Is secular humanism the religion of our time? Secularism, Secular (secular) humanism (Secularism, Secular Humanism).

Discussions among theologians in the 1950s. were aimed at adapting Christian theology to secularization, and in the 1970s. in many places a powerful new resistance to secularism emerged. J. Ellul ("New Demons", 1975), together with certain other theologians, insisted that secularism is a form of religion opposed to both Christianity and true Christian humanism. . A. Schaeffer (“How Should We Live Now?”, 1976) and other fundamentalists and conservative evangelical Christians attacked secular humanism, considering it the great modern enemy of the Christian faith.

From the perspective of biblical Christian theology, secularism is guilty of “exchanging the truth of God for a lie and worshiping the creature instead of the Creator” (Rom 1:25). Having ceased to see the transcendental God as an absolute and an object of worship, secularist consciousness inevitably deifies and turns man and nature into an absolute. In biblical terms, a supernatural God created the world and maintains its existence. This world ( saeculum) has value because God created it, redeemed it, and continues to preserve it. God, as the Lord of history and the universe, cannot be identified with either one or the other (pantheism). People are endowed with freedom and are responsible before God and the world. Intelligent service and cooperation determine a person's relationship to God and to the world.

With the coming of Christ, the sacred, theocratic character of Ancient Israel changes. After Christ's sermon and feat, the city and the people were secularized (desacralized), and the Church began to play a sacred role as the temple of the Holy Spirit. The relationship of the Church to society does not boil down to a single mission - to introduce the sacred into the world by imposing ecclesiastical authority on it. This attitude is expressed in loving service and witness, preaching and healing. In this sense, the secularization of society is one of the Christian vocations. It is impossible to deify society and give it absolute significance, because it exists in history and is relative in nature. Only God is ultimately holy and absolute. The restoration of the holiness of God nevertheless presupposes the correct perspective and relative value of this world.

Of course, the distinction between the sacred and the secular cannot be considered an irreparable gap. Just as God speaks and acts in this age, Christians must speak and act as they participate in the creation and redemption of the world. This means that the world cannot be left to the rule of secularism. In any case, the Christian life in the secular world must be subordinated to Jesus Christ, and it must proceed in accordance with the will of God, and not the will of the world. In countries like the United States, where the population is given full rights and can participate in public life, education, social welfare, etc., Christians can help ensure that the Word of God is heard and given weight among the many other voices that... ry will form a heterogeneous whole. To impose the Word of God on everyone without exception means to again fall into authoritarianism that is not typical of the Bible. But if we cannot bring the Word of God into the world, then we accept that secular path, which rejects the Creator and leads to death.

Secular humanism is one of the directions of modern philosophy of humanism, a worldview that proclaims a person, his right to happiness, development and manifestation of his positive abilities as the highest value. The humanistic worldview is opposed to the religious one and does not recognize the existence of forces higher than man and nature. Secular humanism affirms the ability and responsibility to live an ethical life without invoking the hypothesis of the existence of God. Secular humanism emerged from the humanist movement in response to criticism of humanism by religious fundamentalists. It differs from religious humanism in that it rejects religious faith as a fundamentally illusory way of orienting a person in the world. At the same time, according to the “Declaration of Secular Humanism”, the ten basic principles of worldview are also:

Free research - inadmissibility of any kind of censorship, dogmatism; freedom of the press and means of communication.

Separation of church and state - the necessity of separating church and state in order to avoid violating the principle of free inquiry.

The ideal of freedom is the inadmissibility of any form of totalitarianism, the ideal of respect for the rights of the minority and the rule of law.

Ethics based on critical thinking - independence of ethics from religion; the possibility and necessity of deducing moral norms without religious revelation.

Moral education - the need for moral education and training of children; the inadmissibility of imposing religion on young people before they are able to give voluntary and meaningful consent.

Religious skepticism is a skeptical attitude toward supernatural claims to reality.

Reason - the use of rational methods of research, logic and experience in the process of accumulating knowledge and establishing criteria for its truth.

Science and technology - recognition of the scientific method as the most reliable way to understand the world.

Evolution - condemnation of the attempt of creationism to include religious doctrines in biology textbooks, because “the evidence of the facts so convincingly confirms the very existence of the evolution of species that it is too difficult to deny it.”

Education. “Education must be an integral part of the creation of humane, free and democratic societies.” Transfer of knowledge, encouragement of moral growth, training in professions, assistance in choice life path, teaching the rules of behavior in a democratic society, striving to develop the ability to think critically. The danger of the media as a means of imposing dogma.

Among the most important methodological principles of secular humanism is the principle of free critical inquiry, which includes the idea of ​​​​applying the resources of reason and science to all areas of nature, society and human behavior. This presupposes the inadmissibility of any restrictions on scientific knowledge and experimental research in all fields, be it ethics, politics, religion, paranormal phenomena or medicine. Moreover, such research should not be contrary to the law and violate the basic ethical and environmental standards accepted in this community

Religious (liberal-religious) humanism (English: Religious humanism) is one of the directions of modern philosophy of humanism.

Supporters of liberal religious humanism deny the existence of the supernatural and afterlife, considering his views as an expression of “sincere aspiration and spiritual experience”, inspiring the pursuit of “the highest moral ideals.” In fact, they propose to replace religion with universal ethics, free from any theological, political and ideological sanctions.

At the origins of modern religious humanism (from the mid-1910s) were a number of priests of the American Unitarian Church.

Key figures here were the Rev. Mary Safford and Curtis W. Reese of the Unitarian Church in Des Moines, Iowa, and the Rev. John H. Dietrich of Unitarian Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who saw fit to launch a campaign to democratize religious institutions under the banner of religious humanism.

In one of his sermons, Curtis W. Riese stated: “The theocratic world view is autocratic. The humanistic view is democratic... The humanistic, or democratic view of the world order is that this world is the world of man, and it largely depends on man what it will be like... A revolution in the field of religion, consisting of a transition from theocracy to humanism, from autocracy to democracy, has matured over time... Democratic religion takes the form of “this-worldliness”... According to democratic religion, the main purpose of man is to promote human well-being here and now.”

Subsequently, Riese became a well-known representative of religious humanism in the USA, and in 1949-50. headed the American Humanist Association.

The first programmatic document of religious humanism is considered to be the First Humanist Manifesto (English: A Humanist Manifesto (Humanist Manifesto I)) (1933), the main idea of ​​which was the need to create a new non-traditional humanistic religion, focusing exclusively on worldly values.

The Manifesto emphasized that development human society, new scientific concepts and achievements require a revision of the attitude towards religion: “The current era has given rise to enormous doubts in traditional religions, and no less obvious is the fact that any religion that claims to become a unifying and driving force of modernity must meet precisely the current needs . The creation of such a religion is the most important necessity of our time.”

Humanism was thus defined as a kind of religious movement designed to surpass and replace previous religions based on supposedly supernatural revelations. The Manifesto proposed new system faith based on 15 theses. In particular:

the idea of ​​the uncreated universe was affirmed,

the hypothesis of the evolution of natural and social worlds without supernatural outside intervention,

the version about the social roots of religion and culture was recognized,

the traditional dualism of soul and body was rejected, in its place an organic point of view on life was proposed;

it was argued that the new religion should formulate its hopes and aims in the light of the scientific spirit and scientific methodology;

the traditional distinction between the sacred and the profane was rejected, for nothing human is alien to religion.

In 1973, the Second Humanist Manifesto II was published by philosopher Paul Kurtz and Unitarian minister Edwin G. Wilson. Here the authors recognized the possibility of coexistence of various humanistic approaches - both atheistic (associated with scientific materialism) and liberal-religious (denying traditional religions).

According to the periodization of the development of the modern humanistic movement, proposed by Yuri Cherny in his work “Modern Humanism,” the identification of secular (secular) humanism as an independent ideological movement, its final demarcation from religious humanism began in the 1980s. and continues to this day.

Ticket

Issues of morality in the experience of church life.

Are there moral qualities and aspirations ontologically inherent in the human soul? Who instilled them in human nature? Should a Christian recognize the right of a different believer or non-believer to be considered moral person? Is it possible to talk about the identity of Christian and universal ethics? Is it possible to unite moral teachings based on erasing the differences between them?

These questions concern people all over the world today more than ever. And they are especially worrying for Russians, who have been cut off from sources of spiritual knowledge and church life for many decades.

Such attention to spiritual and moral issues cannot but rejoice. However, we have to note with regret that in the context of this attention, two dangerous extremes dominate the consciousness of modern post-Soviet society: the opinion of an irreconcilable opposition between Christian and non-Christian morality and the opinion of their complete identity.

The seventy-year break in the tradition of Christian education in Russia, the lack of freedom in our country to disseminate non-Marxist views led to the fact that in a secular society that did not know God, where the only publicly accessible moral teaching was the notorious communist ethics, a monstrous vacuum of knowledge about other ethical systems, first of all, was formed about religious ethics. However, as the old Russian proverb says, “a holy place is never empty.”

The weakening of ideological dictatorship, which began in the 1960s, only “reached” the freedom of broad Christian preaching by the end of the 1980s. Prior to this, man’s natural craving for religious morality was satisfied mainly by scientific value systems, into which grains of religious and cultural heritage were woven here and there, as well as by crypto-religious teachings, among which the leading position was occupied by occult “sciences” and simply gross superstitions, such as faith into the “drum” and hopes for the omnipotence of the “non-traditional” healer.

This kind of moral and religious Babylon, in which elements of natural science, philosophy, politics, various religious and pseudo-religious teachings, occult mysticism, ignorance and charlatanism were intertwined, gave birth to a very bizarre set of ideas about morality among the majority of my fellow citizens, including evangelical and Christian morality , divinely revealed. It is not necessary to conduct special sociological research to find out, for example, that the majority of Russians, including those who call themselves Orthodox, identify Christian moral teaching with the Decalogue and have a very vague idea of ​​the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount. It is very important to remember this, and here's why.

The scientism of the sixties, which presented science and technology as the guarantors of a bright future for humanity, very strongly established in the minds of the educated part of society the belief in the possibility of resolving spiritual and moral problems through scientific progress. In the next decade, when this worldview became cramped within its own framework, it, having absorbed many ideas of Vernadsky, the Roerichs and some other thinkers, became a surrogate for religiosity. As is known, such a surrogate cannot do without his own view of ethics. And as such a view, an eclectic system of moral values ​​soon appears, generally corresponding to the norms of natural morality, but often equipped with elements of mysticism and utopian social theories. The idea of ​​“universal human values” of a spiritual and moral order, which can be the basis for the prosperity of human society, has become firmly established in people’s minds.

As mentioned above, the meeting of the bearers of this worldview with Christianity occurred too late: the degree of social influence that supporters of “spiritualized” scientism and accompanying phenomena acquired was incomparable with the weak voice of the Church, which, in fact, until the beginning of this decade was forcibly torn away from its own people . As one modern hierarch put it, Christianity in Russia was placed in a dark, unlit corner of people's life. And while Orthodox Christians gradually left this corner, many Russians, not being able to hear the voice of the Church, “satisfied” their growing interest in Orthodox teaching, including moral teaching, using the same source: the ideology of the eclectic fusion of sciences, religions and mystical exercises.

It was at this moment that the desire of many modern scientific and public authorities to include Christian morality at any cost into the system of “universal human values”, developed according to the rules established by themselves or their spiritual predecessors, became especially clear. It is for this reason that people, brought up within the framework of loyalty to this system, sometimes consciously or unconsciously reduce Christian morality to the level of natural or Old Testament morality, paying tribute to the Ten Commandments of the Law of Moses and seemingly not noticing the moral teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and the Church of Christ .

Attempts to dissolve Christian morality in an eclectic system of extra-Christian religious and moral ideas, until a certain point made only in the quiet of academic offices, in the atmosphere of meetings of mystical sects and other narrow groups of like-minded people, are today becoming the property of the so-called “new religious movements.” In the West, these movements are widespread, and recently, using the media of mass culture, they have moved from academic and other closed environments to the circle of middle-class people. The same thing is happening here, both through the penetration of ideas and structures that took shape abroad, and through the spontaneous emergence of similar phenomena on Russian soil, among which the “White Brotherhood” sect especially stands out for its bad reputation.

New Age and other eclectic religious-scientific-moral systems, especially those that strive to persistently pursue the idea of ​​the identity of Christian moral teaching with their views on ethics or present Christian morality as an integral part of their worldview, pose a serious challenge to the self-identity of Orthodoxy in modern Russia.

Another important problem, the roots of which are also seen in the absence within our Fatherland for seventy years of proper Christian enlightenment and in the resulting religious illiteracy of our fellow citizens, is the distorted idea of ​​many Orthodox Christians about natural morality, which is a manifestation of the power and wisdom of the Creator, who created man according to to His image and likeness.

Every Christian, undoubtedly, must remember the greatest advantage of his calling, that the moral perfection acquired in the Church - not only by the power of revealed moral teaching, but also by the power of God's special grace-filled help - is incomparable with all human attempts to achieve a moral ideal on his own, based only on natural (“universal”) morality. He must also know that the moral sense of a person who is not enlightened by the grace of Christ is usually clouded and distorted as a result of original sin and personal sins. However, this should not lead to denying any value of natural morality, recognizing it as unsuitable even for the pursuit of knowledge of God and a worthy life. Moreover, our religious firmness should not lead to the very widespread opinion today that every manifestation of moral feelings, thoughts, motives and actions that exists outside the boundaries of the Church is a lie, deception, illusion and, ultimately, almost the action of the enemy of the human race. Such a view, which degrades the power of God as the Creator and His image imprinted in the crown of creation, needs spiritual healing through preaching and education.

The moral qualities created by our Lord and embedded by Him in human nature must be recognized as truly existing, inalienable from human nature and from its Creator. They also need to be treated with due respect, despite all the monstrous sinful veil with which humanity has covered them. Denial of the existence of natural morality, attempts to separate it from human nature and from God, as well as attempts to reduce its importance to an insignificant level, have always led to sad results.

However, an apology for natural morality should not give even the slightest reason to believe that we, Christians, agree to sacrifice the self-identity of Christian ethics for the sake of merging it with “universal human values.” Christian moral teaching is unique. The Church of God is also unique - the only place where a person is given help from above, which can elevate a person to the highest degree of moral perfection. A Christian witness to this truth - a witness that soberly sees all the merits of natural morality and at the same time all its imperfections in our sin-defiled world - must resound in full force in a society where, as a rule, distorted ideas about natural morality and its relationship with morality dominate New Testament and the Church.

What is the Orthodox view on the problem of the relationship between natural, non-Christian and divinely revealed New Testament ethics?

The natural moral law, ontologically embedded in human nature, is a manifestation of the image of God, existing in this nature by the will of the Creator: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him” (Gen. 1:27). According to the words of the Apostle Paul, natural morality is inherent not only in Christians, but also in people outside the Church (pagans): “For when the pagans, who do not have the law, by nature do what is lawful, then, not having the law, they are a law unto themselves: they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as evidenced by their conscience and their thoughts, now accusing, now justifying one another, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secret works of men through Jesus Christ" (Rom. 2:14-16). “...Every person,” it is written in a commentary on this New Testament text prepared by the community of the Intercession Church of the Russian Church Abroad, “no matter who he is, Jew or pagan, feels peace, joy and satisfaction when he does good, and, on the contrary, feels anxiety, sorrow and tightness when he does evil. Moreover, even pagans, when they do evil or indulge in debauchery, know from an inner feeling that these actions will be followed by God's punishment. At the upcoming Last Judgment, God will judge people not only by their faith, but also according to the testimony of their conscience."

Saint Basil the Great, speaking about the moral actions of people not directly motivated by the commandment of God, brings out the following thought in his moral rules: “One who does the will of God should not interfere, whether according to God’s commandment or according to reason, he will follow the commandment; and one who fulfills a commandment should not listen to those who interfere, although they are neighbors, but must adhere to the accepted intention.” In another place, Saint Basil says that to confirm what we do or say, we must use both the evidence of Holy Scripture and things known “from nature and custom in society,” that is, from the field of natural morality.

“How can we distinguish the morally good from the morally bad?” asks the famous Orthodox moral teacher, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). “This distinction is made according to the special moral law given to us, people, from God. And this moral law, this voice of God in the human soul ", we feel in the depths of our consciousness, and it is called conscience. This conscience is the basis of universal morality."

Speaking about the ontological character of natural morality and showing a favorable attitude towards people who live and act in accordance with it, Orthodox Church at the same time, she is convinced that natural morality is insufficient to achieve the moral ideal, for proper transformation human soul and therefore for salvation. Natural morality cannot serve as the only basis for the life of a Christian and, undoubtedly, cannot be considered a predominant measure of behavior for a Christian, replacing Christian morality. In the same moral rules of St. Basil the Great we read: “One should not follow human traditions to the point of rejecting God’s commandments... One should not prefer one’s own will to the will of the Lord; but in every matter one must seek what the will of God is and fulfill it.”

The difficult question is how far one can assert the existence of natural morality in its pure form in our sin-defiled world. A person in whom the image of God is distorted by original sin and his own sins cannot be a standard of natural morality. “The feeling of nakedness and shame,” writes the modern Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras, “is the clearest evidence of the distortion that the human nature as a result of the Fall. The image of God, imprinted in man, turned out to be humiliated and perverted (however, it was not completely destroyed)."

It is precisely because of the sinful distortion of human nature that we cannot immediately and not without difficulty understand where the manifestation of natural morality lies in a person, and where there is a derivative of natural morality - a derivative that is sometimes very distorted, and sometimes mixed with direct immorality. Indeed, the moral ideas and behavior of people guided by non-Christian morality can very rarely satisfy both Christian ethics and Christian ideas about natural ethics. Speaking about the God-given moral feeling in the soul of a person, Saint John of Kronstadt writes that among heterodox and non-Christians it “depends on the views or teachings of faith and changes according to the quality of beliefs; sometimes it is completely perverted. Thus, materialists and naturalists, who believe that all good and all life in the enjoyment of sensual pleasures, they do not consider gluttony, delicacy, fornication and adultery to be sins and say that this is required by nature and must be satisfied, and whatever woman or girl falls under their influence, one can do with her what nature requires, and that an idiot who does not take advantage of this. Thus, cannibals do not consider it a sin to kill another person and eat him. Thus, there were and are people who do not consider it a sin to sacrifice children or adults to an imaginary deity. Thus, many do not consider it a sin to rob , to rob a person of rich or average wealth. Thus, many egoists still respect another person, as long as he brings them benefit, benefit, as long as they need him, and since they cannot get any benefit out of him, they despise and drive him away, and will not give him a piece of bread ".

Undoubtedly, a Christian needs a criterion for distinguishing natural ethics from its perverted derivatives, in which we witness not so much manifestations of the image of God in man, but manifestations of sinfulness. This criterion cannot be the views and behavior of one or another group of people or all of humanity - we know that natural morality is still distorted to one degree or another by sin. In general, such a criterion cannot be perfect, and it is sufficiently the property of only a deeply believing Christian heart, endowed by God with the gift of “discernment of spirits.”

It would probably not be entirely correct to evaluate the compliance of people’s behavior with the norms of natural morality by purely Christian moral standards. Natural morality, even in its ideal expression, and Christian morality are not the same thing (more on this later). The standard of natural ethics, and the divine standard, that is, being part of the supernatural Revelation, but at the same time given to people who were not yet enlightened by the Light of Christ and in this sense were under the influence of the laws of life of a nature cut off from communion with God, can be considered some provisions of Old Testament ethics, in First of all, the Decalogue.

Bearing in mind the above, we should especially bear in mind the question of the differences between Christian ethics and natural, non-Christian ethics and from the pinnacle of ethics outside of Christ - the ethics of the Old Testament. It is more important than ever to emphasize these differences in a positive sense today, because in the perception of many people, Christian ethics is identified, for example, with the Decalogue, and even with its secular interpretations.

At the same time, the Decalogue is only a preparatory step to Christian ethics, only a “schoolmaster” to it. In the Sermon on the Mount, the Savior clearly and definitely says that fulfilling the Old Testament law is not enough to achieve the moral ideal, that is, for salvation. The moral teaching of the New Testament is radically different from all previous (and all subsequent!) moral teachings. This difference begins with the fact that the Lord gives people completely new moral rules, unusual in severity even for the most consistent Jewish legalist. He promises endless torment for the slightest slander (Matt. 5:22). He strictly forbids even mental adultery (Matt. 5:28). He commands a person to reject the defense of all his earthly interests and not only not to return evil for evil, but also to do good to those who do evil (Matthew 5:39-45). He does not even consider acceptable what in all centuries was considered normal for both natural and Old Testament ethics: accepting moral satisfaction from people for religiosity and righteous deeds (Matthew 6:1-6). Referring to these and other sayings of the Savior, Saint Basil the Great deduces three moral rules: “Just as the Law prohibits bad deeds, so the Gospel prohibits the most intimate passionate movements in the soul. Just as the Law requires partial perfection in every good deed, so the Gospel demands complete perfection. Impossible those who have not shown in themselves that the truth of the Gospel is greater than the truth under the law will be rewarded with the Kingdom of Heaven.” What is this? Another moral code, distinguished from others only by its extraordinary severity?

No. The moral teaching of Christ is not just a law. The Lord does not want to ensure that man formally fulfills all the “points” moral code. He longs for the complete spiritual rebirth of man, after which the very thought of sin, the very desire for sin would be alien and unnatural to the sanctified heart. And such a new state of the human soul, according to the word of Christ, cannot be achieved by the usual means of moral improvement of the soul - be it self-improvement, external coercion, the guidance of a teacher, mystical practice, etc. All these means can be useful, but only when they are united around the main means of moral renewal of the individual.

The Lord inextricably linked this means with His moral principles. This means is the only thing that can help a person achieve the high evangelical moral ideal. This means is the basis of Christian ethics, the basis of its vitality, which all dead laws could not achieve. This means makes Christian morality unique and inimitable, and the people following it - worthy of salvation and holiness.

This means is the grace of God.

Christian morality is impossible without grace. That is why the Lord said to His disciples, who were horrified by the height of gospel morality during Christ’s conversation with the rich young man and who asked Him who could be saved: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). The grace of God, the action of God as the basis and means of moral renewal of man, are possible, according to the faith of Christians, only with Christ, only in His Church, “for the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) . Outside the Church, the human soul continues to languish within the boundaries of natural morality, unable to achieve complete moral transformation. “Woe to the soul,” writes Saint Macarius of Egypt, “if it stops at its nature and trusts only in its own works, without communion with the Divine Spirit.” And at the same time, in the Church of God, the transforming grace of Christ acts vividly and clearly, descending on the heart of a Christian through the sacraments established by God, through worship, through special grace-filled gifts with which church life is so rich. The sacraments and services of the Church, its entire mysterious life, are also a means of moral improvement of the individual, a means that cannot be found on the paths of non-Christian morality and which is a window open to the boundless sea of ​​God's grace. It is no coincidence that Saint Basil the Great included in his “Moral Rules” special provisions on the transformative power of Baptism and the Eucharist.

At the same time, it would be wrong to think that grace as a means of moral improvement of a person leaves him as a passive participant in such improvement, limits his freedom of choice and does not require effort from him. The moral renewal of our souls is created in the synergy of God and man. Moreover, a person may not even show the world the fruit of his moral actions - the Lord, the knower of the heart, judges him according to his inner intention, according to his will, according to the degree of his renunciation of sinful deeds, words and deeds. The state of the human soul is the fruit of his moral improvement. This state may not coincide with external manifestations of morality: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, while inside they are full of robbery and unrighteousness. Blind Pharisee! Cleanse first the inside of the cup and dish, so that it may be clean.” and their appearance" (Matthew 23:25-26). Only when a person’s soul is free from sinful impulses, only when we have a firm will to salvation, when we, driven by this will, are ready through any thorns, fighting sin within ourselves and overcoming it, to strive for the Kingdom of God, our salvation is accomplished in harmony with the action of God's grace and our faith, enlivened by good deeds. The moral renewal of a person in Christ is impossible without the participation of the person himself. It is impossible without the participation of God. “The truth of God,” writes Saint John of Kronstadt, “demands that man, who has fallen by will, consciously strives against sin, fights against it and, defeating it, diligently calls upon the grace of God for help, without which he can never be victorious over sin, in order to deserve an eternal reward from God and have the consolation of the conviction that there is his share of merit in this moral victory.”

What is the attitude of a modern Orthodox Christian, living in the context of the current rapidly changing world, to the problem of the relationship between natural, non-Christian and New Testament ethics? What would be advisable to keep in mind when answering questions that arise in the process of Orthodox mission?

Firstly, I think we should avoid confusing ideas about natural ethics and Christian ethics. Such a mixture, so popular today in the context of the search for a unified “universal” ethics, is fraught with considerable danger for the self-identity of Christian ethics, for the preservation of those essential differences, without which the moral preaching of the Church loses its meaning and turns into simple support for secularized morality. At the same time, we must remember the temptation of “inclusivism,” that is, attempts to declare the best manifestations of natural morality and morality in general outside the Church as something unconsciously included in the field of Christian morality, and those who are characterized by these manifestations as “Christians outside of Christ.” Of course, such an approach can sometimes add missionary arguments to a Christian, however, as we have already seen in the case of Western theology, these arguments in fact are fraught with harm, perhaps greater than the benefit they bring. In fact, if Christian ethics is identical to the highest manifestations of natural and generally extra-Christian ethics, if one can be a “Christian” without Christ and without the Church, the next logical conclusion may be the denial of the uniqueness of Christian ethics, its exceptional effectiveness for achieving a moral ideal, and ultimately as a result - and the work of our salvation completed by the Lord. It is also important to note that a Christian, especially a missionary, hardly has the moral right to include in Christian society, against their will, people who were outside Christianity and especially those who died outside the Church.

Secondly, the most decisive opposition of the Church to attempts to equate Christian ethics with eclectic ethics, built on the basis of distorted derivatives of natural ethics, such as the ethics of scientism and “new religious movements,” seems very important today. None of these concepts can be identified with the moral teaching of Christ the Savior, for they are based on principles fundamentally contrary to the Gospel and the teachings of the Church and are incompatible with the above-mentioned distinctive features that make Christian ethics such. As often as possible, at the highest level simple words and images, the Orthodox missionary must explain to people why those who claim that there is no difference between the moral teachings of Christ and, say, Roerich or Hubbard are consciously or unconsciously telling lies.

Thirdly, taking into account all of the above, it is necessary to remember that natural morality, as well as its foundations embedded in some non-Christian moral concepts, is worthy of all respect as a manifestation of the image of God existing in man. “Whoever sees in another,” writes Saint Basil the Great, “the fruit of the Holy Spirit, distinguished in everything by equal godliness, and does not attribute it to the Holy Spirit, but appropriates it to the enemy, he blasphemes the Holy Spirit Himself.” It would indeed be blasphemy to deny the presence of ontological natural morality in a non-Christian and to attribute all his good deeds to the action of the enemy of the human race. Natural morality is a great gift from God, the manifestations of which must be treated with gratitude to God, who created the world with His Wisdom. At the same time, naturally, we must not forget about the relativity of natural morality and always remember about the “discernment of spirits” so as not to mistake a sinful deed, word or thought for a manifestation of natural morality. This distinction between good and evil is the main problem in the attitude of a Christian to non-Christian morals. We can only know how to solve this problem in all its particulars by asking the Lord to show us the way. And the Lord, who leads His Church, will not leave us without an answer.

Natural morality cannot be the basis for a Christian’s striving for a higher moral ideal. We, children of the Church of God, know that we have a higher ideal, as well as the only effective means of achieving it. But natural morality - perhaps in a form closest to Old Testament ethics - can serve as a common ground for joint actions of people of different beliefs in the name of the common good, in the name of peace and harmony with each other. In such an attitude towards natural morality there is nothing unacceptable for a Christian as long as this attitude does not begin to border on a doctrinal compromise, a confusion of moral ideals and the loss of the Truth of Christ for earthly purposes, which is above all earthly values, all earthly affairs and interests.

Humanism focuses on the values ​​and interests of human beings. They exist in both Christian and non-Christian forms. Among the latter, secular humanism is dominant. His credo is “man is the measure of all things.” Instead of focusing on human beings, his philosophy is based on human values.

Secular humanists form a rather motley society. These include existentialists, Marxists, pragmatists, egocentrists and behaviorists. Although all humanists believe in some form of evolution, Julian Huxley called his belief system the “religion of evolutionary humanism.” Corliss Lamont might be called a "cultural humanist." Despite all the differences between them, non-Christian humanists share a common core of beliefs. The latter were formulated in two “Humanist Manifestoes”, which reflect the views of a coalition of various secular humanists.

Humanist Manifesto I In 1933, a group of thirty-four American humanists published the founding principles of their philosophy in the form of the Humanist Manifesto I. Signatories included D. Dewey, the father of the American pragmatic education system, Edwin A. Burtt, a religious philosopher, and R. Lester Mondale, a Unitarian minister and brother of the Vice President of the United States. Walter Mondale during the Carter presidency (1977 - 1981).

Statements of the Manifesto. In the preamble, the authors define themselves as “religious humanists” and state that the establishment of such a new religion is “one of the main demands of our time” (Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos). The manifesto consists of fifteen fundamental statements, which read, inter alia, as follows:

“First, religious humanists consider the universe to be self-existent and uncreated.” This is nontheism, which denies the existence of a Creator who created the Universe or maintains its existence.

“Second: humanism believes that man is a part of nature, and that he is formed through an ongoing process.” Naturalism and the naturalistic theory of evolution are proclaimed. The supernatural is rejected.

“Third: by adhering to the organic concept of life, humanists come to the conclusion that the traditional dualism of soul and body must be rejected.” People do not have a soul or an immaterial component in their being. They are not immortal either. There is no existence after death.

"Fourth: humanism recognizes that the religious culture and civilization of mankind [...] are the result of gradual development." Further: “An individual born into a particular cultural environment is fundamentally shaped by that cultural environment.” This implies cultural devolution and cultural relativism. Cultural evolution means that society gradually becomes more developed and complex; Cultural relativism means that a person's personality is largely determined by their respective cultural environment.

“Fifth: humanism insists that the nature of the universe, in its modern scientific understanding, excludes any ideas about supernatural or cosmic principles that serve as guarantors for human values.” There are no God-given moral values; therefore values ​​are relative and subject to change.

“Sixth: we are convinced that the time of theism, deism, modernism and a number of varieties of “new thinking” has passed. The creators of the first Manifesto were atheists and agnostics in the traditional sense of these terms. Even beliefs purified from all supernatural were rejected.

“Seventh: religion consists of those actions, intentions and experiences that have universal human significance [...] all of this, to a certain extent, is a manifestation of a rationally satisfactory human existence.” The point of this statement is to define religion in purely humanistic terms. Religion is something that is meaningful, interesting, or useful to people.

“Eighth: religious humanism considers the complete personal realization of man as the main purpose of his life and strives to achieve such development and self-realization of man “here and now.” The hopes of humanists are limited to this world. “The main purpose of man” is earthly, not heavenly.

“Ninth: Instead of the outmoded religious orientation of worship and prayer, the humanist finds the expression of his religious feelings in a more meaningful life of the individual and in collective efforts to provide for the public good.” Religious feelings turn to the world of nature, personality, society, but not to the world of the spiritual and supernatural.

“Tenth: it follows that there will no longer remain any special, exclusively religious feelings and moods of the kind that have hitherto been associated with belief in the supernatural.” At this point, a naturalistic corollary is derived from the previous statements. Religious spiritual experience must be explained in purely materialistic terms.

“Eleventh: a person will learn to relate to life’s difficulties on the basis of his knowledge of their natural and probabilistic causes.” Humanists believe that humanistic education will ensure the well-being of society by eliminating arrogance and fears that stem from ignorance.

“Twelfth: Believing that religion should bring more and more joy and well-being, religious humanists aim to develop human creativity and promote achievements that make life better.” This emphasis on humanistic values ​​such as creativity and achievement reveals the influence of D. Dewey.

“Thirteenth: religious humanists believe that all organizations and institutions exist to realize all the possibilities of human life.” Humanists would quickly restructure religious institutions, rituals, church organization, and parishioner activities in accordance with their worldview.

“Fourteenth: Humanists are firmly convinced that the existing acquisitive and profit-seeking society has proven itself inadequate and that radical changes are needed in social methods, in management and in the motivation of people.” To replace capitalism, humanists propose a “socialized and cooperative economic structure of society.”

“Fifteenth and last: we declare that humanism will: a) affirm life, and not deny it; b) strive to identify life’s opportunities, rather than run away from them; c) try to create favorable living conditions for everyone, and not just for a select few.” Pro-socialist sentiments are also expressed in this final declaration, where religious humanism shows its life-affirming aspect.

The humanists who wrote this manifesto declared that “the search for ways to improve life remains the fundamental task of humanity” and that every person “can find within himself the possibilities to achieve this goal.” They were optimists about their goals and maximalists in their belief that humanity was capable of achieving them.

Evaluation of "Humanist Manifesto I". The first “Humanist Manifesto” can be briefly described as follows:

1) atheism on the question of the existence of God;

2) naturalism regarding the possibility of miracles;

3) evolutionism in the question of human origins;

4) relativism in the matter of moral values;

5) optimism about the future;

6) socialism in political and economic issues;

7) religiosity in attitude to life;

8) humanism in the methods proposed for those who strive to achieve their stated goals.

The Manifesto's language is not just optimistic; they are over-optimistic in their ideas about human perfection. As even the drafters of Humanist Manifesto II (1973) admitted, “events since [1933] have shown that the previous manifesto was deliberately overoptimistic.”

The compilers of the first “Manifesto” carefully avoided in their formulations such words as obligatory and inevitable. However, they could not do without the words will (v. 15) and must (vv. 3, 5, 12, 13, 14). Humanists' statements about the moral values ​​they hold to be supreme imply that people have an obligation to strive for those values. Thus, secular humanists essentially offer moral imperatives that they believe people are obligated to follow.

Some of their moral imperatives seem to be of a universal nature, as is implied by the use of words with a rather energetic modality - demand (preamble), must (vv. 3, 5, 12, 14), insists (v. 5), there will be no , never (Articles 7, 10, conclusion) and even necessary (Article 14) - regarding the values ​​defended. The preamble euphemistically calls such universal duties “enduring values.” Likewise, values ​​such as freedom, creativity and achievement are clearly understood to be universal and unquestionable.

It should be noted that the religious tone of the first “Manifesto” is quite obvious. The words “religion” and “religious” appear twenty-eight times. Its authors consider themselves religious people, would like to preserve religious spiritual experience, and even call themselves “religious humanists.” Their religion, however, is devoid of the highest personal object of religious feeling.

Humanist Manifesto II. In 1973, 40 years after the Humanist Manifesto I, secular humanists from several countries around the world decided it was time to make an urgent change. The Humanist Manifesto II was signed by Isaac Asimov, A. J. Ayer, Brand Blanchard, Joseph Fletcher, Anthony Flew, Jacques Monod, and B. F. Skinner.

In the preface, the authors deny that they are expressing a “binding creed,” but note that “this is our conviction today.” They recognize their continuity with previous humanists, expressed in the statement that God, prayer, salvation and Providence are components of an “unfounded and outdated faith.”

Statements of the Manifesto. The seventeen fundamental statements of the second Manifesto are placed under the headings “Religion” (vv. 1-2), “Ethics” (vv. 3-4), “Personality” (vv. 5-6), “Democratic Society” (vv. 7-11) and “World Community” (vv. 12-17).

"First: religion, in best value this word can inspire devotion to the highest ethical ideals. The development of the moral core of personality and creative imagination is an expression of truly “spiritual” experience and inspiration.” The authors are quick to add that “traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions [...] serve the human race a disservice.” Moreover, evidence of the existence of the supernatural is supposed to be insufficient. As "nontheists, we take man rather than God as our starting point, nature rather than the divine." The authors failed to detect divine Providence. Therefore, they say, “no deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

“Second: promises of salvation for an immortal soul and threats of eternal punishment are illusory and harmful.” They distract from self-realization and resistance to injustice. Science refutes the belief in the existence of the soul. “Science asserts that humanity as a species is the product of natural evolutionary forces.” Science has not found any evidence that life continues after death. It is more correct for people to strive for well-being in this life, and not in the next.

“Third: we affirm that moral values ​​have their source in human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, requiring neither theological nor ideological sanctions.” Humanists base their value system on human experience, on the “here and now” point. Values ​​have no basis or purpose outside of man.

“Fourth: Reason and knowledge are the most effective tools that humanity has at its disposal.” Neither faith nor feelings can replace them. Humanists believe that "the controlled application of scientific methods [...] should be further developed in solving human problems." The combination of critical thinking and human empathy is the best one can hope for in solving human problems.

“Fifth: valueless human life and personal dignity are basic humanistic values.” Humanists recognize only as much individual freedom as can be combined with social responsibility. Therefore, personal freedom of choice should be expanded.

“Sixth: In the area of ​​human sexuality, we believe that intolerance, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly suppresses human sexual behavior.” The authors defend the rights to birth control, abortion, divorce and any form of sexual behavior among adults, subject to their mutual consent. “With the exception of causing harm to others and inducing them to do the same, individuals should be free to express their sexual inclinations and choose a lifestyle for themselves as they wish.”

“Seventh: to more fully ensure freedom and personal dignity, a person in any society must have a full range of civil liberties.” This set includes freedom of speech and press, political democracy, the right to oppose government policies, judicial rights, freedom of religion and organization, the right to artistic expression and scientific research. The right to die with dignity, to resort to euthanasia or suicide must be expanded and protected. Humanists oppose increasing interference in the private lives of citizens. This detailed list is a register of humanistic values.

“Eighth: We are committed to the ideal of an open and democratic society.” All people should have a say in setting values ​​and goals. “People are more important than the Ten Commandments, all the rules, prohibitions and regulations.” This expresses rejection of the divine moral Law, which is given, for example, in the Ten Commandments.

“Ninth: the separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are categorical imperatives.” Humanists believe that the state “should not support any specific religious movement with public money, just as it should not propagate a single ideology.”

“Tenth: [...] we need to democratize the economy and judge it by its focus on human needs, assessing results in terms of the public good.” This means that the merits of any economic system must be judged on a utilitarian basis.

“Eleventh: the principle of moral equality should be expanded to eliminate all discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, age and national origin.” The complete eradication of discrimination will lead to a more equitable distribution of social wealth. It is necessary to ensure a minimum income for everyone, social assistance to everyone who needs it, and the right to higher education.

“Twelfth: we regret the division of humanity based on nationality. Human history has reached a turning point where the best choice is to blur the lines of national sovereignty and move toward building a global community.” This implies supranational political unity while maintaining cultural diversity.

“Thirteenth: such a world community must refuse to resort to coercion and military force as a method for solving interethnic problems." In this article, war is regarded as an absolute evil, and the reduction of military spending is declared a “planetary imperative”.

“Fourteenth: the world community must jointly plan for the use of rapidly depleting natural resources[...] and excessive population growth must be controlled by international agreements.” For humanists, therefore, one of the moral values ​​is nature conservation.

"Fifteenth: Moral Obligation developed countries- provide [...] large-scale technical, agricultural, medical and economic assistance» developing countries. This should be done through “an international administration that protects human rights.”

“Sixteenth: The development of technology is the vital key to the progress of mankind.” In this article, the authors speak out both against the thoughtless, indiscriminate condemnation of technological progress, and against the use of technological advances to control, manipulate and experiment on people without their consent.

“Seventeenth: we should develop communication and transport lines that cross borders. Border barriers need to be removed." This article ends with a warning: “We must learn to live together in the open world or perish together.”

The authors conclude by speaking out against “terror” and “hatred.” They champion values ​​such as reason and compassion, as well as tolerance, mutual understanding and peaceful negotiations. They call for "the highest devotion [to these values] of which we are capable" and which "transcends [...] church, state, party, class and nationality." From this it is clear that humanists call for the highest devotion to transcendental moral values ​​- that is, for religious devotion.

Evaluation of The Humanist Manifesto II. The Second Humanist Manifesto is stronger, more detailed, and less optimistic than the Humanist Manifesto I. He is less restrained in his use of ethically charged terms such as should and in his call for the highest devotion. This is indeed a strong, urgent, moral and religious call. This Manifesto, like its predecessor, is characterized by atheism, naturalism, evolutionism, relativism, socialist tendencies and is equally optimistic in its belief that humanity can save itself. Internationalism is much more pronounced in him.

Declaration of Secular Humanists. The ideas of secular humanism were also expressed by the third group. The Secular Humanist Declaration, published in the secular humanist journal Free Inquiry, was signed by Asimov, Fletcher and Skinner, as well as by those who did not sign the second Manifesto, including the philosophers Sidney Hook and Kai Nielsen.

Statements. The compilers advocate “democratic secular humanism.” From the first paragraph it is clear that humanists consider existing religion as their main enemy: “Unfortunately, today we are faced with a variety of anti-secularist trends: this is the revival of dogmatic, authoritarian religions; fundamentalist, literalist and doctrinaire Christianity." In addition, the document contains complaints about “the rapidly growing and uncompromising Muslim clericalism in the Middle East and Asia, the restoration of the orthodox authority of the papal hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church, nationalist religious Judaism; and the revival of obscurantist religions in Asia." The platform of this group of humanists is:

Freedom of research. “The overriding principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to freedom of inquiry. We oppose any tyranny over the human mind, any attempt by ecclesiastical, political, ideological or social institutions to hinder free thought."

Separation of church and state. “Because of their devotion to the ideas of freedom, secular humanists insist on the principle of separation of Church and state.” In their opinion, “any attempt to impose special, the only true ideas about Truth, piety, virtue or justice on the entire society is a violation of freedom of inquiry.”

The ideal of freedom. “As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom.” In secular humanism, the concept of freedom includes not only freedom of conscience and religion from pressure from church, political and economic forces, but also “true political freedom, the democratic principle of decision-making based on the opinion of the majority, and respect for the rights of the minority, and the rule of law.”

Ethics based on critical thinking. Ethical actions should be assessed through critical thinking, and the goal of humanists is to develop "an independent and responsible individual who is able to independently choose his own path in life based on an understanding of human psychology." Although secular humanists formally oppose absolutism in ethics, they believe that “through ethical thinking, objective standards of morality are developed, and general ethical values ​​and principles can be identified.”

Education of morality. “We are convinced that it is necessary to develop the moral aspect of personality in children and youth [...] therefore, the duty of the public education system is to cultivate such a system of values ​​during education.” These values ​​include “moral virtues, insight, and strength of character.”

Religious skepticism. “As secular humanists, we maintain a general skepticism towards all supernatural claims. Although it is true that we recognize the significance of religious experience: it is an experience that changes a person and gives his life new meaning[...we deny that] such an experience has anything in common with the supernatural.” It is argued that there is insufficient evidence to support claims of some divine purpose for the universe. People are free and responsible for their own destiny, and they cannot expect salvation from any transcendental being.

Intelligence. “We look with concern at the modern crusade of non-secularists against reason and science.” Although secular humanists do not believe that reason and science can solve all human problems, they do state that they see no better substitute for the human ability to think.

Science and technology. “We believe that the scientific method, with all its imperfections, remains the most reliable way to understand the world. Therefore, we expect from the natural sciences, from the life sciences, about society and human behavior, knowledge about the Universe and man’s place in it.”

Evolution. This article in the Declaration deeply deplores the attack of religious fundamentalists on the theory of evolution. Although not considering the theory of evolution to be an “infallible principle,” secular humanists regard it as “supported by such weighty evidence that it would be difficult to deny it.” Accordingly, “we are saddened to see attempts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade classrooms to demand that creationist theory be taught to students and included in biology textbooks” (see Origin of the Universe). Secular humanists consider this a serious threat to both academic freedom and the science education system.

Education. “In our opinion, the education system must play a significant role in the formation of a humanistic, free and democratic society.” The goals of education include the transmission of knowledge, preparation for professional activities, citizenship education and moral development of students. Secular humanists also envision a more general task of pursuing “a long-term program of public education and enlightenment devoted to the relevance of the secular worldview to human life.”

The Declaration ends with the statement that “democratic secular humanism is too important for human civilization to give it up." Modern orthodox religion is branded as "anti-science, anti-freedom, anti-man" and states that "secular humanism places its trust in human reason rather than in divine guidance." At the very end, it deplores “intolerant sectarian beliefs that spread hatred.”

Evaluation of the "Declaration of Secular Humanists". It may seem surprising that this “Declaration” appeared so quickly after the second “Humanist Manifesto” (only eight years later), especially since so many of the same people signed both documents. Much of the content coincides with one or both of the Manifestos. In agreement with previous statements of humanists, naturalism, evolutionary theory, the ability of humanity to save itself, as well as the general ethical ideals of humanism - freedom, tolerance and critical thinking - are preached.

Nevertheless, the “Declaration” also has its differences. The most important aspects This "Declaration" is precisely those areas in which it differs from previous documents. First, these secular humanists prefer to be called “democratic secular humanists.” The emphasis on democratic ideas is visible throughout the text. Secondly, they, unlike the authors of previous documents, nowhere declare themselves religious humanists. This is strange, since humanists claimed legal recognition as a religious group, and the US Supreme Court gave them such a definition in Torcasso vs. Watkins in 1961. Indeed, this “Declaration” can rightly be described as anti-religious, since it particularly criticizes the modern desire for conservative religious faith. The main content of the Declaration can, in essence, be seen as a reaction to modern trends opposing secular humanism. Finally, one cannot help but notice the strange inconsistency that is expressed in the fact that the Declaration defends the ideal of academic freedom, but at the same time calls for the exclusion of scientific creationism from school science curricula.

Common elements in secular humanism. A study of the Humanist Manifestos and the Declaration, along with other works by well-known proponents of secular humanism, reveals its common conceptual core, consisting of at least five theses:

Nontheism is characteristic of all forms of secular humanism. Many humanists completely deny the existence of God, and everyone denies the necessity of the existence of the Creator of the universe. Thus, secular humanists are united in their opposition to any theistic religion.

An essential feature of humanism is naturalism, resulting from the denial of theism. Everything in the universe must be explained in terms of the laws of nature alone.

The theory of evolution serves as a way for secular humanists to explain the origin of the world and life. Either the Universe and life in it arose due to the supernatural intervention of the Creator, or purely naturalistic evolution took place. Nontheists, therefore, have no choice but to defend the theory of evolution.

Secular humanists are united by relativism in ethics, as they have an aversion to absolutes. There are no God-given moral values; a person chooses such values ​​for himself. These norms are subject to change and are relative, being conditioned by situations. Since there is no absolute basis for values ​​in the person of God, there are no absolute values ​​that would be given by God.

The central thesis is human self-sufficiency. Not all secular humanists are utopian in their ideas, but all are confident that people are capable of solving their problems without divine help. Not everyone believes that the human race is immortal, but everyone is convinced that the survival of humanity depends on the personal behavior and responsibility of each person. Not all of them believe that science and technology are the means of saving humanity, but all of them see in human reason and secular education the only hope for the continuation of the existence of the human race.

Conclusion. Secular humanism is a movement consisting primarily of atheists, agnostics and deists. They all deny theism and the existence of the supernatural. All adhere to strictly naturalistic views.

Bibliography:

Ehrenfeld, The Arrogance of Humanism.

N. L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure?

J. Hitchcock, What is Secular Humanism?

C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.

P. Kurtz, ed.. Humanist Manifestos I and II.

Ed., “A Secular Humanist Declaration,” Free Inquiry.

Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?

Norman L. Geisler. Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. The Bible is for everyone. St. Petersburg, 2004. P.282-289.

Norman L. Geisler