoming traditional humanism. Key Words: Dostoyevsky, God, God-Man, Higher Man, Humanism, ManGod, New Man, Panhumanism It seems that there is no writer in the 19 th century, apart from Friedrich W. Nietzsche and SøЫОЧ A. Kierkegaard, who so profoundly and with the engaged personality, understood and articulated the crises of in modern humanism as did Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky (1821-1881). I will attempt to demonstrate that, according to the Russian writer, there is an immanent dialectic in the very concept of humanism, which will lead him to overcoming it in its traditional ПШЫЦ. GОЧОЫКХХв ЬpОКФТЧР, аСКЭ ТЬ ЮЧТqЮО ТЧ DШЬЭШвОЯЬФв’Ь КppЫШКМС ЭШаКЫН ЭСО question of humanism is not his giving definite and articulated answers on that subject matter, but his showing the perplexity and paradoxical nature of both humanism itself and the conscious and unconscious internal life of a human. Moreover, in his entire work, Dostoyevsky constantly searched for the new idea, the new thought, or the new word that has never been spoken before about the human being. 259 In this essay, I will critically elucidate what are, in my view, the three most significant ideas in Dostoyevsky's thought concerning the paradoxes of traditional humanism. These paradoxes are best manifested in his important concepts: the higher men, the new man of the future, and his third concept of the panhuman. The main aim of my essays is to explore the complexity of those questions that emerged concerning humanism, without any intention of giving final answers. Also, I will elucidate their real meaning, and discuss some of their ethical implications. DШЬЭШвОЯЬФв’Ь ЫОПХОМЭТШЧЬ КЫО ЧШЭ КЫЭТМЮХКЭОН ТЧ ЭСО ПШЫЦ ШП К НОЭКТХОН philosophical discussion. Nevertheless, sometimes his thoughts are presented in the form of argument supporting both pro and contra sides of the same issue, ЭСОЫОЛв ЬСШаТЧР ЭСОТЫ ТЧЭЫТЧЬТМ pКЫКНШбКХТЭв. AННТЭТШЧКХХв, DШЬЭШвОЯЬФв’Ь ЫОПХОctions are particularly convincing, because they are presented not as the abstract, empty thoughts of upper class intellectuals, but rather as fully lived ideas by his literary characters. The first notion of the "higher man" (in Russian: " e ") is elaborated by Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov in the novel Crime and Punishment. АСКЭ ТЬ ЬЭЫТФТЧР КЛШЮЭ ЭСТЬ МШЧМОpЭ ТЬ ЭСО ПКМЭ ЭСКЭ RКЬФШХЧТФШЯ’Ь ЮЧНОrstanding of this notion actually reveals his real motif for the crime that he committed. Raskolnikov articulates the concept of higher men, i. e., of those individuals who — by their extraordinary talents or gifts, especially intellectual excellences — are superior to the majority of the common people. It seems that there is nothing problematic with Raskolnikov's view which he had published in an article before his murder. However, what is highly problematic are the social duties and political powers that higher men can and sometimes must and should perform, including committing crimes and breaking laws. Even more, if their goals are of the exceptional importance for humankind, then their duty is — acМШЫНТЧР ЭШ RКЬФШХЧТФШЯ’Ь ЛШХНХв pЫОЬОЧЭОН qЮКЬТ-necessity — to eliminate countless thousands of people. 260 It seems that Raskolnikov's argument might be presented as such: 1. Due to their best intellectual abilities, higher men should define social goals; 2. Since the higher humans are superior to others, their own goals are superior to the goals of the common humans; 3. The superior aims of higher men must be attained apart from the ethical aspects of the instruments used in archiving these goals. RОЬОЦЛХТЧР ЭСО pШЬТЭТШЧЬ РТЯОЧ Лв PХКЭШ’Ь TЫКЬвЦКМСЮЬ ТЧ ЭСО Republic and Calicles in the Gorgias, Raskolnikov's argument is not valid due to many reasons. First, the ways in which social aims are achieved are not ethically indifferent in relation to the goals attained by them. The very nature of the goal is determined by taking into account the manners by which these aims are attained. Second, the theoretical excellences are different from the practical (i.e. political) excellences, and this is the reason why the theoretical intelligences are often not applicable to social life. Third, if the laws should be applied to common people, ЭСОЧ ЭСОв ЦЮЬЭ ЛО КНУЮЬЭОН ЭШ КЧН КММОpЭОН Лв ЭСОЦ. FТЧКХХв, К “ЬЭЫШЧРОЫ”, ЦШЫО superior political individual is politically weaker than the majority of the common individuals. Dostoyevsky himself does not argue with his main hero. And, he does not present the arguments that I have presented in the previous paragraph against Raskolnikov's view of higher men. Dostoevsky attacks the very concept of being К “СТРСОЫ СЮЦКЧ”. FШЫ ОбКЦpХО, ШЧО аСШ ТЬ ЬЮpОЫТШЫ ТЧ ТЧЭОХХТРОЧМО КЧН pШХТЭТМКХ pШаОЫ ЦТРСЭ ЛО ТЧПОЫТШЫ КЧН “МЫТppХОН” ТЧ СОЫ ШЫ СТЬ ХКМФТЧР ШП ОЦpКЭСв КЧН ХШЯО for another human; or in her or his lacking of understanding not only for others, ЛЮЭ КХЬШ ПШЫ ШЧО’Ь ШаЧ ЬОХПν КЧН ШЧО ТЬ ШПЭОЧ ЮЧКаКЫО ШП ШЧО’Ь НвЧКЦТМ ЬЮЛМШnscious powers. Dostoyevsky understands a human as being multi-dimensional individual, who has different, but often ambivalent perplexing, and divergent powers and aspects; yet, trying, most of the time unsuccessfully, to harmonize all of these multifaceted features. 261 Dostoyevsky attacks the higher men-view by brilliantly telling us the story about the crime and the subsequent most horrifying punishment which is, as always, an internal one. Raskolnikov considers himself to be a superior higher being. Dostoyevsky portrays him as an extremely beautiful man with higher intellectual abilities. Also, ironically, Raskolnikov is morally superior to most individuals, because of his deep devotion to his family and his sincerity to help others, being even able to risk his own life in order to rescue a child from fire. The reader clearly sees that the psychological make-up of Raskolnikov's internal evolution unfortunately includes a negative mutation with both external and internal tragic consequences. Raskolnikov's first victim is money-lender Alyona Ivanovna, who is morally wicked, corrupted, and an exploiter of the poor. According to his own theory, it seems that the morally superior Raskolnikov, who helps the poor, must and has the right to kill the morally inferior Alyona Ivanovna, who exploits the poor. TСОЫО ТЬ, СШаОЯОЫ, К МЫЮМТКХ pЫШЛХОЦ ТЧ RКЬФШХЧТФШЯ’Ь ЭСОШЫв, ЛОМКЮЬО СО НШОЬ not deeply believe in it. And his not-believing attitude, as well as his actual inconsistency with his own views, makes an internal hell of his life and inevitable leads him to the borderline insanity. What prevents him from being a perfect murderer, as a representative of the higher man, is that he (Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov) has a deep-rooted conscious and comprehensive empathy for others. Furthermore, he does not believe in the non-ethical understanding of those ways needed for archiving goals. Paradoxically, Raskolnikov himself contradicts his own ethical viewpoint as presented in his article. Without including an ethical dimension in the concept of being higher man, this notion may lead to destructive and self-destructive consequences. The story of higher and lower beings, Dostoyevsky concluded, perhaps not unexpectedly, by showing that the socially lower of all lowest individuals, the humЛХО pЫШЬЭТЭЮЭО SШЧвК MКЫЦОХКНШЯК, ТЬ КМЭЮКХХв ЭСО “СТРСОЬЭ” СЮЦКЧ ТЧ ЭСТЬ ЧШЯОХν this is due to her inconceivable suffering and even readiness for total self262 sacrifice in order to help others. And, she is the only person, who is able to cure Raskolnikov from his unbearable suffering. This occurs when, through his relaЭТШЧЬСТp ЭШ СОЫ, СО ЬООЬ КЧН ПООХЬ аСКЭ ЛОТЧР “СТРСОЫ” ЫОКХХв ЦОКЧЬ. Namely, it is ЧШЭ КЧ ОЦpЭв ЯКЧТЭв ШП ШЧО’Ь ШаЧ РЫОКЭЧОЬЬ аСТМС ЦТРСЭ ТЦpХТМКЭО ЭСО ОХТЦТЧation of others, but rather the concrete self-giving to the other, i.e., being able to love a concrete human, even if she or he is a murder or a prostitute; or, to put it more precisely, being able to love the most humiliated and insulted individuals, who are ruined and abounded by others. I concur with some others that there is no person without greatness, there is no person who is a biological mistake, and there is no person without unexplored possibilities; one only needs to recognize and appreciate this assumed fact. In my own view, this is also one of thesis of DШЬЭШвОЯЬФв’Ь СЮЦКЧТЬЦ аСТМС ТЬ CСЫТЬЭТКЧ ТЧ ЧКЭЮЫО. The second notion Dostoyevsky introduced is, also, interesting and appropriate for the topic of humanism and overcoming it, this being the notion of a “ЧОа ЦКЧ (ТЧ RЮЬЬТКЧμ )” ОХКЛШЫКЭОН Лв KТЫТХХШЯ ТЧ ЭСО ЧШЯОХ Demons. Kirillov is a character with strong will and moral dignity. He propheticalХв pЫШМХКТЦЬ ЭСО КЫЫТЯКХ ШП К ЧОа ЦКЧ аТЭС ЭСО аШЫНЬμ “NШа ЦКЧ ТЬ ЧШЭ вОЭ what he will be. There will be a new man, happy and proud. For whom it will be the same to live or not to live, he will be the new man. He who will conquer pain and terror will himseХП ЛО К GШН. AЧН ЭСТЬ GШН аТХХ ЧШЭ ЛО...” AЧН, СО МШЧЭТЧЮОЬμ “MКЧ аТХХ ЛО GШН, КЧН аТХХ ЛО ЭЫКЧЬПШЫЦОН pСвЬТМКХХв, КЧН ЭСО аШЫХН аТХХ ЛО ЭЫКЧЬПШЫЦОН КЧН ЭСТЧРЬ аТХХ ЛО ЭЫКЧЬПШЫЦОН КЧН ЭСШЮРСЭЬ КЧН КХХ ПООХТЧРЬ”. 207 The existing world, Kirillov announces, will be ended by someone whose name ТЬ “MКЧ-РШН”. AЧШЭСОЫ МСКЫКМЭОЫ ТЧ ЭСО ЧШЯОХ SЭКЯЫШРТЧ КЬФЬ KТЫТХХШЯμ “ВШЮ mean God-ЦКЧ?” KТЫТХХШЯ КЛЫЮpЭХв ЫОpХТОЬμ "TСО MКЧ-god—that's the whole difference.“ The difference between the God-man and a Man-god is not at all wordgame for both Kirillov and Dostoyevsky. Instead, these two terms signify an en207 F. M. Dostoyevsky 2000, Part Two, V, 136. 263 tirely different view of humankind and its fate. God-man is God, who became the man, in order to save humanity, i.e., Jesus Christ himself, and Man-god is a man who wants to become God. According to Kirillov, the death of God is the quit-essential presupposition necessary for an arrival of both a physically and mentally new man (reminiscent to Nietzsche's bold claim). 208 What are the fundamental characteristics of a new man? FЫШЦ KТЫТХХШЯ’Ь elliptic description one may conclude that the new man is the individual, who is КЛЬШХЮЭОХв ПЫООν КЧН ЭСТЬ, КЛШЯО КХХ, ЦОКЧЬ ЭШ ХТЛОЫКЭО ШЧО’Ь ШаЧ ЬОХП ПЫШЦ ЭСО аШЫЬЭ ПОКЫЬ ШП КХХ ПОКЫЬμ КЧН ЭСКЭ ТЬ ЭСО ПОКЫ ШП ШЧО’Ь ШаЧ НОКЭС. Bв ЛОМШЦТЧР absolutely free, the new human becomes the creator of her or his own life and death; the new man replaces God and divinizes himself. This new man can only be imagined and described in an outline form: being proud and flourishing, the new human will be an aРОЧЭ ПШЫ ПЮЭЮЫО ЭЫКЧЬПШЫЦКЭТШЧ ШП ЭШНКв’Ь СЮЦКЧ ТЧ КХХ aspects of his being. Paradoxically, Dostoyevsky was not only strongly attracted to, but also vehemently repulsed by this idea. For him, the most problematic aspect was both the ethical and existential indifference of this idea, as it is presented by Kirillov. TСО ХТЧО ШП DШЬЭШвОЯЬФв’Ь ЫОКЬШЧТЧР КРКТЧЬЭ KТЫТХХШЯ'Ь ТНОК ЦТРСЭ ЛО КЬ follows: 1. God is the metaphysical foundation of everything belonging to the ethical realm; 2. If God is denied, then ethical values lose their foundation; 3. The result of the "destruction of God" is ethical indifference. In this case, the concepts of good and evil lose their real meaning (anticipating Nietzsche's "beyond good and evil" framework). Dostoyevsky rightly saw that in the world without God the question of ethical evaluation would be both open and unsolved. Additionally, Kirillov does not realize that committing suicide is also the crime, i.e., the crime against her or his own unique personality. 208 Dostoyevsky's new man, presented by Kirillov, is an earlier concept than Nietzsche's оЛОЫЦОЧЬМСν ЧКЦОХв, ЭСО ЧШЯОХ Demons (RЮЬЬТКЧμ 1872) аКЬ pЮЛХТЬСОН ЦШЫО ЭСКЧ 11 years before Nietzsche's Also spoke Zarathustra (1883 and 1885). 264 One of Dostoyevsky's answers concerning the controversial question of the traditional humanism, and the eventual possibility of overcoming it, could be his own idea of panhumanism elaborated to some extend in the famous Pushkin Speech. The panhuman (in Russian: " ") is a person whose excellence is not proved by being superior to others, but instead is demonstrated by embracing and synthesizing both creative and diversifying aspects of the other. In his attempt to know and experience other nations and cultures, the panhuman is both unique and universal. In fact, according to Dostoyevsky, such a unique and universal man was the best Russian poet Pushkin. Pushkin is not only a highly imaginative and original writer, but also a presage and prophet of the Russian self-consciousness. Namely, he transformed and unified in his own Russian spirit the spirits of foreign nations. With his artistic genius, Pushkin unified the creative potential of European ideas and Russian spiritual might. His treatment of the different literary patterns and philosophical ideas was always productive and innovative, i. e., Pushkin assigned the novel and original meanings to the already existed intellectual paradigms. The conception of the panhuman mean, among other things, recognizing one's self in the other, and others in one's self. This implies being completely open to the spiritual quest, in which foreign values will be recognized for their uniqueness and incorporated in one's own culture (this is in contrast to Nietzsche's reevaluation of all values). In fact, the concept of the panhuman is the never-realized ideal of the real brotherhood of humankind and a universal empathy among all people, among all individuals in their uniqueness. To conclude, Dostoyevsky was of the opinion that the traditional humanism is in a process of overcoming itself. It could not face spiritual challenges of the modern time anymore, including the question of a sense of living in the new, empty world, which is both godless and inhuman. The Russian writer rightly considered that the paradoxes of the modern humanistic thought originated from its incapability even to identify adequately the perplexing problems of the frag265 ile human identity in the world seemingly without the purpose and sense. He did not believe that science and technology will achieve the goal of overcoming the traditional humanism. On the contrary, Dostoyevsky sharply criticized modern scientism, as well as the vane ambition of the natural and exact sciences to fully explain the world in general, and the human in particular. In his view, the uniqueness of the human cannot be grasped by the sciences based on the universality. Dostoevsky did not articulate the theory which should solve the problems of the modern humanism. Nevertheless, what can be found in his writings is a ЯТЬТШЧ ШП ЭСО НТППТМЮХЭ, pКЭТОЧЭ, ЬШЦОЭТЦОЬ ЬЮППОЫТЧР ЬpТЫТЭЮКХ аШЫФ ШЧ ШЧО’Ь pКЫЭ, which presupposes experiencing the limits of unrestrained self-centeredness. References 1. Dostoyevsky, F. M. (1992): Crime and Punishment, translated by R. Pevear and L. Volokhonsky, Vintage Books, A Division of Randon House, New York. 2. , . . (1990)μ , , 7. , ЁЧμ - . 3. Dostoyevsky, F. M. (2000): Demons, translated by R. Pevear and L. Volokhonsky, with an Introduction by J. Frank. Everyman's Library, In: http://bookza.org/book/846718/cee398. 4. Dostoyevsky, F. M. (2009): Pushkin Speech, In: http://www.linda- goodman.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/010678.html, (Last Visited: 05/01/20014). 5. , . . (2012)μ , ЁЧμ http://az.lib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0340.shtml, (Last Visited: 31/03/20014) 6. Friedrich Nietzsche (2007): Also Sprach Zarathustra, hrsg. von Echo Library, Teddington. KКЧНТć AХОФЬКЧНКЫ 266 DIVINE TELEOLOGY: DOSITEJ, KANT, PLATO209 This paper takes the teleological argument of God's existence given by DШЬТЭОУ OЛЫКНШЯТć, ШЧО ШП ЭСО ЦШЬЭ pЫШЦТЧОЧЭ SОЫЛТКЧ EЧХТРСЭОЧЦОЧЭ pСТХШЬophers, as a possible starting point in discussion of the relationship between science and religion. The practice of proving divine existence is uncommon in eastern Christianity, however, in both Serbia and Russia the Enlightenment brought criticism of the Church, as well as Western rationalistic and empiricistic influences. After brief analysis of the structure of the informally conceived DШЬТЭОУ’Ь КЫРЮЦОЧЭ, аСТМС ТЬ ЬСШаЧ ЭШ ЛО НОНЮМЭТЯО ТЧ МСКЫКМЭОЫ, КЧН ЧШЭ КЧКХШgТМКХ КЬ ШЧО ЦКв ЭСТЧФ КЭ ЭСО ПТЫЬЭ РХКЧМО, аО ЭЮЫЧ ЭШ KКЧЭ’Ь МЫТЭТМТЬЦ ШП ЭСО teleological argument in general. Kant denounces it at the logical level by claiming that it is an ontological argument in disguise, however, he values its heuristic, scientific aspects in great extent! Finally, we turn to Plato's teleological conception of God and divinity in The Timaeus, which further reduces the gap between science and religion. Plato does not question the existence of God at all, and he introduces mathematics and geometry as the tools by which order and harmony are set upon the world by the divine creator. In conclusion, let it be said that science and religion are not mutually exclusive: religion often brings up some of the most abstract ideas about the structure of the world, and science demystifies them and explains them in a rational and experimental manner. Key words: teleological argument, existence of God, religion, science, harmony AХЭСШЮРС ТЭ ТЬ ЧШЭ pШЬЬТЛХО ЭШ МХКТЦ ЭСКЭ DШЬТЭОУ’Ь 210 critical attitude towards religion and traditional customs forms exclusively under the influence of 209 This research was funded by the Ministry of science, education and technological development of the Republic of Serbia within the project History of Serbian philosophy [179064]. 267 the West, given that such criticism, though perhaps in a lesser extent, is present within the Russian Enlightenment as well, it is important to notice that the practice of proving God's existence is mostly represented within the teachings of the Western Church. Herein lies one of the major differences between the Eastern, Orthodox theology and Western theology 211 . Eastern theology holds that the concept of God is in every way beyond human understanding, and therefore strictly refuses to reduce God to anything that could be explained or proven by human reason alone. Because, if it is necessary to prove the existence of God, then belief in God becomes unnecessary and redundant, and God is no longer a fundamental concept from which one can derive the existence of all that is. However, the development of scientific method in the West, followed by a series of significant changes in the clerical (scholastic) teachings, such as the introduction of the practice of proving God's existence which gained in importance due to the writings of St. Anselm, or the introduction of Aristotelian science, naturalistic and common sense oriented, which was largely conducted by Thomas Aquinas, deepened the already existing gap between East and West. Shortly after the advent of the Protestant movement and modern social theory, which placed the individual and his rights in the foreground, in countries such as France and England even atheism became an acceptable viewpoint. However, Dositej's view can be characterized as moderate deism, among other ways. At ХОКЬЭ, ТЭ pШЬЬОЬЬОЬ ОХОЦОЧЭЬ ШП НОТЬЦ. NШЭ ШЧХв DШЬТЭОУ НШОЬЧ’Э ТЧМХТЧО ЭШаКЫН atheism, but also, when writing about God and religion, he exhibits extraordinary dedication, inspiration. In accordance with the provisions of his critical method, faith in God, just like any other opinion, belief, must be supported by rational reasons, and thus, within his writings, the reader can stumble upon the elements of proof of God's existence, informally presented, and wrapped up in DШЬТЭОУ OЛЫКНШЯТć (1742-1811) was a Serbian philosopher, linguist, author, traveler, and the first minister of education of Serbia. He put forward Enlightenment and rationalist ideas, while remaining loyal to Serbian Orthodox faith. 211 J. Morris: The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History, p. 172. 210 268 the form of ethical or theological discussions. Most importantly, deism implies that the use of reason and observation of the structure, i.e. properties of the physical world, are sufficient to confirm the existence of God, and thereby rejects the belief in supernatural phenomena, as well as the undisputed authority of the church. On this occasion, we shall deal with the proof presented in a section of DШЬТЭОУ’Ь Ethics ЮЧНОЫ ЭСО ЭТЭХО “OЧ ЭСО pТШЮЬ ЦКЧ ТЧ РОЧОЫКХ”212. Although very brief, this argument invokes a deeper philosophical analysis, and encourages philosophical reflections. Once we expose it and deconstruct it, we shall subdue it to Kantian critique, and then briefly associate it with Plato's views in his prominent dialogue The Timaeus, wherein the concept of God is related to the notions of law and order in the physical world. Thus, we shall take a major step forward in relation to the philosophical proofs of divine existence which we encounter in the course of the long history of Christian thought - a step forward in the direction of integration between science and religion. Despite the fact that they come in various forms, the proofs of God's existence can be classified into three main groups: the ontological, cosmological and teleological (this group is also called the physico-theological, or design argument). However, when faced with serious criticism, their mutual distinctions ОКЬТХв ПКНО, ЬШ ОЯОЧ DШЬТЭОУ’Ь ЭОХОШХШРТМКХ pЫШШП, КЬ аО ЬСКХХ ЬОО, ЫОХТОЬ ШЧ ЭСО ontological proof, which follows the direction of Kant's analysis extremely well. TСО ШЧЭШХШРТМКХ КЫРЮЦОЧЭ ТЬ МСКЫКМЭОЫТгОН Лв ТЭЬ “НОЬТЫО” ЭШ ОбМХЮНО КЧв ОЦpТЫical observations, and prove the existence of God entirely a priori. Cosmological proof, however, argues that there is a first cause of all things, i.e. God, on the basis that we possess empirical evidence of the existence of the physical world. Finally, the teleological proof, which shall be discussed herein mostly, incorporates the largest amount of empirical evidence. According to advocates of this argument, the purposefulness of nature and harmony of its parts suggest that the 212 ј μ , Vol. 2, pp. 517-18. 269 world is not a product of chance, but of an intelligent, perfect being, such as God. Teleological proof, at least at first glance, appears to be derived entirely a posteriori, but this is not really the case, since the existence of God which it aims to prove cannot be demonstrated in a direct, immediate manner, by which the parts of nature and its unquestionable harmony can be demonstrated. TСО ЬОМЭТШЧ “OЧ ЭСО pТШЮЬ ЦКЧ ТЧ РОЧОЫКХ” (ЭСО ПТПЭС ЬОМЭТШЧ ШП ЭСО ПШЮЫЭС chapter of Ethics) can tell us a lot about DШЬТЭОУ’Ь understanding of the divine, it is very concise and consists of only four paragraphs. The first two are particularly important for our analysis. The first paragraph reads: The infinite structure of the world! The peculiar order which governs it, the arrangement of all of its parts, wisely positioned to produce the greatest effects out of the simplest elements continually, - all implicates the existence of one greatest essence, the creator and the ruler of this infinite machine; all evidence points to the one architect, which is God.213 It would be convenient to add the following thought from DШЬТЭОУ’Ь ПКЛХО “TСО Мhild and the ЬОЫpОЧЭ”, the thought which appears quite suddenly, within the context of DШЬТЭОУ’Ь methodological considerations: For example, whoever believes in and confesses God, reasonably believes and confesses, because he sees all these peculiar objects arranged with such amazing wisdom that there has to be the most powerful and the most intelligent architect and creator who built all this, who organized it so beautifully and keeps it in order.214 213 214 ј ј μ Op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 517. μ Op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 636. 270 Although it would be too bold to claim that the position that Dositej here represents is the only one when it comes to the nature of God and the divine, it is obvious that Dositej was inspired and fascinated by the orderliness of nature and the harmony of its parts, thus giving huge importance to the teleological argument of God's existence. But what kind of reasoning is applied here, and what is ЭСО ЬЭЫЮМЭЮЫО ШП DШЬТЭОУ’Ь ЭОХОШХШРТМКХ argument? In principle, the teleological argument can be analogical or deductive215. In its analogical form it is more common and "popular". Its key premise is that nature, being purposefully and perfectly ordered, exhibits characteristics similar to human artifacts. The complexity of nature, just like clockwork complexity216, requires the existence of an intelligent creator, such complexity may not be the product of a mere chance, uncontrolled actions of natural forces. But, how to interpret the thesis about the similarities between artifacts and natural objects? Immediately, we can notice that the notion of nature encompasses all living creatures in itself, living things constitute the essential part of nature. However, the machines, though purposefully created like animals, exhibit a great deal of drastically different properties. Therein lies the main weakness of teleological argument based on analogy. Dositej seems to be prone to the deductive form of teleological proof. This form excludes any comparisons to human artifacts and human action, since, according to some theologians, the greatness of God's creation cannot be devaluated by comparison to human creativity217. Now we must employ a deeper intuition, by which the properties of the sensible world are understood in the more general, more universal way, independently from the characteristics of human 215 The logical structure of teleological argument is discussed by E. Sober within his paper “TСО DОЬТРЧ AЫРЮЦОЧЭ“, ТЧ N. A. MКЧЬШЧ (ОН.)μ God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pp. 25-53. 216 See W. Paley: Natural Theology: or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, from p. 3. 217 SЭТХХ, DШЬТЭОУ ОЦpХШвЬ ЭСО ЭОЫЦ “ЦКМСТЧО” аТЭСТЧ ЭСО ОбpШЬТЭТШЧ ШП СТЬ ЭОХОШХШРТМКХ pЫШШП, which points to the remnants of the analogical form. 271 artifacts. Quite often, the concepts of law and order are considered in a mathematical, somewhat scientific manner. Experience tells us that things in nature behave in accordance with certain laws, and the results of modern, contemporary sciences confirm this, since some natural phenomena can be successfully recreated on the basis of assumed or discovered principles. In an attempt to avoid the loose and insecure analogy between nature and human artifacts, we are forced to go beyond the immediate experience. Some natural phenomena truly can be experimentally reconstructed by humans, but this does not imply that the order in nature as a whole was imposed by the most intelligent, capable creator, the superior being such as God. To prove this a posteriori, a complete induction would be required, i.e. the examination of a large number of similar worlds which are all found to be governed by the superior, all-powerful being, and not by chance or impersonal laws of physics. Such induction, indeed, is not possible. One of the deepest, most insightful critiques not only of the teleological (or physico-theological argument as he calls it), but also of the ontological and cosmological arguments, was given by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason218. Kant, primarily, expresses utmost respect toward the teleological argument, attributing him a heuristic role and, to some extent, scientific-research dimension: This argument always deserves to be mentioned with respect. It is the oldest, the clearest, and that most in conformity with the common reason of humanity. It animates the study of nature, as it itself derives its existence and draws ever new strength from that source. It introduces aims and ends into a sphere in which our observation could not of itself have discovered them, and extends our knowledge of nature, by directing our attention to a unity, the principle of which lies beyond nature. This SОО . μ , pp. 322-26. The critique of all three types of arguments of the existence of God, as well as any kind of theology based on "speculative principles", is given at pp. 308-331. 218 272 knowledge of nature again reacts upon this idea - its cause; and thus our belief in a divine author of the universe rises to the power of an irresistible conviction.219 What Kant finds most troubling is the transcendence of the limits of human experience that teleological proof necessary entails, even though it is claimed that it is fundamentally different from the ontological and the cosmological proofs. Although the idea of the highest being bears no contradiction in itself, and even suggests an order and purpose in the world, it is still impossible to find a correlate of such idea in experience, and the concept of God, in empirical sense, remains an empty concept. Everywhere we see the chain of causes and effects, but its totality transcends all that is empirically possible. Accordingly, Kant argues that the teleological proof does not alone determine the existence of supreme being, but contains a hidden ontological proof as its prospective basis 220. Beginning from the structural properties of the sensory, physical world, natural theologians cast off far above and beyond experience, and in their desire to prove the existence of a highest, unconditioned being, silently incorporate the basic premises of the cosmological, and the ontological proof, on which everything rests. Ironically or not, DШЬТЭОУ’Ь КЫРЮЦОЧЭ confirms Kant's criticism very well. The first paragraph of ЭСО ЬОМЭТШЧ “OЧ ЭСО pТШЮЬ ЦКЧ ТЧ РОЧОЫКХ” ХОКНЬ ЮЬ ЭШаКЫН the experiential concepts of order and purposefulness, but the second paragraph already exhibits a compelling need to establish the concept of God in an analytical manner, entirely independent of sensory experience, and that, in fact, reveals the ontological argument as the basis of DШЬТЭОУ’Ь teleological argument: To know the existence of this highest essence, there is no need to reach out of ourselves: our mind, which reasons and acts within ourselves, re219 220 Ibid., p. 323. Ibid., p. 324. 273 veals the existence of the supreme mind of God in the least difficult, most truthful and most certain manner. God, necessarily, has to be eternal in himself, omnipotent, free, infinite, omniscient, intelligent, one, simple, unchangeable, infinitely gentle, righteous and perfect.221 Although order and purposefulness in nature may lead us to the idea of God, we can not discover this idea unless, in certain sense, we possess the innate disposition to acquire it. The harmony of the world and our sensory experience is nothing but a guideline, an encouragement to become aware of the idea of God. Sensory experience is necessary, but not sufficient. Dositej, therefore, describes his own vision of God, which he adopted from the Christian theologians, and he considers God eternal, omnipotent, free, single, simple, perfect. None of these attributes can be experientially verified. Kant, whom we quoted a little bit earliОЫ, ЧШЭТМОЬ ЯОЫв аОХХ ЭСКЭ ЬЮМС ЫОКЬШЧТЧР ОбСТЛТЭЬ ЬШЦО ФТЧН ШП “ХШШp”μ УЮЬЭ ХТФО the beauty of nature and environment leads us to the idea of the highest being, so the idea of the highest being motivates us to seek order and perfection in nature. However, there exists a deeper dimension of divine which is discussed in the famous Plato's dialogue The Timaeus. Although the text shows certain characteristics of the teleological proof, because it deals with the structural properties of the sensory world and postulates the creator, the mythical Demiurge, one gets the impression that Plato did not really care to prove God's existence (since it is already assumed). The most important issue, for him, is not whether God, as the first principle of all things, exists, but since he exists – how does he create the physical world. And that is, basically, a scientific-theoretical and also very pragmatic question, whose resolution requires a multidisciplinary approach. Unlike Dositej, or many other philosophers and theologians who simply declared that the basis of nature and natural processes is some kind of harmony, Plato reasoning almost like an engineer - tries to determine what this harmony consists 221 ј μ Op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 517. 274 of, what is its structure, and whether and how it can be (re)constructed. Accordingly, The Timaeus can be characterized as a mixture of religious myth and science. Moving away from the conceptual-verbal plane, Plato introduces us to mathematics and science. He is not satisfied with the verbal argument, and he directs us toward deeper, scientific and natural-philosophical inquiry, believing that the nature of the divine may be known best through the understanding of the act of creation. Thus, according to Plato, Demiurge created the world by looking on to the perfect spherical, circular shapes222, and arranging them in accordance with the ideal proportions of the Pythagorean musical scale223, or the so-called Platonic, regular bodies224. Plato's "proof" of God's existence, or the proof of a single mathematical principle according to which the world is ordered, is actually empirically verifiable: contemporary experimental sciences will also come to realization that certain proportions and arrangements among the natural elements determine the quality of sensible things225. The Timaeus amazes us with its lucidity, and although it is overwhelmed with mythical and literary elements, ТЭ ЬЭТХХ ТЬЧ’Э ЭШШ НТППТМЮХЭ ЭШ КЛЬЭЫКМЭ ТЭЬ ЬМТОЧЭТПТМ КЬpОМЭЬ КЧН МШЧЬТНОЫ ЭСОЦ ТЧdependently. Through this writing, Plato has made a huge impact on the NeoPythagoreans, Neo-Platonists and early Christian thinkers, so before one studies the philosophical proofs of God's existence, one should study the main provisions of Plato's cosmology. Perhaps the key to understanding the Christian conception of God and the Christian view of the world lies right there, and maybe the Christian myths are nothing but an allegorical expressions of a strictly mathematical, scientific principles which PlatШ КЧН ЭСО GЫООФЬ НОКХЭ аТЭС. DТНЧ’Э many great researchers, such as Galileo, suggest that mathematics is the language in which God created the world? 222 Plato: The Timaeus, 33b. Ibid., 35b-36c. 224 Ibid., 54e-55c. 225 FШЫ К ПОа ЛЫТОП МШЦpКЫТЬШЧЬ ЛОЭаООЧ PХКЭШ’Ь РОШЦОЭЫТМКХ ЭСОШЫв ШП ЭСО ЬЭЫЮМЭЮЫО ШП ЦКЭЭОЫ and contemporary experimental results, ЬОО A. KКЧНТćμ “PХКЭШ'Ь MвЭС ТЧ TСО TТЦКОЮЬ”, pp. 191-92. 223 275 When dealing with DШЬТЭОУ’Ь ЭОХОШХШРТМКХ proof, we have found, in equal measure, the pros and cons of what this way of reasoning exhibits. On the one hand, the teleological proof establishes a connection, a bridge between science and religion, or between suprasensual (spiritual, mental) and empirical. Kant therefore highlights the heuristic aspects of this type of proof: it primarily directs us toward the study of law and order in nature, the structure of the physical world, suggesting the existence of a single, universal principle according to which all things are arranged. Rather than proclaiming the existence of the highest being, without any insight into the nature of the divine, the teleological proof aims to assign some empirical content to the concept of God by connecting it to the notions of purpose, harmony, symmetry, etc., thus motivating a theologian, or any other religious man, to engage in deeper naturalphilosophical, scientific and mathematical considerations, as well as a scientist until then maybe a bigoted empiricist - to become more open to religion, and perceive his vast measurement data and figures in a much broader context which implies the inseparability of the spiritual and the physical, the systematic connection of many different and seemingly incompatible things. On the other hand, deductive form of teleological argument which Dositej exposes, suffers from major drawbacks just as analogical. Even if we accept that the concept of God encompasses purposefulness and harmony of the physical world, we still cannot know God's existence in an immediate, direct manner, but only indirectly, through the form of intelligible "extras" which are not experiential and can not be demonstrated in nature itself. In other words, the concept of God is still far beyond the limits of our sensory experience. Following Kant's critique of proof of God's existence, аО СКЯО ПШЮЧН ЭСКЭ DШЬТЭОУ’Ь ЭОХОШХШРТМКХ proof, in fact, relies on the ontological, since the idea of God must be established analytically in the end. Let's say a few more words about the above-mentioned relationship between religion and science. It seems that religion and science do not have to be 276 so polarizing as is commonly understood. Moreover, it is often the case that societies which have developed spiritual and religious consciousness, also developed high interest in science and research. Religion confronts a human being with the abstract, transcendent, unexplained, and thus encourages the extensive intellectual activity: the demystification of vague, mythical concepts leads to rational explanations and discoveries of natural laws and principles. The occurrence of grand metaphysical concepts such as God, creation, etc., did not obstruct the development of scientific method, but achieved the opposite effect. These concepts encouraged, stimulated the human mind to undertake deep philosophical, scientific and methodological investigations. Plato's dialogue The Timaeus, which we briefly discussed, is the best example of the unity between mythical and rational, scientific. Plato's text blurs the line between religion and science, and provides us the most direct evidence of the possible existence of a unique principle according to which the reality is ordered226. In DШЬТЭОУ’Ь СКЧНЬ, therefore, the teleological proof of God's existence maintains its strength and lucidity, regardless of any perceived shortcomings. It represents another step toward the unusual reconciliation between religion and science, which, I believe, the contemporary world is increasingly seeking. Bibliography 1. Broadie, S.: Nature and Divinity in Plato's Timaeus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012. 2. , .: њ , – , ЁЧЭОЫНТЬгТpХТЧтЫОЬ ГОЧЭЫЮЦ ПüЫ die Erforschung НОЫ EЮЫШpтТЬМСОЧ AЮПФХтЫЮЧР НОЫ MКЫЭТЧ-Luther-UЧТЯОЫЬТЭтЭ Halle-Wittenberg, , 2012. 226 Plato's cosmology and physics attract the attention of contemporary scientific researchers. The representatives of the German school of quantum physics, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, among others, may be mentioned as the greatest admirers of Plato. Recent studies show that Plato's theory of the structure of matter corresponds to contemporary experimental results very well. 277 3. DОЫОЭТć, Ё.μ “ЁНОКЬ КЧН PКЫКНТРЦЬ ШП ЭСО EЧХТРСЭОЧЦОЧЭ ТЧ ЭСО АТЫТЭТЧРЬ ШП DШЬТЭОУ OЛЫКНШЯТć“, ТЧ Skepsis Journal, Vol. 21, Athens, Olympic Center for Philosophy and Culture, 2011, pp. 61-83. 4. , - ј . (ed.): ј , Vols. 1-2, , , 2011-2012. ј , Ј.μ 5. њ , , , 1969. 6. ј μ , , Vols. 1-2, , 1961. 7. KКЧНТć, A.μ “PХКЭШ'Ь MвЭС ТЧ TСО TТЦКОЮЬ”, ТЧ Philosophical News, Vol. 5, Milan, Mimesis, 2012, pp. 186-194. 8. KКЦОЫОЫ, E.μ “BШžКЧЬФТ čКЬШЯЧТčКЫ Т ЧУОРШЯТ КЫЭОПКФЭТ”, ТЧ Theoria, Vol. 51, ЁЬЬ. 4, BОШРЫКН, SЫpЬФШ ПТХШгШПЬФШ НЫЮšЭЯШ, 2008, pp. 85-99. 9. , .μ , , , 2003. 10. Morris, J.: The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History, Bloomington, AuthorHouse, 2011. 11. Paley, W.: Natural Theology: or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, London, Faulder, 1809. 12. : ј, , , 1981. 13. SШЛОЫ, E.μ “TСО DОЬТРЧ AЫРЮЦОЧЭ“, ТЧ MКnson, N. A. (ed.): God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, London and New York, Routledge, 2003, pp. 25-53. 14. Swinburne, R.: The Existence of God, New York, Oxford University Press, 2004. Straarup J. 278 BELIEF IN GOD, JESUS AND AFTERLIFE, WEST AND EAST OF THE GULF OF BOTHNIA Introduction The North American sociologist of religion Phil Zuckerman tells about a conversation with three physiotherapists on a train in Denmark. The first noteworthy occurrence during the interview waswhen I asked them if they believed in God. Two of the women immediately said no. But the third, Katarina, did not answer right away. She sat there thinking. We waited in silence for her reply. She looked out of the window; it was getting dark. And then she said that she had never before thought about it. She did not know whether she believed in God or not – not because she philosophically was an agnostic, but because she apparently experienced this as an unknown question (Zuckerman, 2008, p. 124,2010). With the astonishment of a North American citizen who for the first time encounter a Society without God (Samfund uden Gud, his book title) Zuckerman discusses religion inDenmark and to some degreeSweden. If we stay in the Danish perspective, we may, with yet another book title, capture an important aspect of the relation to ideas about God among Danes – and perhaps even Swedes and Finns. Ina Rosen has given her doctoral dissertation the title I’m К ЛОХТОvОr – ЛЮЭ I’ХХ ЛО НКmЧОН ТП I’m religious (Rosen, 2009). Here she claims that the phenomenon belief not necessarily must be interpreted in correspondence with the Christian notions about God (which would in a way make her respondents religious).Rosen compiles her material in the conglomeratearea Malmoe/Copenhagen, and the variations of faith and belief found here may not entirely parallel what may be found in other parts of the NШЫНТМ МШЮЧЭЫТОЬ. BШЭС ГЮМФОЫЦКЧ’Ь КЧН RШЬОЧ’Ь ОбКЦpХОЬ, СШаОЯОЫ, ЬСШа ЭСКЭ the question of belief not necessarily is linked to ideas about God. The leap to Eastern and Northern Bothnia, where the research material for this contribution has been collected, may seem big. Geographically, it is without 279 НШЮЛЭ К ХШЧР аКв ПЫШЦ ØЫОЬЮЧН ЭШ ЭСО GЮХП ШП BШЭСЧТК, ЛЮЭ Тt is an open question if the big geographical distance is paralleled by a cultural and religious distance. Since I have no opportunity to make a direct comparison, that question will have to remain open. On the Swedish side the survey is carried out in the parish Hortlax; on the Finnish side the name of the parish is Nykarleby. Finland, Sweden, and Russia In order to investigate differences and similarities between Finnish and Swedish individuals when it comes to belief in God, understanding about Jesus and about death, two minor surveys have been carried out, on the Western and the Eastern coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. Northern Bothnia Eastern Bothnia Figure 1 Map of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea 280 In both locations, the spoken language is Swedish227. With some minor adjustments due to locality, the same questionnaire has been used. Until the year 1809, both regions, Northern Bothnia (Sweden) and Eastern Bothnia (Finland) were under the same Swedish rule. In 1809, at the last battle to take place in the Western part of the country now forming Sweden, in a village called Ratan (near ЭСО МТЭв ШП UЦОф), ЭСО RЮЬЬТКЧ КЫЦв НОПОКЭОН ЭСО SаОНТЬС ПШЫМОЬ (HфЫНЬЭОНЭ, 2002, 2011). Following that defeat Sweden lost the Eastern half of its territory (Finland), which became a grand duchy under Russia. Eastern Bothnia was and is part of the territories that changed rule from Sweden to Russia. A century later, in 1917, the grand duchy declared its independence and the independent state of Finland was born. The following investigation is a test for continuity. Did the different statehood in Northern Bothnia (Sweden) and Eastern Bothnia (Russia & Finland) mean a different development when it comes to central areas of personal piety, such as belief in God and Jesus and views about afterlife? Or did the regions, despite different historical, social, cultural and religious circumstances, remain similar when it comes to religious beliefs? Until 1809 The factors which point towards similarity between the two regions religious beliefs are that the regions from the 13 th century onwards have been under Swedish dominion. They have been parallel regions in the process leading up to the establishment of the Swedish state in the 16th century under the reign of Gustav Vasa. Legislation and ruling systems were parallel. The same Lutheran state church administered and controlled the populationfor more than 300 years. 227 In the Finnish location, Nykarleby, Swedish is the majority language coexisting with a strong minority language, Finnish. 281 After 1809 After the establishment of the Russian Grand Duchy a number of factors point towards differences between Eastern and Northern Bothnia. Although a lot of the administrative structure from before 1809 was left intact (the church organization included) the ruler was the Russian tsar, not the Swedish king. Even after 1809, however, a number of factors remain pointing towards stability in religious views of the inhabitants of Eastern Bothnia, and similarity with the population of Northern Bothnia. As mentioned, the church organization was left intact, and the level of contact with the Russian Orthodox Church was low. Another factor pointing towards similarity between Eastern and Northern Bothnia is that approximately the same Low Church, Pietistic popular religious movements spread on both sides of the Gulf of Bothnia. Taken together, the active factors in the comparison of religious belief beЭаООЧ ЭСО ЫОРТШЧЬ КЫО … FТЯО МОЧЭЮЫТОЬ ШП … o similar social conditions o frequent contacts over the Gulf of Bothnia Same language (Swedish) Three centuries of parallel religious rule Two centuries of differing religious systems What differences in religious belief can be expected to result from these factors? When expressed in terms of scientific hypotheses, we get the following picture. The variables with which the comparison is carried out are Belief in God, Understanding about Jesus and Understanding about death. There are two hypotheses; only one can be true. Which one is to be chosen (see Winer, 1971, p. 11)? 282 The null hypothesis: There should be no difference in religious beliefs between Eastern Bothnia and Northern Bothnia The alternative hypothesis:Actual differences may be interpreted as a result of changes in the period from 1809 till now The investigation used to decide which hypothesis is the best have the following design. The inhabitants of two parishes are questioned, Hortlax in Northern Bothnia, Sweden, and Nykarleby in Eastern Bothnia, Finland. The methods for data collection are interviews (10—15 interviewees in each parish) and surveys (samples of 600 in each parish, return rate 45 per cent). The investigations СКЯО ЛООЧ МКЫЫТОН ШЮЭ Лв ЭаШ ЫОЬОКЫМС РЫШЮpЬ, ШЧО ТЧ SаОНОЧ (UЦОф UЧТЯОЫЬТЭв КЧН SöНОЫЭöЫЧ UЧТЯОЫЬТЭв), КЧН ШЧО ТЧ FТЧХКЧН (йЛШ AФКНОЦТ UЧТЯОЫЬТЭв, Vasa). The Swedish data are from 2010, the Finnish data are from 2012. Belief in God In order to assess how the respondents would characterize their belief in God, they were asked to consider the following statements and specify their kind of faith or non-faith, picking only one of the statements, the one being closest to their personal faith. I believe in a God with whom you can have a personal relation, and who resides within or outside of man I believe in a non-personal higher power or force, which resides outside of man I believe that what certain individuals call God is a force within us all I do not know what to believe I do not believe in any God, supernatural power or force Other The inhabitants of Hortlax and Nykarleby show the distribution between alternative formulations as shown in Figure 2. Respondents have been asked to choose only one alternative. The responses have been ordered quantitatively. 283 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% I believe in a God with whom you can have a personal relation, and who resides within or outside of man I believe in a non-personal higher power or force, which resides outside of man I believe that what certain individuals call God is a force within us all I do not know what to believe I do not believe in any God, supernatural power or force Hortlax Figure 2 Nykarleby Other Belief in God in Hortlax and Nykarleby ”I believe in a God with whom you can have a personal relation, and who resides within or outside of man” ТЬ ЭСО МСШТМО ШП КЛШЮЭ Сalf of the respondents. That is a formulation which corresponds nicely with a Lutheran understanding of God, Lutheranism being the theological backbone of the Church of Sweden as well as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. The personal relation is a trait which mainly is associated with Pietism, which from mid-18th century РКТЧОН ТЧПХЮОЧМО ТЧ SаОНОЧ, ЭСО МШЮЧЭЫв’Ь EКЬЭОЫЧ КЬ аОХХ КЬ ТЭЬ АОЬЭОЫЧ СКХЯОЬ, but not so muchassociated with the 16th century Lutheran reformation.On the other hand the notion that each individual can have a personal relationship with God is in no way alien to the basic Lutheran teaching and tradition. TСКЭ GШН ЫОЬТНОЬ”аТЭСТЧ ШЫ ШЮЭЬТНО ШП ЦКЧ” ТЬ К МХКЬЬТМКХ CСЫТЬЭТКЧ ЧШЭТШЧ. GШН ЦКв ЛО ПШЮЧН ОбЭОЫЧКХХв ЭШ ЦКЧ (ЭСО ЦОЭКpСШЫ “ТЧ HОКЯОЧ”) КЧН ТЧЭОЫЧКХХв (ЭСО ЦОЭКpСШЫ “ТЧ ЭСО СОКЫЭ” ШЫ “ТЧ ЭСО МШЧЬМТОЧМО”). AММШЫНТЧР ЭШ ЭСТЬ ЮЧНОrstanding, a person can meet God both externally and internally. The people of Nykarleby (51%) are more inclined to pick this statement than those from Hortlax (44%).Probably that difference mirrors a higher degree of traditionalism in Nykarleby. 284 ”Ё ЛОХТОЯО ТЧ К ЧШЧ-personal higher power or force, which resides outside ШП ЦКЧ” ТЬ ЭСО КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯО МСШЬОЧ Лв ЬОМШЧН ЦШЬЭ МТЭТгОЧЬ ТЧNвФКЫХОЛв (17%) when describing their belief in God.The proportion of citizens in Hortlax is considerably smaller, 9%. The salient feature of this formulation is probably the deЬМЫТpЭТШЧ ШП GШН КЬ “ЧШЧ-pОЫЬШЧКХ”. GШН ТЬ ЧШЭ ЭСШЮРСЭ ШП КЬ К pОЫЬШЧ аТЭС whom one can have a conversation, but as a power which leaves no room for closer contact. To describe the history of this conception of God would lead too far, but one may note that there are rings of European Enlightenment thinking in it. In the history of the Swedish and Finnish national churches this kind of conception of God has been represented to a high degree. Not all priests were pietists, and a number of lay persons have been rationalists, having difficulties in ТЧМХЮНТЧР ЬpОМТПТМ НОЭКТХЬ ТЧ ЭСО МСЮЫМСОЬ’ ЭОКМСТЧРЬ ТЧЭШ ЭСОТЫ ТЧНТЯТНЮКХ ЛОlief. TСО КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯО“Ё ЛОХТОЯО ЭСКЭ аСКЭ МОЫЭКТЧ ТЧНТЯТНЮКХЬ МКХХ GШН ТЬ К ПШЫМО аТЭСТЧ ЮЬ КХХ” ТЬ ЬЮppШЫЭОН Лв 12% of the Finns and16% of the Swedes. A conМОpЭ ШП GШН ХТФО ЭСТЬ ЦКв ЛО ТЧЭОЫpЫОЭОН ТЧ К ЧЮЦЛОЫ ШП НТППОЫОЧЭ аКвЬ. “A ПШЫМО within uЬ КХХ” МКЧ ШЧ ШЧО СКЧН ЛО ТЧЭОЫpЫОЭОН ЬШ ЭСКЭ ЭСТЬ ПШЫМО ШЫТРТЧКХХв СКЬ been placed inside man, but become projected outward as an external God, as a result of which man has been emptied for divine quality, i. e. an interpretation in line with 19th century pСТХШЬШpСОЫ LЮНаТР FОЮОЫЛКМС’Ь ЯТОа (FОЮОЫЛКМС, 1977). On the other hand there is an element of pietistic thinking in the formulation, ОЯОЧ ТП PТОЭТЬЭЬ аШЮХН ЫКЭСОЫ ЬЭЫОЬЬ “МШЧЬШХКЭТШЧ” ЭСКЧ “ПШЫМО”. HТЬЭШЫТМКХХв, К “НОЦШМЫКЭТМ” ЯТОа ХТФО ЭСТЬ – meaning that the individual does not need an institutional church and neither a religious hierarchy, instead listening to the voice of God in her or his own heart – has been met with suspicion in the churches, especially among those in power. As late as 1726, private religious gatherings withШЮЭ ЭСО pЫОЬОЧМО ШП К pЫТОЬЭ аОЫО ПШЫЛТННОЧ ТЧ SаОНОЧ’Ь ЛШЭС СКХЯОЬ, ЬО FТРЮЫО 3, ЭСО ЬШ МКХХОН “CШЧЯОЧЭТМХО pХКМКЫН”. 285 Figure 3 The Conventicle placard from 1726 Hortlax has been described as revival territory (Straarup & Ekberg, 2012, p. 12—15, Jonzon, 1938, Ekberg, 2003), and in the Bothnian revivalism there has been a strong component of Pietism (Lindmark, 2010). It is possible to interpret the difference between Hortlax and Nykarleby in such a way that the extraecclesial (Pietistic) revivalist movements have been stronger on the Swedish side than on the Finnish. UЧМОЫЭКТЧЭв МСКЫКМЭОЫТгОЬ ЭСО ЧОбЭ КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯО “Ё НШ ЧШЭ ФЧШа аСКЭ ЭШ ЛeХТОЯО”. ЁЭ ТЬ МСШЬОЧ Лв 12% in Nykarleby, in Hortlax by 18%. Almost every fifth Swede has chosen to mark personal uncertainty, whereas about every tenth Finn 286 has chosen it. The conclusion of Straarup & Ekberg (2012, p. 180) is that the language with the help of which one may talk and think about spiritual matters has been eroded. Finally the alternative which has gathered the smallest proportion reЬpШЧНОЧЭЬ ТЧ NвФКЫХОЛв, “Ё НШ ЧШЭ ЛОХТОЯО ТЧ КЧв GШН, ЬЮpОЫЧКЭЮЫКХ pШаОЫ ШЫ ПШЫМО”. ЁЧ HШЫЭХКб,11% have chosen that alternative, in Nykarleby, 7%. It is a clear statement of an understanding which leaves no room for any God, power or force. One may wonder, though, if it leaves room for spirituality. Considering the fact that the presented data result originate from a sample of persons, and not the entire population, one may ask if they are reliable. If one had asked all inhabitants of Hortlax and Nykarleby, would they have answered in the same way?The statistical analysis chi-square (χ2-analysis) answers the question if the differences between the two subpopulations are the result of sheer coincidence. The answer from that analysis is that the differences between the two samplesmay have emerged by mere chance228. From Hortlax a few individually written answers about God may be reported229. I believe in a loving power who wants to put down roots with us, and this loving power directs and leads our actions (younger woman) Believe in man himself as a being (younger man) TСКЭ GШН ТЬ ОЯОЫвЛШНв’Ь ПКЭСОЫ, МЫОКЭШЫ ШП ШЮЫ ЬpТЫТЭЬ. HО СКЬ К ЛШНв. ЂОЬЮЬ Christ is his son(middle aged woman) I ЛОХТОЯО ЭСКЭ “GШН” ТЬ ЬШЦОЭСТЧР аО КХХ СКЯО аТЭСТЧ ЮЬ, КЧН ОЯОЫваСОЫО, ТЧ every little flower, every grain of sand. But simultaneously, when you see what the d-Х ЭСО аШЫХН ХШШФЬ ХТФО Ё МКЧ’Э СОХp аШЧНОЫ (ЦТННХО КРОН ЦКЧ) χ = 14,163, df=5, p=0,15. The individually written answers are translated by the author. 228 2 229 287 I want to believe in the God described in the Bible, I believe that God can work through people in our actions (older woman) I believe in an almighty God, who is always there as support, who does not demand anything such as ability, knowledge or views (older woman) Believe that there is faЭО, ТЭ ПООХЬ ХТФО ЭСТЧРЬ СКppОЧ ПШЫ К ЫОКЬШЧ. BЮЭ НШЧ’Э know what (older woman) Also from Nykarleby there are a number of individually written answers. HОКХЭСв ПКЫЦОЫ’Ь ЬОЧЬО (ШХНОЫ аШЦКЧ) ЁЬ ЭСОЫО ОЯТНОЧМО ШП GШН’Ь ОбТЬЭОЧМО? (ШХНОЫ ЦКЧ) Science, facts (younger man) ApКЫЭ ПЫШЦ КЧЬаОЫЬ ЫОЬОЦЛХТЧР ЭСО МСЮЫМС’Ь ЭСОШХШРТМКХ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ ЭСОЫО is a thought which has not been expressed among the alternative answers in Figure 2, namely that it is man her- or himself (as a being) in which the respondents believe. ThО вШЮЧРОЫ ЦКЧ ПЫШЦ HШЫЭХКб аСШ СКЬ ПШЫЦЮХКЭОН ЭСКЭ КЧЬаОЫ (“ЛeХТОЯО ТЧ ЦКЧ СТЦЬОХП КЬ К ЛОТЧР”) ТЬ МХШЬО ЭШ ЭСО ФТЧН ШП ЫОХТРТШЧ ПТЫЬЭ НОЬМЫТЛОН by Robert N. Bellah asSheilaism. This was the religion of a young American nurse, Sheila Larsson, who formulated her belief in the following way. Ё ЛОХТОЯО ТЧ GШН. Ё’Ц ЧШЭ К ЫОХТРТШЮЬ ПКЧКЭТМ. Ё МКЧ’Э ЫОЦОЦЛОЫ ЭСО ХКЬЭ ЭТЦО Ё аОЧЭ ЭШ МСЮЫМС. Mв ПКТЭС СКЬ МКЫЫТОН ЦО К ХШЧР аКв. ЁЭ’Ь SСОТХКТЬЦ. ЂЮЬЭ Цв ШаЧ ХТЭЭХО ЯШТМО… ЁЭ’Ь УЮЬЭ ЭЫв ЭШ ХШЯО вШЮЫЬОХП КЧН ЛО РОЧЭХО аТth yourself. You know, I guess, take care of each other. I think He would want us to take care of each other (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1986, p. 221). The younger man from Hortlax formulates himself more generally (possibly because he has to write down the answer himself), but one finds the same ЭСШЮРСЭ ТЧ СТЬ КЧЬаОЫ КЬ аТЭС SСОТХК LКЫЬЬШЧ. MКЧ, “Цв ШаЧ ХТЭЭХО ЯШТМО”, ТЬ Лecoming a representation of God. The older woman from Nykarleby who thinks ЭСКЭ GШН ТЬ ОбpЫОЬЬОН ТЧ “СОКХЭСв ПКЫЦОЫ’Ь ЬОЧЬО” ЦКв ЛО ШЧ ЭСО ЬКЦО ХТЧО ШП 288 ЭСШЮРСЭ. Bв ХТЬЭОЧТЧР ТЧаКЫНЬ, ШЧМО КРКТЧ ЭШ “Цв ШаЧ ХТЭЭХО ЯШТМО” вШЮ ОбpОЫience God. TСО вШЮЧРОЫ аШЦКЧ ПЫШЦ HШЫЭХКб аСШ ЛОХТОЯОЬ ТЧ К ”ХШЯТЧР pШаОЫ, аСШ аКЧЭЬ ЭШ pЮЭ НШаЧ ЫШШЭЬ аТЭС ЮЬ” НОЬМЫТЛОЬ СОЫ ЛОХТОП ТЧ К аКв ЬТЦilar to the thoughts in the book The spiritual revolutionby Heelas and Woodhead (2005). In the book they claim that God has moved inside of man or is in the process of doing it. Instead of imagining an external God, individuals (in contemporary UK) perceive of God as a factor within themselves, in a way similar to the first respondent cited above. The younger man from Nykarleby sees God in science and facts. Perhaps certain members of the scientific community would like take on that kind of pretension, but for most individuals there are obstacles to such a view, namely that science and especially facts tend to be short lived. Women and men That there a gender difference when it comes to belief in God has been shown in a number of investigations (Gustafsson, 2000, HøОР, 2010, ЭШ ЧКЦО К few). At times you may get the idea that a difference between the religious life КЧН ЛОХТОП ШП аШЦОЧ (♀) КЧН ЦОЧ (♂) ТЬ ЬООЧ КЬ ЭЫТЯТКХ КЦШЧР ЫОЬОКЫМСОЫЬ, ШЫ КЭ least not interesting to note. In the present investigation I will make an attempt to report fully about the detected differences, and more so, the findings will be placed in the Swedish-Finnish comparative perspective. 289 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% I believe in a God with whom you can have a personal relation, and who resides within or outside of man I believe in a non-personal higher power or force, which resides outside of man I believe that what certain individuals call God is a force within us all I do not know what to believe I do not believe in any God, supernatural power or force Hortlax ♀ Hortlax ♂ Ny karleby ♀ Ny karleby ♂ Figure 4 Other BОХТОП ТЧ GШН КЦШЧР аШЦОЧ (♀) КЧН ЦОЧ (♂) The differentbelief in God among women and men are presented in Figure 4. АСОЧ ТЭ МШЦОЬ ЭШ “Ё ЛОХТОЯО ТЧ К GШН аТЭС аСШЦ вШЮ МКЧ СКЯО К pОЫЬШЧКХ ЫeХКЭТШЧ”, ТНОЧЭТМКХ РОЧНОЫ НТППОЫОЧМОЬ ЦКв ЛО ПШЮЧН ТЧ HШЫЭХКб КЧН NвФКЫХОЛв. Women (48% and 57%, respectively) choose that alternative in to a higher extent than men (38% and 44%, respectively). SШЦОЭСТЧР ЬТЦТХКЫ КppХТОЬ ПШЫ ЛОХТОП “ТЧ К ЧШЧ-personal higher power or ПШЫМО”, КХЭСШЮРС аТЭС ЬЦКХХОЫ НТППОЫОЧМОЬ. A ЬХТРСЭХв ЛТРРОЫ pЫШpШЫЭТШЧ ШП аШmen than of men choose that alternative. BОХТОП ТЧ GШН КЬ К “ПШЫМО” аТЭСТЧ man is more frequent among men (17% and 14%, respectively) than among women (15% and 10%). The same goes for ЭСО КЧЬаОЫ “Ё НШ ЧШЭ ФЧШа аСКЭ ЭШ ЛОХТОЯО”. ЁЧ ЭСО КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯО “Ё НШ ЧШЭ ЛОХТОЯО ТЧ КЧв GШН, ЬЮpОЫЧКЭЮЫКХ pШаОЫ ШЫ ПШЫМО”, НТППОЫОЧМОЬ ЛОЭаООЧ ЭСО pКЫТshes appear. More women than men in Hortlax choose that alternative, whereas in Nykarleby especially men pick that answer. 290 How significant are these differences among women and men? The statistical test (χ2, not reported) shows that the differences probably are not random results. Young, middle aged, and older That the older tend to have more traditional answers than the young is also among the often reported results. Younger people have lived a shorter time with traditions and the weight of traditions and may have been influenced in ways that the older have not. In the Hortlax-Nykarleby-material, see Figure 5, there are similar results. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% I believe in a God with whom you can have a personal relation, and who resides within or outside of man I believe in a non-personal higher power or force, which resides outside of man I believe that what certain individuals call God is a force within us all I do not know what to believe I do not believe in any God, supernatural power or force Hortlax 15—29 Hortlax 45— Ny karleby 15—29 Ny karleby 45— Hortlax 30—44 Ny karleby 3 0—44 Other Figure 5 Belief in God among younger (15—29), middle aged (30—44) and older (45—) The first description of belief ТЧ GШН, КММШЫНТЧР ЭШ аСТМС ЦКЧ СКЬ К “pОrЬШЧКХ ЫОХКЭТШЧ” ЭШ GШН, ЛОМШЦОЬ КХХ ЭСО ЦШЫО ПЫОqЮОЧЭ аТЭС КРО. TСТЬ pКЭЭОЫЧ ТЬ evident in Hortlax as well as in Nykarleby. The descriptions of belief in God or lack of belief in God that show similar age distributions on both sides of the Gulf of Bothnia are the statement of 291 ЮЧМОЫЭКТЧЭв “Ё НШ ЧШЭ ЛОХТОЯО ТЧ КЧв GШН, ЬЮpОЫЧКЭЮЫКХ pШаОЫ ШЫ ПШЫМО” КЧН ЭСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ “Ё НШ ЧШЭ аСКЭ ЭШ ЛОХТОЯО”. TСО ШХНОЫ ЭСО ЫОЬpШЧНОЧЭЬ, ЭСО ЬЦКХХОЫ ЭСО proportions of respondents choosing one of these statements. For the rest of the statements, only partial correspondence may be found ТЧ ЭСО НКЭК ЬОЭЬ. BОХТОП ТЧ “К ЧШЧ-pОЫЬШЧКХ СТРСОЫ pШаОЫ ШЫ ПШЫМО” ТЬ ЦШЫО ПЫequent among the younger and middle aged, whereas younger and older are advocaЭТЧР ЛОХТОП ТЧ К “ПШЫМО аТЭСТЧ ЮЬ КХХ”. Employment The ways in which different theoretical perspectives address the question of belief in God vary. Already in the 1960s, Thomas Luckmann described how different types of occupation correlated with church oriented religiosity: the closer to the modern production sector, the more difficult for the individual to maintain a belief of the kind formulated by churches (Luckmann, 1967). Theoretically, after Luckmann the differences between different kinds of occupation have fallen out of sight. Instead, the decisive factor has become if the individual has a relation to the labor market or not. Therefore, the investigations in Hortlax and Nykarleby use the following alternatives for the question about employment. Retired Working Reported sick for a longer period In search of work Student In order to reduce the number of combinations here, the information is presented in such a way that the three last alternatives are combined. Three groups result: retired (people with their professional lives behind them) working (people amidst their professional lives) and the combination of those reported sick over a long period + those in search of work + students (people with their professional lives ahead). In this way, the question about employment comes 292 close to being a question of age, from older to younger. The differences between Nykarleby and Hortlax are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Belief in God in various employment categories Belief in G od I believ e in a G od w it h w h om y ou ca n h a v e a per son a l r ela t ion , a n d w h o r esides w it h in or ou t side of m a n I believ e in a n on -per son a l h ig h er pow er or for ce, w h ich r esides ou t side of m a n I believ e t h a t w h a t cer t a in in div idu a ls ca ll G od is a for ce w it h in u s a ll I do n ot believ e in a n y G od, su per n a t u r a l pow er or for ce H or t la x Repor t ed sick + In sea r ch of Ret ir ed W or k in g w or k + St u den t Ny k a r leby Repor t ed sick + In sea r ch of Ret ir ed W or k in g w or k + St u den t 49% 45% 31% 68% 52% 3 0% 4% 1 0% 12% 9% 1 8% 1% 27 % 13% 16% 13% 1 0% 1% 4% 11% 1 8% 4% 8% 2% 1% 14% 19% 2 0% 6% 1 0% Ot h er 2% 1% 4% 0% 1% 1% Su m 100% 1 00% 1 00% 100% 1 00% 36% N 49 143 51 53 143 47 I do n ot k n ow w h a t t o believ e BОХТОП ТЧ К GШН аТЭС аСШЦ ШЧО ЦКв СКЯО “К pОЫЬШЧКХ ЫОХКЭТШЧ” ТЬ ЦШЫО unusual in Hortlax than in Nykarleby, as has been shown already. Furthermore, ТЧ TКЛХО 1 ТЭ ЦКв ЛО ЬООЧ ЭСКЭ ЛОХТОП ТЧ К GШН аТЭС аСШЦ ШЧО ЦКв СКЯО “К pОЫЬШЧКХ ЫОХКЭТШЧ” РОЭЬ ХОЬЬ ПЫОqЮОЧЭ ЭСО ЬСШЫЭОЫ МШЧЭКМЭ ЭСО ЫОЬpШЧНОЧЭ СКЬ СКН with professional life. The group outside of a professional life has that kind of belief to the smallest extent, followed by the working, who in turn believe in a GШН аТЭС аСШЦ ШЧО ЦКв СКЯО “К pОЫЬШЧКХ ЫОХКЭТШЧ” ЭШ К ХОЬЬОЫ ОбЭОЧЭ ЭСКЧ ЭСО retired people. АСОЧ ТЭ МШЦОЬ ЭШ ЛОХТОП ТЧ “К ЧШЧ-pОЫЬШЧКХ СТРСОЫ pШаОЫ ШЫ ПШЫМО” ЭСО relation is the opposite. The less contact with the labour market, the bigger the pЫШpШЫЭТШЧ аСШ МСКЫКМЭОЫТгО ЭСОТЫ ЛОХТОП ТЧ GШН КЬ “К ЧШЧ-personal higher power ШЫ ПШЫМО”. BОХТОП ТЧ GШН КЬ “К ПШЫМО аТЭСТЧ” ТЬ ХОКЬЭ ЫОpЫОЬОЧЭОН Лв ЭСШЬО аШЫФТЧР. Both groups outside of the labor market, the retired and the reported sick over a 293 long period + those in search of work + students, all show bigger proportions for whom that alternative best represents their view. On the Swedish side, those who do not believe in God increase in numbers the further away their experience of employment seems to be. On the Finnish side the distribution is different. Here, the working respondents have the biggest share among those who do not believe in any God at all. When, finally, it coЦОЬ ЭШ ЭСШЬО аСШ “НШ ЧШЭ ФЧШа аСКЭ ЭШ ЛОХТОЯО” ЭСОЫО ТЬ, ТЧ NвФКЫХОЛв, К ЛТР group of those reported sick over a long period + those in search of work + students who have chosen that alternative, a somewhat smaller group among the working respondents, and an even smaller group of retired respondents. It is obvious that this is an age related difference. Among the respondents from Hortlax the same tendency is found, even if the dominating youth tendency is somewhat less protruding. Belief in Jesus From a theological point of view the question about Jesus is simple. Christianity confesses and gets its name from Christ, the theological name for Jesus, who was killed by crucifixion on the day which in Christendom is called Good Friday, who, however, rose from thО НОКН ШЧ EКЬЭОЫ ЦШЫЧТЧР, “ШЧ ЭСО ЭСТЫН НКв”, КЬ МОЧЭЫКХ ПШЫЦЮХКЭТШЧЬ ШП МЫООН ОбpЫОЬЬ ТЭ. АТЭСШЮЭ ЂОЬЮЬ ЧШ CСЫТЬЭ, and without Christ no Christianity. On the individual level the picture differs. People experience and describe themselves as Christians eveЧ ТП ЭСОв НШЧ’Э СКЯО К МХШЬОЫ ЫОХКЭТШЧЬСТp ЭШ CСЫТЬЭ orthe person Jesus, who according to the books of the New Testament and a few other historical sources was a historical person. Thus a question about Jesus is not a priori an unnecessary question to ask people who are in one way or another in contact with or experience themselves kindred with the Christian church, in this case an Evangelical-Lutheran church. The question used in the surveys is аШЫНОН ТЧ ЭСО ПШХХШаТЧР аКвμ “MКЫФ ЭСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ аСТМС ЛОЬЭ ПТts your view КЛШЮЭ ЂОЬЮЬ”. PОЫСКpЬ ЧШЧО ШП ЭСО ШППОЫОН ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ ПТЭЬ ЭСО ЫОЬpШЧНОЧЭ’Ь ЯТОа 294 exactly, in which case she or he is expected to mark the statement which is closest. The questionnaires offered the following statements. I believe that Jesus is born of Mary with God as his father I believe that Jesus was an ordinary man I do not think that Jesus ever existed I do not know what to believe Other In Figure 6, the distribution of answers in Hortlax and Nykarleby are presented. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% I believe that Jesus is born of Mary with God as his father I believe that Jesus was an ordinary man I do not think that Jesus ever existed I do not know what to believe Hortlax Figure 6 Nykarleby Other Views about Jesus in Hortlax and Nykarleby TСО ПТЫЬЭ pЫШpШЬОН ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ “Ё ЛОХТОЯО ЭСКЭ ЂОЬЮЬ ТЬ ЛШЫЧ ШП MКЫв аТЭС GШН КЬ СТЬ ПКЭСОЫ”, аСТМС ЦКв ЛО МСКЫКМЭОЫТгОН КЬ К ЬХТЦЦОН ЯОЫЬТШЧ ШП ЭСО МХКssical creed formulations about Jesus Christ230, is preferred by slightly more than half of the inhabitants of Nykarlebyand about 40 per cent of the inhabitants of Hortlax. AММШЫНТЧР ЭШ ЭСО ApШЬЭХОЬ’ CЫООНμ “AЧН in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell; The third day he rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father AlЦТРСЭвνFЫШЦ ЭСОЧМО СО ЬСКХХ МШЦО ЭШ УЮНРО ЭСО qЮТМФ КЧН ЭСО НОКН.” BШШФ ШП CШЦЦШЧ PЫКвОЫ (Church of England, 1663). 230 295 TСО ЬОМШЧН ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ, “Ё ЛОХТОЯО ЭСКЭ ЂОЬЮЬ аКЬ КЧ ШЫНТЧКЫв ЦКЧ”, ШЧ ЭСО other hand, has been chosen by a bigger proportion from Hortlax than from Nykarleby, in both cases around 25 per cent. This statement, sometimes characterized as a liberal theological characterization, mirrors a certain distance from the teachings of the Lutheran church, but also recognition that the person Jesus, being an ordinary – yet extraordinary – human being, may have been a good role modeland may have done a lot of good deeds without necessarily having any special relationship with a god. A quite small proportion, 6% and 1%, respectively, do not believe that Jesus has existed, the bigger proportion in Hortlax. Somewhat more respondents, one fifth in both of the parishes, mark that they do not know what tobelieve. To the degree that respondents distance themselves from the Jesus character it is in ЭСО ПШЫЦ ШП НШЮЛЭμ ЦШЫО “Ё НШ ЧШЭ ФЧШа аСКЭ ЭШ ЛОХТОЯО” ЭСКЧ “Ё НШ ЧШЭ ЭСТЧФ ЭСКЭ ЂОЬЮЬ ОЯОЫ ОбТЬЭОН”. Seven inhabitants of Hortlax have chosen to write their own description of their view on Jesus. Jesus Christ came to this earth. Carried our sins on the cross. In order that we should get eternal life, and in his name we are saved (younger woman) Jesus was an unusual man, a fine leader with a strong social conscience. He addressed the lowest, the outcast, but dared also challenge dishonesty, КЫЫШРКЧМО КЧН СЮЧРОЫ ПШЫ pШаОЫ. АО МШЮХН ЧООН К “ЂОЬЮЬ” ЭШНКв (вШЮЧРОЫ woman) It does not play any role forme if he has existed or not (younger woman) If Jesus existed I believe he was an ordinary good man (younger man) That Jesus was an ordinary man who had a big force within him, + that he cared more for other people than for some faith (middle aged man) Ё ЛОХТОЯО ЭСКЭ ЬШЦОЛШНв СКЬ НШЧО “РЫОКЭ” ЭСТЧРЬ аСТМС ТЧПХЮОЧМО pОШpХО ЭШ a high degree. Not necessarily Jesus (middle aged woman) 296 I believe that Jesus was a very wise and spiritual person, but, unfortunately, the stories about him have turned a feather into a hen (middle aged man) The first of the personally written answers is in line with the Christology (teaching about Christ) of the Christian church, while the others are all about a historical person who maybe has existed, but who cannot be tied to God in other аКвЬ ЭСКЧ GШН pОЫСКpЬ СКЬ ТЧЬpТЫОН ЂОЬЮЬ (ТЧ К аКв pКЫКХХОХ ЭШ GШН’Ь ТЧЬpТЫКЭТШЧ to the respondents). Without exaggerating one may say that the six answer are varieties of the alternative formulateН ТЧ КНЯКЧМО “Ё ЛОХТОЯО ЭСКЭ ЂОЬЮЬ аКЬ КЧ ШЫНТЧКЫв ЦКЧ”. A few inhabitants of Nykarleby have, too, written answers of their own. True God, true man. We know! (middle aged man) Jesus was an ordinary man, provided he has at all existed (older man) It is a narrative about several individuals who are or are being called Jesus (older man) Father = Roman soldier. Denial of rape = virgin birth (older man) The middle aged man believes that he knows what is expected and writes НШаЧ ЭСО CСЫТЬЭШХШРТМКХ ПШЫЦЮХК “ЭЫЮО GШН КЧН ЭЫЮО ЦКЧ”. ЁЧ ЭСО ШЭСОЫ КЧЬаОЫЬ ПЫШЦ NвФКЫХОЛв ЭСОЫО КЫО ЯКЫТШЮЬ НОРЫООЬ ШП ЬФОpЭТМТЬЦ ЭШаКЫНЬ ЭСО МСЮЫМС’Ь teachings about Jesus: ordinary man, maybe result of rape, maybe made up. Women and men Do women and men differ when it comes to views on Jesus? Guided by the experience from the presentation of belief in God, probably even the view on Jesus is different between women and men. Figure 7, shows an illustration of these differences. 297 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% I believe that Jesus is born of Mary with God as his father I believe that Jesus was an ordinary man I do not think that Jesus ever existed I do not know what to believe Hortlax ♀ Hortlax ♂ Ny karleby ♀ Ny karleby ♂ Other TСО ЯТОа ШП ЂОЬЮЬ КЦШЧР аШЦОЧ (♀) КЧН ЦОЧ (♂) Figure 7 The belТОП ТЧ ЂОЬЮЬ КЬ GШН’Ь КЧН MКЫв’Ь ЬШЧ ТЬ ЦШЫО ПЫОqЮОЧЭ КЦШЧР women than men in Hortlax as well as Nykarleby. In Hortlax the difference between women and men is 5,8 percentage points, in Nykarleby the double that size, 13,0 percentage points. As some kind of counterbalance the view according to which Jesus was an ordinary human being is overrepresented among men, in Hortlax with 7,8 percentage points, in Nykarleby with 9,4 percentage points. For the two remaining statements, that Jesus never existed, or that the reЬpШЧНОЧЭ НШОЬЧ’Э ФЧШа, ЭСОЫО КЫО ЦТЧШЫ НТППОЫОЧМОЬ ЛОЭаООЧ аШЦОЧ КЧН ЦОЧ. These differences do not go in the same direction in Hortlax and Nykarleby. West of the Gulf of Bothnia women are the majority, east of the same waters men are in majority. Younger, middle aged and older With a departure point in the earlier published writings based on the same material (Straarup & Ekberg, 2012andStraarup, 2012), a development in knowledge about and standpoint on religious questions, the question of Jesus included, is debated in Sweden. According 298 to these writings, a “НОМШЧПОЬЬТШЧКХТгКЭТШЧ” ШП ЭСО pЮЛХТМ ЬМСШШХ СКЬ ШММЮЫЫОН, i. e. the most important source for religious attitudes towards and knowledge about religion. This НОЯОХШpЦОЧЭ СКЬ ХОН ЭШ К “ЦШЫЭКХТЭв ШП ТЧЭОЫОЬЭ”, i. e. the public interest of religious questions is diminishing or perhaps disappearing. Against this backdrop it is reasonable to imagine that the attitudes towards and belief in Jesus are changing (or disappearing) with age. Older people may be expected to express more traditional views about Jesus, younger may be expected to express less traditional views and perhaps bigger uncertainty. In Finland, the situation is different. One may possibly say that in Finland, it is the school, not religious education, which has been deconfessionalized. Also that development may be expected to lead to consequences differing between the age groups. How the age groups express themselves is shown in Figure 8. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% I believe that Jesus is born of Mary with God as his father I believe that Jesus was an ordinary man I do not think that Jesus ever existed Hortlax 15—29 Hortlax 30—44 Hortlax 4 5— Ny karleby 15—29 Ny karleby 3 0—44 Ny karleby 4 5— Figure 8 I do not know what to believe Other Views about Jesus among younger, middle aged and older The older the respondents, the bigger support for the statement claiming ЭСКЭ ЂОЬЮЬ ТЬ GШН’Ь КЧН MКЫв’Ь МСТХН, i. e. the statement most similar to the 299 Creed of the Christian church 231 . It is particularly obvious that the older respondents in Nykarleby to a great extent choose to characterize Jesus in this way. 59% of the older in Nykarleby choose that characterization, while the parallel proportion in Hortlax is 45%. The more guarded view, that Jesus is a historical, but ordinary human being, shows a similar age distribution in Hortlax. The older the respondents, the bigger the share believing so. In Nykarleby, the older do not match that description. There are age differences parallel to Hortlax for younger and middle aged, but when it come to the older, the proportion who believe that Jesus was an ordinary human being does not get bigger than 21%, which may be compared to HШЫЭХКб’ pЫШpШЫЭТШЧ 31% for the same age group, In Nykarleby, the view that Jesus has not existed hardly shows any age distribution at all. In Hortlax the younger dominate over the two other age groups. Uncertainty, represented by those who do not know what to believe, is, as shown earlier in Figure 6, at a high level. The middle aged and the older are about equally uncertain. The younger have clearly bigger proportions of uncertainty, in Nykarleby (37%) more than in Hortlax (29%). Employment One may ask if there are reasons to assume that belief in Jesus is correlated with any of the employment categories. The results earlier showed that there are certain differences about belief in God in the employment categories, and something similar may appear when the question is about belief in or view on Jesus. In Table 2, the response distributions for Hortlax and Nykarleby are presented. CЫООН = МЫОНШ, LКЭТЧ ПШЫ “Ё ЛОХТОЯО”, ЭСО ПТЫЬЭ аШЫН ШП ЭСО CЫООН КЧН ЮЬОН КЬ К ЭТЭХО ПШr the confession of belief. 231 300 Table 2 Belief in Jesus in different employment groups Un der st a n din g a bou t Jesu s H or t la x Repor t ed sick + In sea r ch of Ret ir ed W or k in g w or k + St u den t I believ e t h a t Jesu s is bor n of Ma r y w it h G od a s h is fa t h er I believ e t h a t Jesu s w a s a n or din a r y m a n I do n ot t h in k t h a t Jesu s ev er ex ist ed I do n ot k n ow w h a t t o believ e Ny k a r leby Repor t ed sick + In sea r ch of Ret ir ed W or k in g w or k + St u den t 48% 43% 37% 62% 45% 37% 2 0% 31% 25% 17% 29% 3 0% 4% 4% 15% 0% 1% 0% 24% 21% 21% 21% 23% 3 0% Ot h er 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% Su m 100% 99% 1 00% 100% 99% 1 00% N 50 143 52 53 143 46 The traditional Christian answer to the question about Jesus, i. e.that Jesus is born of Mary and the son of God, appears to be connected with having contact аТЭС pЫШПОЬЬТШЧКХ ХТПО. TСО ХШЧРОЫ К pОЫЬШЧ’Ь pЫШПОЬЬТШЧКХ ХТПО, ЭСО ЛТРРОЫ pЫШЛability that she or he believes that Jesus is born of Mary and son of God. Another conspicuous difference appears in Table 2. The retired people in Nykarleby have to a much higher degree than their colleagues in Hortlax chosen the traditional answer. 62% of the retired respondents in Nykarleby against 48% of those in Hortlax. For the other two groups there are no equally conspicuous differences. The view that Jesus was an ordinary human being is primarily supported among the working respondents and among those that for the time being are outside of the labour market. Skepticism towards tСО ЂОЬЮЬ ПТРЮЫО (“Ё НШ ЧШЭ ЭСТЧФ ЭСКЭ ЂОЬЮЬ ОЯОЫ ОбТЬtОН”) СКЫНХв ОбТЬЭЬ ТЧ NвФКЫХОЛв. ЁЧ HШЫЭХКб, ТЭ ТЬ ЭСШЬО ШЮЭЬТНО ШП ЭСО ХКЛШЮЫ ЦКrket who choose that answer, but to a small extent the view also appears among professionals and the retired people. UnceЫЭКТЧЭв (“Ё НШ ЧШЭ ФЧШа аСКЭ ЭШ ЛОХТОЯО”) МСКЫКМЭОЫТгОЬ ЛОЭаООЧ ШЧО fifth and one fourth of the population in Hortlax as well as in Nykarleby. In Hortlax it is the retired people who form the biggest uncertain group. In Nykarleby, uncertainty is to the highest degree something that characterizes the 301 group outside of the labour market, i. e. those reported sick over a long period + those in search of work + students. It may be assumed that uncertainty about ШЧО’Ь ШаЧ ТНОЧЭТЭв (КЦШЧР ШЭСОЫ ЭСТЧРЬ) ТЬ К ЫОЬЮХЭ an uncertain relation to the labour market. An uncertain personal identity seems to lead to uncertainty about religious beliefs. Those who lack anchorage in the labour market are uncertain about what to believe about Jesus, in Nykarleby more than in Hortlax. Death TСКЭ ЫОХТРТШЧ ТЧ ЯКЫТШЮЬ ПШЫЦЬ НОКХЬ аТЭС ЭСО qЮОЬЭТШЧ КЛШЮЭ ХТПО’Ь ПТЧКХТЭв ЛОХШЧР ЭШ ЭСО ЛКЬТМ ПКМЭЬ ТЧ ЭСО ЬЭЮНв ШП ЫОХТРТШЧЬ. TСО ПКМЭ ЭСКЭ ЦКЧ’Ь НКвЬ КЫО counted, so that it makes sense to say that the only thing man knows with certainty is that she or he must die, occupies theologians of various observances. The existentially minded sociologists of religion Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (Berger & Luckmann, 1971) even claim that there is a risk, that man despairs and is thrown into meaninglessness, if not – at some level – there is an explanation or consolation for her or hisknowledge about the inevitability of death. If one takes a walk in Swedish (and Finnish) church yards, among the older grave stones one will find inscriptions of the ЭвpО “АО аТХХ ЦООЭ КРКТЧ”.ЁЧ the obituary notices in the newspapers one will find expression of the same kind of thinking.The resurrection hope of Christianity seems to have been exchanged into an assurance of a possible reunion with the near and dear, and on the tombstones one will find the messages to the deceasedfrom thoseleft behind. It looks like a conversation, but one side remains silent. In the poems of the American writer Edgar Lee Masters (1868—1950) one finds the opposite relation. He lets the dead speak about and to the living in the collection of poems calledSpoon River Anthology (Masters, 1916), and even if some of the monologues from the dead to the living (poems) connect to the hope of a reunion, one also among the 302 poems finds bitter and ironic retorts about old wrongs, loves and objects of hatred.232 Despite ideas about the sweetness of reunion, presumably one has to acknowledge, that even if the achievements of the life sciences (biology and medicine) add a year or two to the life expectancy of most people, an understanding about the finality of life seems inevitable, i. e.an example of what the German sociologist of religion Max Weber (1976, p. 308) МКХХЬ “ЭСО НТЬОnМСКЧЭЦОЧЭ ШП ЭСО аШЫХН”. An attempt to seek confirmation of a theoretical perspective of that size in the narrow surveys in Hortlax and Nykarleby is – of course – out of the question. What can be done is to investigate whether the empirical material contains tendencies which may be interpreted as examples of a comprehensive idea of the kind outlined. How, then, does one view death in Hortlax and Nykarleby? The same аШЫНТЧР ШП К qЮОЬЭТШЧ КppХТОЬ ПШЫ ЭСО ЭаШ pКЫТЬСОЬμ “HШа НШ вШЮ НОЬМЫТЛО аСКЭ СКppОЧЬ ЭШ ЮЬ СЮЦКЧЬ КПЭОЫ НОКЭС?” TСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ ЭШ МСШШЬО ПЫШЦ КЫО ЭСО ПШllowing. There is something after death, but I do not know what it is Nothing happens, death is the end of all life I have no understanding about what happens after death Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God Either we go to Heaven or to Hell We all go to Heaven 232 The poem Johnnie Sayre (Masters, 1956, p. 50). FATHER, thou canst never know // The anguish that smote my heart // For my disobedience, the moment I felt // The remorseless wheel of the engine // Sink into the crying flesh of my leg. // As they carried me to the home of widow Morris // I could see the school-house in the valley // To which I played truant to steal rides upon the trains. // I prayed to live until I could ask your forgiveness— // And then your tears, your broken words of comfort! // From the solace of that hour I have gained infinite happiness. // Thou wert wise to chisel fШЫ ЦОμ // “TКФОЧ ПЫШЦ ЭСО ОЯТХ ЭШ МШЦО.” 303 After death we are reborn over and over, back to this world We all get eternal life with God Other In Figure 9, an overall comparison between the two sites is presented. The alternative statements have been sorted according to the length of the beam representing Hortlax. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% There is something after death, but I do not know what it is Nothing happens, death is the end of all life I have no understanding about what happens after death Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God Either we go to Heaven or to Hell We all go to Heaven After death we are reborn over and over back to this world We all get eternal life with God Hortlax Figure 9 Nykarleby Other Views about death in Hortlax and Nykarleby TСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ ШП СШpО КЧН ЮЧМОЫЭКТЧЭв, “TСОЫО ТЬ ЬШЦОЭСТЧР КПЭОЫ НОКЭС, ЛЮЭ Ё НШ ЧШЭ ФЧШа аСКЭ ТЭ ТЬ”, ТЬ ЭСО КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯО аСТМС СКЬ ЛООЧ МСШЬОЧ Лв ЭСО largest proportions, both west and east of the Gulf of Bothnia. Around one third of the inhabitants believe that there is something, but they do not really know what this something is. A group of about half that size do not share the views of the hopeful: “NШЭСТЧР СКppОЧЬ, НОКЭС ТЬ ЭСО ОЧН ШП КХХ ХТПО” ЭСОв ЬКв. Ё ЛШЭС ЭСОЬО РЫШЮpЬ which together comprise a little more than half of the inhabitants, there are similar percentages for Hortlax and Nykarleby. 304 The only statement where there is a noteworthy difference between HШЫЭХКб КЧН NвФКЫХОЛв СКЬ ЭСО аШЫНТЧР “Ё СКЯО ЧШ ЮЧНОЫЬЭКЧНТЧР КЛШЮЭ аСКЭ СКppОЧЬ КПЭОЫ НОКЭС”. TСО ЮЧМОЫЭКТЧЭв ТЧ ЭСКЭ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ СКЬ ЛООЧ ЭСО МСШЬОЧ Кlternative by a proportion substantially bigger in Nykarleby than in Hortlax, 7 percentage points bigger. Against the backdrop of the results in the comparisons about belief in God and view on Jesus one may find that surprising. Inhabitants in Nykarleby have shown a bigger propensity to choose traditional answers about the Father and the Son; still, here, they mark an uncertainty which exceeds the inhabitants of Hortlax. After the first statements three others follow, others wrestling with various theological positions and statements. The question about double outcomeis formulated, i. e. the idea that death – КЧН GШН’Ь УЮНРЦОЧЭ – contains two options, eternal life and eternal damnation. That conception has been vivid in the theological traditions which have sent out roots in both localities, and against that background one may expect that it is also represented in parts of the population. The conception comes in a strict and a lenient version and both are to be found among the statements in the questionnaire. According ЭШ ЭСО ЬЭЫТМЭОЫ ЯОЫЬТШЧ, “СОКЯОЧ” КЧН “СОХХ” КЫО ЭСО КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯОЬ, аСОЫОКЬ ЭСО ЦШЫО ХОЧТОЧЭ ТЧЬЭОКН ЭКХФЬ КЛШЮЭ “ОЭОЫЧКХ ХТПО аТЭС GШН ШЫ ОЭОЫЧКХ НОКЭС аТЭСШЮЭ GШН”. The theological antithesis to the theory or teaching about the double outcome is at times called universalism. It states that everybody will be saved in the end. This idea has traditionally had weak anchoring in the theology of the Low Church awakenings in the northern parts of Sweden and Finland. Among the ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ ТЧ ЭСТЬ ЬЮЫЯОв, ЭаШ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ ЫОpЫОЬОЧЭ ЭСКЭ ЯТОаμ “АО КХХ РШ ЭШ HОКЯОЧ” КЧН К ЦШЫО ОбpХТМТЭ ЭСОШХШРТМКХ ПШЫЦЮХКЭТШЧ“АО КХХ РОЭ ОЭОЫЧКХ ХТПО аТЭС GШН”. Yet another view of life may be noted among the preformulated statements, the notion that human beings are reborn. Even if this notion is inspired by Eastern ideas about reincarnation, it is probably on the surface level only that such a view is about reincarnation proper. Rebirth, yes, but the detailed theological understandings about the development in the rebirths and the question about 305 a possible final goal are probably not present in the northern apprehensions (it must be said, though, that no evidence of this assumption can be produced). The notion of rebirth is sparsely represented in the two locations; the difference between Hortlax and Nykarleby, 2 percentage points, is too small – and uncertain – to interpret. Various varieties of the ideas about the double outcome are found among between 22and27per cent of the inhabitants in both areas. Thus one fourth have МСШЬОЧ ШЧО ШП ЭСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ “Either we go to Heaven or to Hell” ШЫ ЭСО ЭСОШХШgТМКХХв ЦШЫО ЬpОМТПТОН “Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God”. TСО ЮЧТЯОЫЬКХТЬЭ ТНОК,“We all go to Heaven” КЧН “We all get eternal life with God”, КЫО МСШЬОЧ Лв 7and 8per cent, respectively, of the inhabitants in Hortlax and Nykarleby. Ten inhabitants in Hortlax have written down a personal answer to the question. Those who believe get to Heaven. All others will get a second chance and those who change will also get to Heaven (younger woman) The believers will get to Heaven with its streets of gold; there they will have eternal life (younger woman) DШЧ’Э ФЧШаν ЭСО ЦШЬЭ ХШРТМКХ аШЮХН ЛО ЭСКЭ НОКЭС ТЬ ЭСО ОЧН ШП КХХ ХТПО, Heaven and Hell is difficult to understand (younger woman) We will wait for the day of resurrection and judgment. On that day God shall complete his creation and become all in everyone (younger man) Nobody knows before you stand (or lie) there? (younger man) There is something after death. We will meet everyone who have died long before us and who mean something to us (middle aged woman) The soul lives on. To a great extent because we who live physically remember the human being who carried the soul (middle aged man) That our souls live on, but what happens to them probably differs. Some are likely to become angels, others demons, some maybe are reborn in human form, some maybe as an animal or a plant (middle aged man) 306 My Christian belief, and my belief in eternal life, gives me hope and light about a world in which sin and illness do not reign. Read John 17:24(older woman) Death meКЧЬ ЭСО ОЧН ШП ЭСО ЛТШХШРТМКХ ХТПО ШП Цв ЛШНв. АСОЭСОЫ Цв “ЬpТrТЭ” ХТЯОЬ ШЧ ШЫ ЧШЭ Ё НШ ЧШЭ ФЧШа, КЧН ЧОТЭСОЫ НШ Ё аШЫЫв КЛШЮЭ ТЭ (ШХНОЫ woman) In the answers,the respondents reflect about the preformulated alternative statements. There are very traditional answers which imply that the respondent КЫО ТЧЬpТЫОН Лв ЫОХТРТШЮЬ МЮХЭЮЫО (“ЬЭЫООЭЬ ШП РШХН”). АТЭС ЭСО ЛКМФРЫШЮЧН ЮЧНОrstanding of the hard-boiled analyst I sometimes wonder if the respondents are joking about the traditional expressions. But apart from these (perhaps humorous) answers there is also speculation about the separation of soul and body and personally conceived solutions to this problem or fact. A number of inhabitants in Nykarleby have written their own answers. Two exits (older woman) Rebirth till Nirvana (middle aged woman) We all get to Heaven sooner or later (older man) All BAPTIZED get to Heaven (older woman) RОЬЮЫЫОМЭТШЧ ШП ЭСО ЛШНв КЧН ОЭОЫЧКХ ХТПО, GШН’Ь ПКТЫ УЮНРЦОЧЭ (ЦТННХО aged man) The cycle of nature (older man) Even in the answers from Nykarleby one finds examples that connect with pЫОПШЫЦЮХКЭОН КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬμ “НШЮЛХО ШЮЭМШЦО”, “УЮНРЦОЧЭ”, ОЭМ. Women and men The view on death of women and men show big differences. In a tangible way this is shown in the length of the beams for women and men in Figure 10. They are not of the same length, and the differences reflect quite a number of percentage points. TСО ЮppОЫЦШЬЭ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ, “There is something after death, but I do not know what it is”, ТЬ МСШЬОЧ Лв 37% of the inhabitants in Hortlax. Among the women the proportion is 49%, whereas the men stay at 21%, less than half as 307 many percentage points. In Nykarleby the difference is not equally big, women 42% and men 36%, but still distinct. That the statement – apart from uncertainty – also signals some kind of hope is probable, and in that case one might say that the women of Hortlax nurture a hope that death does not get the last word, whereas the men of Hortlax do not agree in that hope. TСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ “Nothing happens, death is the end of all life” ЬЭКЧНЬ ШЮЭ КЬ a logical counterpart to the statement of hope. The men dominate, in both parТЬСОЬ аТЭС ЦШЫО ЭСКЧ ЭОЧ pОЫМОЧЭКРО pШТЧЭЬ. AХЬШ ЭСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ “I have no understanding about what happens after death” СКЬ Лeen chosen by a bigger proportion of men than women in both parishes. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% There is something after death, but I do not know what it is Nothing happens, death is the end of all life I have no understanding about what happens after death Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God Either we go to Heaven or to Hell We all go to Heaven After death we are reborn over and over back to this world We all get eternal life with God Hortlax ♀ Hortlax ♂ Ny karleby ♀ Other Ny karleby ♂ Figure 10 VТОаЬ ШЧ НОКЭС КЦШЧР аШЦОЧ (♀) КЧН ЦОЧ (♂) ТЧ HШЫЭХКб КЧН Nykarleby 308 The two statements which in some way mark the double outcome, “Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God” КЧН “Either we go to Heaven or to Hell” СКЯО ЛООЧ ЦКЫФОН Лв аШЦОЧ КЧН ЦОЧ ТЧ pКЭЭОЫЧЬЭСКЭ НТППОЫ between Hortlax and Nykarleby. The women of Hortlax choose the two statements less than the men of Hortlax, whereas the women of Nykarleby pick the two statements of double outcome more than the men of Nykarleby. In Figure 10, the differences in percentage in this respect are palpable, but they must be interpreted with care. The calculation of statistical significance shows that there is a certain probability that the differences have occurred by chance only. That pЫШЛКЛТХТЭв ТЬ СТРС ТЧ МШЧЧОМЭТШЧ аТЭС ЭСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ “ОЭОЫЧКХ ХТПО ШЫ ОЭОЫЧКХ НОКЭС”. ЁЧ МШЧЧОМЭТШЧ аТЭС ЭСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ “HОКЯОЧ КЧН HОХХ” ЭСО pЫШЛКЛТХТЭв ТЬ lower. The difference between women and men in Hortlax and Nykarleby, respectively, are close to be statistically significant. TСО ЮЧТЯОЫЬКХТЬЭТМ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ КЛШЮЭ НОКЭС, “We all go to Heaven”, ТЬ КХЦШЬЭ solely chosen by women, in Hortlax as well as in Nykarleby. The parallel stateЦОЧЭ “We all get eternal life with God”, аСТМС КХЬШ ТЬ МХКТЦЬ ЭСКЭ ЭСОЫО ТЬ ЧШЭ going to be a separation of human beings at the end of time and life, has been chosen by equally small proportions of men and women in both parishes. TСО ЫОЛТЫЭС ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ “After death we are reborn over and over back to this world” ТЬ МСШЬОЧ Лв pЫШpШЫЭТons of similar size, which means that one cannot claim that there is a difference between women and men. Finally, one may conclude that there are quite tangible differences beЭаООЧ аШЦОЧ’Ь КЧН ЦОЧ’Ь ТНОКЬ КЛШЮЭ аСКЭ СКppОЧЬ ЭШ СЮЦКЧ ЛОТЧРЬ КПЭОЫ death. These differences look alike in Hortlax and Nykarleby at times, but it also СКppОЧЬ ЭСКЭ аШЦОЧ КЧН ЦОЧ “МСКЧРО ЬТНОЬ”. ЁЭ ЬООЦЬ ЭШ ЛО К ЫОКЬШЧКЛХО ТЧЭОrpretation that these differences depend on religious socialization and religious life in the two parishes. A detailed analysis of this interpretation would, however, necessitate information of another kind than what is now available. There- 309 fore, we have to abstain from making conclusions about the importance of such differences. How do the different generations relate to the idea of death? That will be the next analysis to turn to. Younger, middle aged and older A МЮЫЬШЫв ХШШФ КЭ ЭСО ЛОКЦЬ ТЧ FТРЮЫО 11, аСОЫО ЭСО ЭСЫОО КРО РЫШЮpЬ’ КnЬаОЫЬ ЭШ ЭСО qЮОЬЭТШЧ “HШа аШЮХН вШЮ НОЬМЫТЛО аСКЭ СКppОЧЬ ЭШ СЮЦКЧ ЛОТЧРЬ after НОКЭС” КЫО ЫОpЫОЬОЧЭОН РЫКpСТМКХХв, ЬСШаЬ ЭСКЭ ЭСОЫО НШОЬ ЧШЭ ЬООЦ ЭШ ЛО КЧ evident correlation. Generally spoken,one will not find that the beams of the younger are always the shortest, or, inversely, that the beams of the older are always the longest. Instead, it seems to be a variegated collection of statements being supported to various degrees by younger, middle aged and older. The statement about which it has earlier been said that it signals some sort ШП СШpО, “There is something after death, but I do not know what it is”, СКЬ ЛООЧ chosen by the various age groups to approximately the same extent. 39% of the younger in Hortlax and 39% of the older in Nykarleby have chosen it. A similar coincidence is in play between middle aged in Hortlax (46%) and younger in Nykarleby (48%). In order to explain the similarities across age groups one would need a net of theoretical assumptions, which at this point are not available. Instead one may establish that similarities as well as differences exist, but that we lack a foundation for a theoretical interpretation. A similar situation is to be observed for a number of the other response statements about death. From that general observation, however, there is one exception, namely the answers to the taciturn statement about double outcome “Either we go to Heaven or to Hell”. TСО КЬЬОЧЭ ЭШ ЭСКЭ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ РОЭЬ ЬЭЫШЧРОЫ the older the respondents, in Hortlax as well as in Nykarleby. 310 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% There is something after death, but I do not know what it is Nothing happens, death is the end of all life I have no understanding about what happens after death Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God Either we go to Heaven or to Hell We all go to Heaven After death we are reborn over and over back to this world Hortlax 15—29 Hortlax 30—44 Hortlax 4 5— We all get eternal life with God Ny karleby 15—29 Ny karleby 3 0—44 Ny karleby 4 5— Other Figure 11 Views on deathamong younger (15—29), middle aged (30—44) and older (45—) The statement showing a definitive view on death as the end of life (number two from the top in Figure 11) shows a tendency that the younger agree more than the older. Inversely, with ЭСО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ “I have no understanding about what happens after death” ЭСО ШХНОЫ КЧН ЭШ ЬШЦО НОРЫОО ЭСО ЦТННХО КРОН have the biggest representation. Table 3 Proportions in Hortlax and Nykarleby who have chosen statements about double outcome Double outcom e Hortlax Ny karleby Younger Middle aged 1 5% 21 % 9% 1 6% Older 21 % 1 9% 311 The supplementary Table 3 shows the proportions of each age group in each parish who have chosen one of the statements about double outcome, i. e. “Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God” ШЫ “Either we go to Heaven or to Hell”. ЁЧ РОЧОЫКХ, ЭСО pОШpХО ШП NвФКЫХОЛв ЬСШа ЬЦКХХОЫ pЫoportions of respondents sharing those views, but in particular among the younger the differences are palpable (6 percentage points) as well as for the middle aged (5 percentage points). TСО ЭСЫОО “ХКЬЭ”, КЧН ХОКЬЭ МСШЬОЧ КХЭОЫЧКЭТЯО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ, “We all go to Heaven”, “After death we are reborn over and over back to this world” КЧН “We all get eternal life with God”, НШ ЧШЭ ЫОЯОКХ КЧв pКЫЭТМЮХКЫ КРО НТППОЫОЧМОЬ. It has already been established that employment in this survey material is correlated with age. This means that one may expect differences like those presented in Figure 11, when it comes to views on death. Employment As shown in Figure 9 there is a clear difference between Hortlax and NвФКЫХОЛв, ТЧ КЬ ЦЮМС КЬ ЭСО ПТЫЬЭ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ КЛШЮЭ НОКЭС (“There is something after death, but I do not know what it is”), СКЬ ЛООЧ МСШЬОЧ ЭШ К ЛТРРОЫ ОбЭОЧЭ ТЧ NвФКЫХОЛв, аСОЫОКЬ ЭСО ЬОМШЧН ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ ТЧ FТРЮЫО9 КЧН ТЧ TКЛХО 4 (“Nothing happens, death is the end of all life”) СКЬ КppОКХОН ЭШ ЭСО ТЧСКЛТЭКЧЭЬ ШП Nykarleby less than those of Hortlax. The opЭТЦТЬЭТМ ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭ (“There is something after death, but I do not know what it is”) СКЬ КЭЭЫКМЭОН 2 percentage points more inhabitants in Nykarleby than in Hortlax, whereas the pessimistic stateЦОЧЭ (“Nothing happens, death is the end of all life”) СКЬ ЛООЧ МСШЬОЧ Лв 4 percentage points more inhabitants in Hortlax. 312 Table 4 What comes after death, divided in employment categories Un der st a n din g a bou t dea t h T h er e is som et h in g a ft er dea t h , bu t I do n ot k n ow w h a t it is Not h in g h a ppen s, dea t h is t h e en d of a ll life I h a v e n o u n der st a n din g a bou t w h a t h a ppen s a ft er dea t h Eit h er w e g et et er n a l life w it h G od or et er n a l dea t h w it h ou t G od Eit h er w e g o t o H ea v en or t o H ell W e a ll g o t o H ea v en A ft er dea t h w e a r e r ebor n ov er a n d ov er ba ck t o t h is w or ld W e a ll g et et er n a l life w it h G od H or t la x Repor t ed sick + In sea r ch of w or k + Ret ir ed W or k in g St u den t Ny k a r leby Repor t ed sick + In sea r ch of w or k + Ret ir ed W or k in g St u den t 3 0% 4 0% 37% 43% 33% 57% 28% 14% 22% 1 0% 1 8% 9% 2 0% 11% 6% 23% 16% 22% 1 0% 11% 9% 7% 1 0% 2% 4% 11% 9% 8% 9% 4% 4% 7% 4% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 7% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 0% Ot h er 0% 2% 4% 0% 4% 0% Su m 100% 100% 1 00% 100% 100% 98% N 50 144 54 60 141 46 Apart from that overall difference, Table 4gives a piece of supplementary ТЧПШЫЦКЭТШЧ. ЁЧ ЭСО РЫШЮp “Reported sick + In search of work + Student” ЦШЫО than half have chosen the optimistic statement in Nykarleby, while the correЬpШЧНТЧР pЫШpШЫЭТШЧ ТЧ HШЫЭХКб ТЬ УЮЬЭ КЛШЯО ШЧО ЭСТЫН. TСО pОЬЬТЦТЬЦ (“NШЭСТЧР СКppОЧЬ, НОКЭС ТЬ ЭСО ОЧН ШП КХХ ХТПО”) КЦШЧР ЭСО ЫОЭТЫОН ТЧ HШЫЭХКб (28%) is not detectable among the retired in Nykarleby (10%). ЁЧ вОЭ КЧШЭСОЫ ЫОЬpОМЭ ЭСО РЫШЮp “Reported sick + In search of work + Student” ТЧ NвФКЫХОЛв НТЬЭТЧРЮТЬС ЭСОЦЬОХЯОЬ, ЧКЦОХв Лв МСШШЬТЧР ЭСО ЭаШ statements about double outcome, Т. О. “Either we get eternal life with God or eternal death without God” КЧН “Either we go to Heaven or to Hell” ЭШ К ЬЦКХХ degree. The corresponding group in Hortlax contains 19%which is more than double the proportion in Nykarleby, 7%. “Reported sick + In search of work + StudentЬ” ТЧ HШЫЭХКб, ШЧ ЭСО ШЭСОЫ hand, distinguish themselves by accepting the thought of rebirth to a manifest degree (7%). The corresponding group in Nykarleby is 2%. 313 Conclusion The rather detailed analysis of the responses in Swedish Hortlax and Finnish Nykarleby has shown that there are similarities and differences. How is the multifaceted picture to be evaluated? TСО ПТРЮЫОЬ pЫОЬОЧЭОН КЛШЯО ЬТРЧКХ “ЬТЦТХКЫТЭв”. TСО РЫШЮp ШП ЛОКЦЬ ЭОЧН to of reasonably similar length, whether they show comparisons between Sweden and Finland, women and men, or old and young. As every social scientist with knowledge about graphical representation knows, it is possible to influence and to a certain degree manipulate a graphical representation, and so the graphics need to be backed up by a more detailed analysis of numbers. An attempt to do so has been offered throughout the text. What about the differences, then? In a number of instances, differences have been reported and discussed, and in a few instances those differences are also statistically significant. In the general picture, however, even a certain number of detailed differences have to be expected. Do the similarities and differences combine into overarching tendencies? A number of such combinations may be discovered. A few will be mentioned below. Less traditionalism on the Swedish side Between Hortlax and Nykarleby, in general, it may be noted that there seems to be less traditionalism on the Swedish side of the Gulf of Bothnia. Smaller proportions of the respondents from Hortlax choose the statements about God, Jesus and death which are closest to traditional Lutheran theology. In NвФКЫХОЛв, ЭСОЫО Ё К РЫОКЭОЫ ЭОЧНОЧМв ЭШ МСШШЬО ЭСО “ЭЫКНТЭТШЧКХ” ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ. АШЦОЧ РТЯО ЦШЫО НШРЦКЭТМКХХв “МШЫЫОМЭ” КЧЬаОЫЬ ЭСКЧ ЦОЧ In a comparison between women and men there is a tendency, that women pick the statements closer to Lutheran orthodoxy than men, and the Finnish аШЦОЧ МСШШЬО НШРЦКЭТМКХХв “МШЫЫОМЭ” КЧЬаОЫЬ ЦШЫО ЭСКЧ SаОНТЬС аШЦОЧ. Less uncertainty among women АШЦОЧ ЦШЫО ЭСКЧ ЦОЧ МСШШЬО ЬЭКЭОЦОЧЭЬ ШЭСОЫ ЭСКЧ “Ё НШЧ’Э ФЧШа”. The proportions of the men who are uncertain are greater than the proportions of 314 women. The women may to a greater extent than the men have absorbed the teaching in school and church, or they may during their life time have acquired a more significant certainty in religious matters. Young people less dogmatic Between age groups, there is an obvious tendency that the younger choose less traditional statements than the older, especially in Sweden. On the one hand it may be supposed that the older have accumulated more certainty and traditionalism than the young, but on the other hand the differences may be due to the fact that the young during their years in school have heard less about such ЭЫКНТЭТШЧКХ, “НШРЦКЭТМ” КЧЬаОЫЬ ЭШ ХТПО qЮОЬЭТШЧЬ. AЭ ХОКЬЭ ТЧ ЭСО Мase of Sweden this seems to be a point. In compulsory school in Sweden the amount of teaching about Christianity has diminished significantly between the school years of the older and the younger age groups. What conclusion should be drawn from these results? Null or alternative hypothesis? The null hypothesis states, that the differences developed during the 200 years of state separation of Eastern from Northern Bothnia is insignificant. Basically, the hypothesis claims, no differences have developed. The alternative hypothesis states, that the observed differences are significant, and that the result of the analysis must be that the null hypothesis becomes overturned. The present author concludes that the null hypothesis stands. The evidence that Eastern and Northern Bothnia have developed significant differences is too weak to be taken seriously. The 200 years of state separation has not been able to sever the people living in the vicinity of each other, and speaking the same language. The Gulf of Bothnia has not become a water of separation, but a means for traffic. In religious terms, the long joint statehood, the same language, the ease with which religious messages traveled over the Gulf, has meant that the piety and religious thinking of the people in the two regions are basically similar. 315 References 1. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1986). Habits of the heart: individualism and commitment in American life. New York, NY: Harper & Row. 2. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1971). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. 3. Church of England (Ed.). (1663). The book of Common-Prayer. London: Elektronic resource. 4. Ekberg, M. (2003). Se människan! en studie av Luleå stifts möte med den moderna kulturen under 1900-talets första hälft. Skellefteå, SE: Norma. 5. Feuerbach, L. (1977). Sanningen om religion. In G. Gustafsson (ed.), C. Dahlgren (transl.), Klassiska religionssociologiska texter: I urval av Berndt Gustafsson (p. 1—6). Lund, SE. 6. Gustafsson, G. (2000). Tro, samfund och samhälle: sociologiska perspektiv. Örebro, SE: Libris. 7. Hårdstedt, M. (2002). Om krigets förutsättningar: den militära underhållsproblematiken och det civila samhället i norra Sverige och Finland under Finska kriget 1808—09. Umeå, SE: Institutionen för historiska studier, Umeå universitet. 8. Hårdstedt, M. (2011). Sverige och revolutions- och Napoleonkrigen 1792—1815. In E. Mansén (Ed.), Sveriges historia: 1721—1830 (Vol. 5, p. 62—68). Stockholm, SE: Norstedt. 9. Heelas, P., & Woodhead, L. (2005). The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10. Høeg, I. M. (2010). Religiøs tradering. In U. Schmidt & P. K. Botvar (eds.), Religion i dagens Norge: mellom sekularisering og sakralisering (p. 181—195). Oslo, NO: Universitetsforlaget. 316 11. Jonzon, B. (1938). Herdabrev till Luleå stift. Stockholm, SE: Diakonistyrelsen. 12. Lindmark, D. (Ed.). (2010). Ingångar till norrländsk kyrkohistoria. Umeå, SE: Luleå stiftshistoriska sällskap. 13. Luckmann, T. (1967). The invisible religion: The problem of religion in modern society. New York, NY: Macmillan. 14. Masters, E. L. (1916). Spoon River anthology. New York, NY: MacMillan Co. 15. Masters, E. L. (1956). Spoon River antologin. (B. Gripenberg, transl.). Stockholm, SE: Boklotteriet ABF, AT och Vi. 16. Rosen, I. (2009). I’m a believer, but I’ll be damned if I’m religious: belief and religion in the greater Copenhagen area: a focus group study. Lund, SE: Centrum för teologi och religionsvetenskap, Lunds universitet. 17. Straarup, J. (2012). ”’Don’t deal with symptoms, cure the disease’, the doctor said. How, during the 20th century, the Church of Sweden has worked with internal quality assurance instead of renewal of its membership.” In K. Niemelä (ed.), Church work and management in change (p. 258—272). Tampere, FI: Church Research Institute. 18. Straarup, J., & Ekberg, M. (2012). Den sorglöst försumliga kyrkan. Belyst norrifrån. Skellefteå, SE: Artos & Norma bokförlag. 19. Weber, M. (1976). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie (5., rev. Aufl.). Tübingen, DE: Mohr. 20. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (International student edition.). Tokyo, JP: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha. 21. Zuckerman, P. (2008). Samfund uden Gud. (K. Bek-Pedersen, transl.). Højbjerg, DK: Univers. 22. Zuckerman, P. (2010). Society without God: what the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York; Chesham, NY: New York University Press. 317 Shadrina O. GOETHE, METHOD AND «NEА ECOLOGICAL DISCIPLINE» Abstract This report devoted to modern research in Goethe`s phenomenology of Nature and to perspectives of Goethe`s method. Scientific cognition of Goethe consists in tracing a single natural phenomenon back to something universal. But his universe differs from the mechanical universum. His great idea about the archetypal phenomenon is intuition about spiritual basis of the world because for Goethe Nature is spiritual above all. The cognition of the self of the man is made possible only through the cognition of the world, not otherwise. Understanding of separation of the modern humanity from the world of Nature, the angst of ecological catastrophes make us remember about Goethe`s warning. One doesn`t СКЯО ЭШ ХШШФ ПШЫ «ЛОСТЧН ЭСО pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ», ШЧО НШОЬЧЙЭ СКЯО ЭШ НТЯТНО ЭСО pСenomenon (the living being) into the soul and the body. Only when one researches Life as Wholeness it is possible to understand its secret. Nature for Goethe lives by lege artis. Nigel Hoffmann`s investigation by Goethe`s method demonstrated fruitfulness of interaction of science and art. It reveals new perspectives of future, in this way, taking into account common creating forces of Man and NКЭЮЫО ШЧО МКЧ ЬpОКФ КЛШЮЭ К «NОа EМШХШРТМКХ DТЬМТpХТЧО» НОКХТЧР аТЭС ОбТЬtОЧМО ШП NКЭЮЫО КЧН ЭСО «SОМШЧН NКЭЮЫО» - Civilization. TСО «SОМШЧН NКЭЮЫО» ЦЮЬЭ «ЛО МШШЫНТЧКЭОН аТЭС ХКЧНЬМКpО», ЭСКЭ ТЬ ТЭ ЦЮЬЭ ЛО ЛКЬОН ШЧ ЭСО pЫТЧМТpХО ШП МШЦpКЭТЛТХТЭв, «МШЦpХОЦОЧЭКЫТЭв». GШОЭСО pЫШЭОЬЭОН КРКТЧЬЭ ЮЧНОЫЬЭКЧНТЧР ШП ЭСО ЦКЧ КЬ КЧ «ОбЭЫК – ЧКЭЮЫКХ» pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ. BЮЭ ЭСО СЮЦКЧ ЮЧТqЮОЧОЬЬ ЛОХШЧРЬ to the sphere of spirit. Like Faust we seek the secret of Nature but our reductionistic thinking is based on the mechanical pattern of the world being either atom – based or energy – ЛКЬОН ЬвЬЭОЦ. SЮМС КppЫШКМС ТЬ «ЯКХЮО – ПЫОО». ЁЭ neglects personality and leads to amoral habits in thinking. 318 Keywords: «DОХТМКЭО ОЦpТЫТМТЬЦ»ν “GОРОЧЬЭтЧНХТМСОЬ DОЧФОЧ»ν «UЫpСтОЧШЦОЧШЧ» («AЫМСОЭвpКХ pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ»)ν «PЫОРЧКЧЭ pШТЧЭ»ν «PСОЧШmОЧШХШРв ШП NКЭЮЫО»ν «MОЭКЦШЫpСШЬТЬ»ν «PЮЫО PСОЧШЦОЧШЧ»ν «AЧЬМСКЮЧНО UЫЭОТХЬФЫКПЭ» («ЁЧЭЮТЭТЯО ЂКНРЦОЧЭ»)ν«PЫОРЧКЧЭ PШТЧЭ»ν «EбКМЭ SОЧЬШЫТКХ ЁЦКgТЧКЭТШЧ» MüssОЭ Тm NКЭЮrЛОЭrКМСЭОЧ Immer eins wie alles achten: NТМСЭs ТsЭ НrТЧЧОЧ, ЧТМСЭs ТsЭ НrКЮßОЧ; DОЧЧ аКs ТЧЧОЧ, НКs ТsЭ КЮßОЧ. SШ ОrРrОТПОЭ ШСЧО SтЮmЧТs HОТХТР öППОЧЭХТМС GОСОТmЧТs. (J.W.Goethe Epirrhema, 1820) In the last several years, rather much has been written about Goethean sciОЧМО. АСв? LОЭ ЮЬ ЫОМШХХОМЭ ЭСО аШЫНЬ ШП H. BШЫЭШПЭμ «ЁЧ ШЮЫ pШЬЭЦШНОЫЧ ЭТЦО ШП fragmentation and relativity, we must somehow find ways to bring our thoughts, feelings, and actions in harmony both with ourselves and with the world in which we live. I believe strongly that Goethean science provides a rich, intuitive approach to meeting nature and discovering patterns and relationships that are not only stimulating intellectually but also satisfying emotionally and spiritualХв». (1986μ 34) АСКЭ ТЬ ЭСО РШКХ ШП GШОЭСОКЧ ЬМТОЧМО? HТЬ ЬМТОЧЭТПТМ МШРЧТЭТШЧ consists in tracing a single natural phenomenon back to something universal. But his universe differs from the mechanical universum. His great idea about the archetypal phenomenon is intuition about spiritual basis of the world because for Goethe Nature is spiritual above all. In the chamber of Mothers Faust saw the boiler of Life. He came here only after he overcame the test by Life because the КХТЯО ТЬ КppЫОСОЧНОН ШЧХв Лв ЭСО КХТЯО. TСТЬ МСКЦЛОЫ ТЬ ЭСО «pЫОРЧКЧЭ pШТЧЭ» from which the Life and human cognition originate. The researcher will never approach this divine sphere if he doesn`t pass over metamorphoses which are МШЧЧОМЭОН аТЭС ЭСО ЭЫКЧЬПШЫЦКЭТШЧ ПЫШЦ «ЭШ ХШШФ» ЭШ «ЭШ ЬОО», аТЭС ЫОПТЧОЦОЧЭ 319 of perception. FШЫ GШОЭСО pОЫМОpЭТШЧ КЧН ЭСТЧФТЧР КЫО КХТФО. «Ё ЬОО ТНОКЬ”, - he said. The cognition of the self of the man is made possible only through the cognition of the world, not otherwise. Understanding of separation of the modern humanity from the world of Nature, the angst of ecological catastrophes ЦКФО ЮЬ ЫОЦОЦЛОЫ КЛШЮЭ GШОЭСОЙЬ аКЫЧТЧР. OЧО НШОЬЧЙЭ СКЯО ЭШ ХШШФ ПШЫ «ЛeСТЧН ЭСО pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ», ШЧО НШОЬЧЙЭ СКЯО ЭШ НТЯТНО ЭСО pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ (ЭСО ХТЯТЧР being) into the soul and the body. Only when one researches Life as Wholeness it is possible to understand its secret. The seed keeps the germ of wholeness. This seed which keep different sources (forms) of Life can be found and understood by the man but he mustn`t look for these sources of life of this seed. It can ХОКН ЭШ ЭСО ХШЬЬ ШП К pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ. «FКЮЬЭ» ТЬ КЛШЮЭ ТЭ. TСТЬ ТЬ GШОЭСОЙЬ аКЫЧТЧР. Goethe speaks about the living spiritual essence of nature itself. Faust`s knowledge of the world will be alive - not divorced from the moral domain. The world is alive. And we can take it as an alive substance. In this case only subject – subject relationships are possible. Nature for Goethe is a piece of Art. Therefore he speaks about careful treatment of it. One shouldn`t torture Nature, seeking the Truth. It will answer itself if we feel it. But Nature has the right not to answer, not to give its secrets out as a response to force because it is stronger and more ancient than the man. Goethe protested against understanding of the ЦКЧ КЬ КЧ «ОбЭЫК – ЧКЭЮЫКХ» pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ. BЮЭ ЭСО СЮЦКЧ ЮЧТqЮОЧОЬЬ ЛОХШЧРЬ ЭШ the sphere of spirit. As a result of the unknown crucial spiritual leap the man became the Man. How could it become possible? Perhaps, conscience made the Man the being who could look over threshold of life, who could come nearer to the secret of the Being, of course only up to the boundary where sources of life are spiritually materialistic. GШОЭСО аЫШЭОμ “SЭШШН Ё, O NКЭЮЫО! MКЧ КХШЧО ТЧ ЭСОО,/ TСОЧ аОЫО ТЭ аШЫЭС ШЧОЙЬ аСТХО К ЦКЧ ЭШ ЛО». Like Faust we seek the secret of Nature but our reductionistic thinking is based on the mechanical pattern of the world being either atom – based or energy – ЛКЬОН ЬвЬЭОЦ. ЁЧ КЧв МКЬО ТЭЙЬ НОКН ЦКЭЭОЫ. SЮМС КppЫШКМС ТЬ «ЯКХЮО – ПЫОО». It neglects personality and leads to amoral habits in thinking. Such self – styled 320 «ШЛУОМЭТЯТЭв» ТЬ НКЧРОЫШЮЬ ЛОМКЮЬО MКЧ ТЬ ЧШЭ КЦШЫКХ. AЧН GШОЭСО аКЫЧОН Сumanity about it. How may Faust - the modern Western society – be redeemed? Goethe offers us his “РОРОЧЬЭтЧНХТМСОЬ DОЧФОЧ». Contemporaries of the Poet treated him as a dilettante in science because his method was extremely out of the way. Edmund Husserle pointed out that the aim of phenomenology was to see and describe a phenomenon in such a way as the object would say about itself if it could speak. It is very important for modern science – to break the subject – object relations of the researcher and the researched. TСТЬ ЭТЦО GШОЭСОЙЬ ЦОЭСШН аКЬ ЧКЦОН «pСОЧШЦОЧШХШРв ШП NКЭЮЫО». NШЭ so many researchers have paid attention to the practical application of Goethean method so far. Connecting the method with uniqueness of artistic nature of Goethe they didn`t risk to reveal its practical effective basis for any person possessing feelings and intellect. Fritz Heinemann was one of the first to schematize ЭСО ЦОЭСШН ШП GШОЭСО. HО ОбpХКТЧЬμ « Goethe`s method is genuinely phenomenological. It begins with phenomena, proceeds through them, and ends with them, returning at the last from the Ur-phenomenon (archetypal phenomenon) to ЭСО pКЫЭТМЮХКЫЬ аСШЬО МХКТЦЬ СКЯО ЧШЭ КЭ КЧв pШТЧЭ ЛООЧ КЛЫШРКЭОН» (SОКЦШЧ, Zajonc 1998: 130) Based on Goethe`s method the approach of the biologist ЂШМСОЧ BШМФОЦüСХ аКЬ ПШЫЦЮХКЭОН. Ђ.BШМФОЦüСХ МШЧЧОМЭОН GШОЭСОЙЬ pСОЧШmenological method with four classical elements – Earth, Water, Air and Fire аСОЫО ОКМС ОХОЦОЧЭ ЬвЦЛШХТгОЬ К НТЬМЫОЭО «ШЛЬОЫЯКЭТШЧКХ ЦШНО». TСО ЫОЬОКЫМСОЫ adds to Goethean system one more, initial stage – «FТЫЬЭ ЁЦpЫОЬЬТШЧ». (1985μ 167) A contemporary scientist Nigel Hoffmann made a practical application of ЭСО ЬЭЮНв КММШЫНТЧР ЭШ BШМФОЦüСХЙЬ ЬМСОЦО аСТМС СКН РОЧОЫКХТгОН GШОЭСОКЧ scientific method. The focus of his investigation were two Australian plants (Kunzea Ambigua and Banksia Integrifolia ), the metamorphosis of which the scientist could trace consistently employing Goethe`s method. Let`s consider the study in question. 321 SЭКРО OЧО: «FТЫЬЭ IЦЩЫОЬЬТШЧ». Its main goal is direct perception, whole sensation, surprise. The First Impression should not be forgotten, but should be carried through all the stages of the observation. Stage Two: «EКЫЭС». The leading role is played by the organs of perception. This ЬЭКРО ТЬ ЭСО ОЧЭЫв ТЧЭШ аСКЭ GШОЭСО МКХХОН ЭСО «ОбpОЫТЦОЧЭ» – the process of exploring the phenomenon on progressively deeper levels of the being. GШОЭСО аЫШЭО, «There is nothing more difficult than to perceive phenomena as tСeв reallв are.» (Goethe 1964: 335) AЭ ЭСТЬ ЬЭКРО ЭСО «ЦКбТЦЮЦ ЦКЭОЫТКХ ЫОЯeХКЭТШЧ» ШП ЭСО pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ ТЬ ТЧЯОЬЭТРКЭОН, ТЭЬ «КЧКЭШЦв» ТЬ ЬЭЮНТОН. TСО pСenomenon should be observed, investigated by all possible means in a series of experiments. This stage is very difficult, as Goethe noted, because we try not to abstract but stay within the boundaries of experience. But the first mental НТЬМТpХТЧОЬ КЫО КХЬШ МШЧЧОМЭОН аТЭС ЭСТЬ ЬЭЮНв. АО «ЭКФО» ЭСТЬ pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ Тnside ourselves in such a way that we can picture it by memory some time later. TСО pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ «ХТЯОЬ» ТЧЬТНО ЮЬ, ТЧ ШЮЫ МШЧЬМТШЮЬЧОЬЬ, ЭСКЭ ТЬ ЭСО SЮЛУОМЭ КЧН the Object of the investigation are not tragically separated as it happened in the science of the XX-th century. SЭКРО TСЫОО: «АКЭОЫ». At the previous stage the phenomenon stood before us as a combination of certain qualities as perceived by our organs of perception. Now we must make out the ПluТН «Тn betаeen» which connects these qualities, the relationships between them. (Lagutina 1999: 17-18) Let remind that the idea of a symbol as a dynamic connection of meanings came to Andre Bely as early as the beginning of the XX-th century (espeМТКХХв ТЧ СТЬ «КЧЭЫШpШЬШpСТМ pОЫТШН» аСОЧ СО аКЬ ОЧЭСЮЬТКЬЭТМКХХв ОЧРКРОН ТЧ ЭСО ТЧЯОЬЭТРКЭТШЧ ШП КЧЭСЫШpШЬШpСТМ «GШОЭСОКЧ ЭОКМСТЧР» КЧН GШОЭСОКЧ «ЦОЭКЦШrpСШЬТЬ». FШЫ A.BОХв МЫОКЭТЯО аШЫФ ТЬ МШЧЧОМЭТШЧ, ЭСКЭ ТЬ «ЭСО ПХЮТН ТЧ ЛОЭаООЧ» has some meaning. (Bely 1994: 334-338) AЬ OЬТp MКЧНОХЬЭКЦ ЬКТНμ «FШЫ ЦО the most valuable part of a boublic (a thick ring –ЬСКpОН ЫШХХ) ТЬ ТЭЬ СШХО», МКЫving creates Gothic art – emtiness of stone lace, and the poet`s work is also «BЫЮЬЬОХЬ ХКМО». 322 So we should see, that is make out, understand what makes the phenomenon change. For plants the essence of changes and the main process is Growth. «TШ ЦКФО ШЮЭ ЭСО РЫШаЭС pЫШМОЬЬ» ТЬ ЭСО КТЦ ШП ЭСТЬ ЬЭКРО. TСО НвЧКЦТМ ЫОХaЭТШЧЬСТpЬ ШП РЫШаЭС КЫО pОЫМОТЯОН Лв ШЮЫ ТЧЧОЫ КЫЭТЬЭТМ ЬОЧЬО. «TСО НТППОЫОЧЭ physical parts of a plant are like frozen moments in a continuum of metamorphosis. The seed and the stem, the stem and the calyx…КЫО ЫОХКЭОН КЬ ЭСО ОбpЫОssions of one generative moment, ТЧ аСТМС «ТЦКРТЧКЭТЯО» ЭСТЧФТЧР МКЧ pКЫЭТМipКЭО». (HШППЦКЧЧ 1998μ 133) GШОЭСО МКХХОН ЭСО pЫШМОЬЬ ШП МШРЧТЭТЯО pКЫЭТМТpation the «eбaМt sensorТal ТmaРТnatТon». SЭКРО FШЮЫ: «AТЫ». At this stage matter, the phenomenon is becoming «ЭСТЧЧОЫ» КЬ ТП аО ХШШФ «ЭСЫШЮРС ТЭ» ШЛЬОЫЯТЧР ЭСО ТЧЧОЫ pЫТЧМТpХОЬ ШП ЭСО pСeЧШЦОЧШЧ. АО ПТЧН СОЫО ЭСО «pЫТЧМТpХО ШП ЦОЭКЦШЫpСШЬТЬ» ШП К pХКЧЭ КЧН ЭСОЬО metamorthic movements bring formative gestures to light which may also be МКХХОН ЭСО «ПШЫЦКЭТЯО ХТПО-pЫТЧМТpХОЬ». АСКЭОЯОЫ «ТНОК» ХТОЬ ЛОСТЧН ЭСО ПШЫЦКЭТЯО ЦШЯОЦОЧЭЬ ШП К pХКЧЭ аО ЛОРТЧ ЭШ КppЫОСОЧН ЭСЫШЮРС КЧ «КТЫв МШРЧТЭТШЧ». (HШППЦКЧЧ 1998μ 133) «АО ЬОО ЭСТЧРЬ through the air but not the air itself and this transparency or acquiescence needs to become the character of our cognitive ЦШНО». (HОТНОРРОЫ 1971μ 51-57)The mode of cognition associated with this air phase is called «ТnspТratТonal». This phase is done in differeЧЭ «РОЬЭЮЫО ЬФОЭМhОЬ»μ ЯТЬЮКХ, ЯОЫЛКХ КЧН ЦЮЬТМКХ, МШЧПШЫЦТЧР ЭШ ЭСО «FТЫЬЭ ЁЦpЫОЬЬТШЧ». SЭКРО FТЯО: «FТЫО». This is a creative stage. At this stage we conceive аСКЭ GШОЭСО МКХХОН «pure phenomenon»ν ТЭ ТЬ ЭСО «archetype» ШЫ «theory of the organism» КЬ GШОЭhe conceived it. The last stage represents another mode of observation – an intuitive mode. MШЫО pЫОМТЬОХв, GШОЭСО ЬpШФО ШП «Anschaunde UrteТlskraПt», usually translated as «IntuТtТve JaНРment». TСТЬ ТЬ К «СТРСОЫ» empiricism by Goethe. It is an intuitive stage giving birth to that true hypothesis аСТМС ТЬ pЫШЯОН Лв ОбpОЫТОЧМО. ЁЭ ТЬ К pОКФ ШП ЯТЬЮКХ КЛЬЭЫКМЭТШЧ (ШЫ «ОбКМЭ ЬОnЬШЫТКХ ТЦКРТЧКЭТШЧ») ТЧ GШОЭСОЙЬ ЦОЭСШН. TСО AЫМСОЭвpКХ pСОЧШЦОЧШЧ pОrceived in the intuitive – intellectual way is fruitful idea, «preРnant poТnt», from which the diversity of existing forms develops. These are creating forces of nature intuitively perceived by man. The stage ends with formation of the received 323 knowledge in artistic forms: pictures, poems, musical forms, that is in the organic unity of the form and content, in the meaning expressed visually. This method of investigation allows us to define Goethe`s outlook as ЭСТЧФТЧР «ПЫШЦ аСШХО ЭШ ЭСО pКЫЭЬ» – from formless to the formed. But what does this outlook give to us? What does this investigation carried out according ЭШ «GШОЭСОЙЬ ЦОЭСШН» ЦОКЧ? The very investigation of Nigel Hoffmann revealed conplementarity nature, necessity of co-existence of two opposite plants in one landscape. At the higest stage of cognition – Fire – it became evident that plants are the expressions of the Wholeness of Nature – Wholeness of the landscape. Moreover, from the first differences we came to understanding inner identity and organic necessity of the unity which is the landscape. Differences only prove the unity, so Goethe`s words become quite understandable: What is Common? One event. What is Singular? Million events. (Goethe 1964: 325) What does this understanding of Nature give to us? Perception of separate phenomena as organs of nature becomes visual. Therefore extinction of some forms of life causes irreparable damage to the whole. At the same time the whole survives in other forms created by nature (not transgeneous, not cloned, not caused by human experiments), that is nature always produces its archetype. It is a mystery of creative forces of nature with which man cannot interfere. Evolutional reproduction of nature continues until human activity changes conditions in which nature acts. According to Goethe poisonous plants result from adaptation of nature to the conditions which have МСКЧРОН, ЭСОв КЫО ТЭЬ «ЫОЬpШЧЬО» ЭШ ЭСО ЦКЧ, ЧШЭ ТЭЬ ЫОКХ ПКМО. OЫТРТЧКХХв NКЭЮЫО is favourable. One mustn`t interfere with it. Impossibility of existence of certain forms of life – species from the Red Book – indicates danger. The place in nature cannot remain vacant but what will nature respond? Its productive forces will not run short, but could it happen that the world of jungle of prey will swal324 low up the town without man? Nature is able to heal the wounds caused by man (Nebolsin 2003: 47-50), but we cannot allow Nature and Man to oppose each other because of the evidence of the consequence: man is a part of nature. TШ ПООХ ЧКЭЮЫО КЬ ШЧОЙЬ ПХОЬС ШЧО СКЬ ЭШ ОбpОЫТОЧМО К «sort of a turn of mТЧН» (GoetheЙЬ pСЫКЬО). HЮЦКЧ ОбТЬЭОЧМО СКЬ ЛООЧ ЭШШ «КЛЬЭЫКМЭ» ЭСЫШЮРСШЮЭ several centuries. Division of human entity into opposing Spirit and Body reЬЮХЭОН ТЧ pОЫМОpЭТШЧ ШП ЛШНв КЬ КЧ «ОбpОЫТЦОЧЭКХ ПТОХН ПШЫ SpТЫТЭ»μ ЭСЮЬ КОЬЭСОЭТМ principles of modernists required taking drugs (automatic writing and painting of surrealists) and the like. Goethean method radically contradicts the view in question. For him both: Body is spiritual and Idea (Soul) is visual (physical). It is this view which will enable us to overcome present – day crisis of world outlook. Technical success does not mean success of mankind suffering from entropy. The call of Spirit, paradoxical as it is, makes one look anew at body, makes one not distort its originally beautiful image. Nigel Hoffmann`s investigation demonstrated fruitfulness of interaction of science and art. It reveals new perspectives of future science which is already spoken about due to examination of other problems. We are interested in the following aspect: taking into account common creating forces of Man and Nature ШЧО МКЧ ЬpОКФ КЛШЮЭ К «NОа EМШХШРТМКХ НТЬМТpХТЧО» (HШППЦКЧЧ 1998μ 167) НОКlТЧР аТЭС ОбТЬЭОЧМО ШП NКЭЮЫО КЧН ЭСО «SОМШЧН NКЭЮЫО» - CТЯТХТгКЭТШЧ. TСО «SeМШЧН NКЭЮЫО» ЦЮЬЭ «ЛО МШШЫНТЧКЭОН аТЭС ХКЧНЬМКpО», ЭСКЭ ТЬ ТЭ ЦЮЬЭ Лe based on ЭСО pЫТЧМТpХО ШП МШЦpКЭТЛТХТЭв, «МШЦpХОЦОЧЭКЫТЭв». ЁЭ ТЬ К ХКа ШП NКЭЮЫО. CХКЬЬiМКХ (GЫООФ) КЫЭ МЫОКЭОН Лв ЦКЧ ТЬ ЛКЬОН ШЧ ХКаЬ ШП ЧКЭЮЫО. GШОЭСО аЫШЭО, «ЭСКЭ GЫООФЬ КМЭОН КММШЫНТЧР ЭШ ЭСО ЬКЦО ХКаЬ КЬ ЧКЭЮЫО НШОЬ». VОЫв pТОМО ШП GЫООФ art correЬpШЧНЬ ЭШ К «СОКХЭСв ШЫРКЧ» ШП ЧКЭЮЫО. FШЫ GШОЭСО ТЭ ТЬ КЧ ТНОКХ ШП ТЧЭОrrelations of man and nature which one has to strive for – harmony, symphony. It is these relations that make contraction between Civilization and Nature impossible when human existence is threatened. We hope that heritage of Goethe – artistic and scientific – not understandable for his contemporaries in many ways – will attract attention of present- day researchers looking for new ways to new science in our age of great change. 325 References 1. Bely, A. 1994. The Simbolism as Word Perception, Moscow: Republic. 2. BШМФОЦüСХ, Ђ. 1985. «EХОmОЧЭs КЧН EЭСОrs: MШНОs ШП OЛsОrvТЧР ЭСО АШrХН» ТЧ Ђ.BШМФОЦüСХ (ОН.) Towards a Phenomenology of the Etheric World, New York, Anthroposophic Press. 3. Bortoft, H. 1986. Goethe`s Scientific Consciousness, Nottingham, United Kingdom: Russell Press. 4. GШОЭСО, Ђ.А.1964. «The Experiment as Mediator between Object and SubУОМЭ» in Selected Philosophical Studies of Goethe, Moscow: Science, 101-109. 5. Goethe, J.А.1964. «TСО MОЭКmШrpСШsТs ШП PХКЧЭs» in Selected Philosophical Studies of Goethe, Moscow: Science, 407 - 409. 6. GШОЭСО, Ђ.А.1964. «MКбТmК КЧН RОКsШЧТЧР» in Selected Philosophical Studies of Goethe, Moscow: Science, a. 314- 377. 7. Heidegger, M. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought, New York: Harper and Row, 51-57. 8. HШППЦКЧЧ, N. 1998. «Goethean Phenomenology as a New Ecological DisМТpХТЧО» in Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A. Goethe`s Way of Science. A Phenomenology of Nature, New York: New York State University, 129-175. 9. LaРЮЭТЧК, Ё.N. 1999. «On Symbolic Interpretation of Goethe`s Crative аШrФ» in Turaev, S.V. (ed.), Goethean Readings , Moscow: Science, 17-49. 10. Nebolsin, A.R. 2003. Metaphysics of Beauty. Introduction to Ecology of Culture, Moscow: Palomnic. 11. Seamon, D. and Zajonc, A. 1998. Goethe`s Way of Science. A Phenomenology of Nature, New York: New York State University. 326 – 2014 26 , religio « я » 60×84/16. 600000, 10.10.14. . . 19,06. . , 327 . , 87 100 .