Science and Reason, Faith, and Morality

The struggle for a new presence of the mind of faith, it seems to me, is the urgent mission of the Church in our century. (RATZINGER JOSEPH. 2021.)

Rational, irrational, imaginary, and tacit knowledge

Human knowledge of the world is the cognition of truths, guided by which man improves the conditions of his existence and approaches perfection in accordance with God's plan. The achievement of this goal will be as successful as our knowledge corresponds to the truth, and the degree of this correspondence is the measure of our knowledge. Some portion of our knowledge always deviates from reality. This portion diminishes over time, while humanity develops, it acquires ever more knowledge that corresponds to reality. Thus, new knowledge is constantly added to the knowledge previously acquired by humanity. Fundamentally, new knowledge can arise as an "insight" simultaneously in the minds of several people or even in the mind of a single person, given the concept of "maturation of discoveries." The time for their maturation occurs when people already need them and become ready to perceive them. The speed with which a new idea is accepted depends on the field of activity in which the insight manifests itself.

Historically, from the very beginning, humans have come to know the world through their own senses, which they could not doubt, and through firm faith in them, they laid the foundation for their initial knowledge. Reflecting further on the process of cognition, one can conclude that the inseparability of faith and knowledge has proven to be an unshakable psychological quality of humans throughout their subsequent development. It seems that cognition of truth would be impossible without faith in their knowledge, but it would also be impossible without occasionally losing faith in it. However, faith, as a state of the human psyche, can be subject to fluctuations under the influence of internal and external realities, especially in critical thinkers. For this reason, cognition of the world is unimaginable without human faith in the firm truth of certain knowledge, but among these, some cannot be acquired through the process of cognition itself. This knowledge or ideas is called innate and includes the axioms of mathematics, the tenets of logic, moral values, and so on. They are inherent in humans from birth, but they emerge with the onset of sensory exploration of the world and continue to develop over time. Clearly, the innate knowledge of modern humans differs significantly from that of their distant ancestors, so it can be assumed that they are inherited from parents, enriched by their own life experiences.

Initially, innate knowledge exists in the form of assumptions and requires empirical verification. During such verification, a person may realize that their assumptions are not confirmed, and then innate knowledge becomes imaginary, while confirmed knowledge becomes rational. Both imaginary and rational knowledge are constantly enriched in the process of cognition and life, and imaginary ideas can serve as the basis for the formation of rational ideas. Rational, scientific thought developed through the construction of hypotheses that solved problems facing humans and existed for a certain period of time, being replaced by new ones only when some problems could not be resolved by the previous hypothesis. Moreover, the new hypothesis had to solve the problems at least as well as the old one and had to derive predictions that the previous one could not provide (POPPER KARL. 1988: 35). Thus, thanks to such rational thinking, such sciences as mathematics, astronomy, agronomy, and geography developed, while from assumptions untested by practice—mythology, various beliefs, and magic—that is, imaginary knowledge—came into being. True, humans, especially at the dawn of their development, did not distinguish between rational and imaginary knowledge, so magic can utilize rational methods. An element of fantasy is always present in rational sciences, even in such a precise one as mathematics. Pythagoras and his students, for example, believed that certain numbers had their own special magical properties. This habit of supplementing human insufficiency with fantasy remains to this day. There is probably some benefit in this, but it would be good if people clearly understood where their rational knowledge ends and where their fantasy begins.

On the border between rational and imaginary knowledge is tacit knowledge, which people acquire through specific means and which cannot be communicated to others through language alone. In reality, this knowledge is reflected in skills and a person's inner culture. For example, this could be the ability to swim or to shoot a bow well, which is achieved through practice and training. The volume of tacit knowledge is constantly increasing along with the increasing complexity of lifestyles.

Science and Morality

Since the volume of knowledge grows at an incomparably faster rate than the spiritual development of humanity, Buckle concluded that the latter is determined primarily by the development of reason (BUCKLE G. T.. 1863, Part 1: 134–135). This view was entirely in the spirit of the 19th century, corresponding to the philosophical teaching of positivism, when it seemed to many that the problems of both individuals and societies could be solved if only the forces of reason and virtue could overcome ignorance and anger (BERLIN ISAY. 1994: 64). In the twentieth century, scientists not only became more skeptical, but also appreciated the need to structure opinions. Speaking about moral development, Buckle did not separate the development of human morality from the development of moral norms, and he attributed to mental development only the accumulation of knowledge by humanity and its assimilation by an individual, although it was necessary to keep in mind the development of thinking (the assimilation of the laws of logic, research methods, etc.) and the possible development of human mental abilities.

All of the above are purely hypothetical considerations because we do not have a reliable method for creating a more or less accurate idea of ​​​​the beginning of human spiritual development. Certain material is provided by studies of the archaic tribes of South America, Australia, Oceania, which, for various reasons, according to Levi-Strauss, "developed so slowly that they have preserved to this day the best part of their original freshness, or, conversely, their evolutionary, prematurely interrupted cycle left them in complete inertia (LEVI-SRAUSS. 1997: 99). But primitive peoples who still exist or recently existed on Earth are already at a fairly high level of development and have a clearly defined organization of their societies and established magical beliefs. How they arrived at this can only be imagined with a certain probability. Above, we spoke about the assumptions on the basis of which the original beliefs developed. Such a hypothesis can be confirmed by the following fact:

The Vinta dialect of California has five verb forms, corresponding to knowledge acquired through sight, touch, inference, reasoning, and rumor. All five forms constitute the category of knowledge, opposed to the category of conjecture, which is expressed differently (Ibid: 169).

Of course, there doesn't need to be five similar methods in all primary languages, but the very presentation of guesses to rational knowledge can be a high psychological risk for most of the primary nations. The main psychological effect, which is evident in the fact that people believe their powerful guesses, has been blamed for the first time. In our time, we can guard against this phenomenon, especially among less enlightened people. Lévi-Strauss draws from the life of the Tubilians, which convincingly demonstrates that in the worst cases, people can believe the heavy-handed bullshit that others believe in it (Ibid: 159-168). The path of a person’s fantasy is a picture of a rather excessive world, and, obviously, it forms the framework of his behavior. And since this picture is false, it also plays a role in all psychological functions. The picture cannot be completely false, but it cannot be entirely true, nor can it be sufficient for the well-being of human life. (FROMM ERICH. 1986: 133).

Moreover, there is a way of thinking that differs from the European one. "And for the inhabitants of the East, who are not overly concerned with the subtleties of the critical spirit, sincerity to oneself does not weigh so much… For the man of the East, factual truth is idle," writes Rennan, and his generalizations, though far-reaching, are not unfounded (RENNANT ERNEST. 1991: 105). Essentially, Europeans have the most rational thinking. This is particularly clearly evident in such an ancient area of ​​social relations as law. Although law collections appeared in Asia much earlier than in ancient Europe (for example, the Code of Hammurabi was compiled at the beginning of the second millennium BC), a rational theory of law with strict legal frameworks was developed in Rome. Even in music, Europeans demonstrated their rationalism. Pythagoras also discovered that the pitch of a string is inversely proportional to its length and discovered the law of harmonic sound of strings of different lengths with a ratio of 6:4:3, which later became the basis for the development of European music with its chromaticism and counterpoint.

Thus, people approach understanding the world in different ways. While rational methods are preferred in Europe, irrational ones are preferred in Asia. Erich Jantsch figuratively interprets the European way of knowing as an attempt to cram the entire world into one's head and explore it there, while the Asian way of knowing is an attempt to push one's head out into the world and thus examine it (and the other world, too). The scholar believes that both paths can provide insight into the world (JANTSCH ERICH. 1988: 47).

Through an irrational, or rather intuitive, path, man came to understand the existence of higher powers of an incomprehensible nature, the influence of which he experienced early in his development. As René Descartes once said, the idea of ​​God that we have has its cause, and this cause is none other than the Deity (BUCKLE G. T. 1863, Part 2: 100). There are many ways to prove the existence of God, but none of them is convincing enough. Now, in acknowledging the existence of God, everyone chooses their own path—the path of reason, the path of faith, or a complex synthesis of both. But primitive man came to understand the existence of a deity not through logical reasoning, for his thinking was not sufficiently developed, but through some intuitive method, supplemented by fantasies explaining the origins of the world and man. Looking ahead, let us assume that the development of religions from primordial beliefs proceeds stepwise through the "enlightenment" of individual prophets, capable of perceiving God's revelation and interpreting it according to their knowledge and intellect. The need for people who could authoritatively explain natural and atmospheric phenomena, the origins of the world and man, existed in every human community, so one of its members had to assume the role of "prophet." Not every one of them was fortunate enough to maintain their authority, but those who could became leaders, defining norms of behavior and relationships among members of the community. The social organization of primitive peoples was formed purely empirically, based on the principle of the survival of the strongest. At the same time, as Lévi-Strauss argues, primitive peoples "can display a spirit of invention and comprehension significantly in advance of the achievements of civilized peoples," and therefore they cannot be considered backward or underdeveloped (LEVI-STRAUSS. 1997: 98). Of course, this doesn't mean that the overall levels of development of civilized and primitive peoples can be considered even approximately the same. Human civilization presupposes harmonious development in all areas of social life.

Reason and Faith

A discussion of reason should begin with how it was understood by prominent authorities, at least Kant's. However, his understanding is difficult to grasp due to semantic difficulties, as he could ascribe a different meaning to words than we can ascribe to them today. When he initially writes about the eternal and immutable laws of reason without defining them, they seem self-evident to him, but mysterious to me. Therefore, I cannot understand this phenomenon of "pure reason," but I agree that some people understand it, although I suspect this understanding may differ from person to person.

According to Kant, the starting point of knowledge is experience, and experience confirms knowledge. However, innate knowledge may not be confirmed by experience, so we must assume that faith underlies human cognitive activity, as we trust our own feelings and experience, our own conclusions, as well as the words of authorities, which at different ages and stages of development may include parents, teachers, educators, and clergy. When using the concept of "faith," individual characteristics must be taken into account. Erich Fromm considers two fundamental modes of faith to be the vital functions of possession and being. These two modes are difficult to distinguish, as possession cannot exist without being, and most of them are present to varying degrees in each person. Fromm himself speaks only of the superiority of one of the modes, and this alone determines the differences in individual character. Accordingly, the concept of "faith" can be understood differently in religious, political, or personal contexts, depending on the principle—possession or being—by which it is applied. This is something to keep in mind.

On the other hand, if a source of information lacks trust or contradicts existing knowledge, a person may doubt or even reject something new or unusual. People typically seek counterarguments to anything unusual or new, although they could also seek confirmation or explanation. The average person doesn't do this because they simply don't believe it if the source is unreliable or for some reason dislikes it. However, people may believe their fantasies and fictitious explanations of reality simply because they like them, and less often because of extrasensory perceptions, imagination, and sometimes implicit knowledge, including esoteric ones. Observing the relationship between knowledge and belief in it provides grounds for the following conclusion:

Science neither cares to please nor to displease. She is inhuman. It is not science but poetry that charms and consoles. And that is why poetry is more necessary than science (FRANCE ANATOLE. 1911: 135).

This observation also applies to the relationship between science and religion. In a private letter to me, Alexander Kirilyuk argued that religion can be more tolerant than science. Thus, the question may be about the extent to which truth can provide a person with peace of mind. We know that in everyday life, truth isn't always beneficial; sometimes it can even be harmful (for example, it's not customary to tell the truth to a sick person). Since people readily believe truths they find agreeable, they may disbelieve truths they dislike. This is how knowledge emerges that can be classified as esoteric, used only by a select few, the initiated, which in itself leads to the structuring of human society. This has been the case throughout history, and attempting to make any information publicly available can only harm society. It's no wonder that every government has agencies that guard classified information.

However, clear and expressive ideas inspire greater confidence and require no in-depth analysis of their truth or falsity. A certain level of thinking is required to understand the criterion of truth, the search for which requires a critical approach to any ideas not tested in practice or scientifically proven. That this level is difficult to attain is illustrated by the example of Descartes, who, despite his skepticism, asserted that a clear and intelligible idea is the criterion of truth. Having delved deeper into this issue, Giuseppe Vico realized that believing in an idea does not mean believing it to be true. In other words, a clear and intelligible idea is merely a psychological criterion. The idea that the sun revolves around the Earth is clear and expressive, but erroneous.

There's another characteristic of faith that significantly influences mass consciousness: not wanting to appear foolish in the eyes of others, people accept even meaningless views if they are believed by the majority. This phenomenon was well captured by Andersen in his fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes." Since then, little has changed in this regard in the world, and this human characteristic is successfully exploited by politicians to promote false and even deliberately falsified ideas.

Thus, knowledge based solely on faith may correspond to reality in whole or in part, or not at all. It may be accepted by others and spread further, or it may not be accepted on faith and remain the property of a small circle of people. It follows that our knowledge is largely hypothetical, and to be definitively accepted as true, it must be confirmed in practice, experimentally, or proven using mathematical apparatus, the laws of logic, physics, chemistry, and so on. It goes without saying that if people do not trust each other and rely only on knowledge acquired independently, they will simply perish. In the process of exchanging information, people inevitably come to recognize certain people as reliable sources of information and are inclined to believe such a person, at least in most cases, even if the information is erroneous. If such an authority cannot explain certain things, they may resort to fabrications, and these fabrications may be believed by others. However, some people may also have doubts, especially when the person's authority is unreliable, that is, they were clearly mistaken in some of their previous judgments.

Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Fides et Ratio" is devoted to the relationship between faith and reason. When he says, "Only faith enables us to penetrate the meaning of mystery and make it accessible to the intellect," he means faith in God. However, the concept of faith can be expanded and used more broadly. It's another matter that, in acquiring knowledge through reason, we must proceed from the premise that God is the primary cause of all things and phenomena.

We often see that some skeptics distrust even empirical and rational knowledge, which only emphasizes the role of faith in the process of understanding reality. This phenomenon can be observed in science as well. Often, a scientist will simply believe in an idea of ​​their own, then seek explanations and arguments for it, and construct a new theory. Meanwhile, other scientists disbelieve it and therefore seek objections, and it rarely happens that someone else seeks confirmation for the new theory. As a result, a new theory or idea is finally accepted when its opponents are either dead or reliably confirmed by experiment, and often by material gain. All this suggests the futility of trying to convince people without demonstrable evidence of any opinion. This has always been the case, for Plato once said, "He who does not convince himself will not be convinced." Bearing his words in mind, one can argue that self-knowledge, a person's knowledge of oneself, largely determines a person's ability to understand the world. Self-knowledge of an individual is based on comparison with others, and understanding a person's development is possible only through studying their history, in comparison with people of the past. Hence, the importance of written history, but written history as the closest to actual events and is interpreted most objectively. Collingwood believed that only specialists should answer questions about the subject, method, and value of history. However, according to Collingwood, not every historian is capable of answering these questions, as they must have specific experience in a particular form of thought and be able to reflect on this experience. He notes:

… experience of anything whatever gained through the ordinary educational channels, as well as being superficial, is invariably out of date. Experience of historical thinking, so gained, is modelled on text-books, and text-books always describe not what is now being thought by real live historians, but what was thought by real live historians at some time in the past when the raw material was being created out of which, the text-book has been put together (COLLINGWOOD R.G. 1946, 7-8).

This phenomenon is very common, particularly in historical linguistics, whose foundations were formed not only on the raw, but also the sparse material collected by linguists during the relatively short history of this discipline. Some modern ethnogenetic theories arose back when comparative linguistics as a science was still in its infancy, but erroneous notions have become firmly entrenched in the scientific community, and sometimes even the most dubious of them are used to create new, far-fetched theories in interdisciplinary research. This underscores another point that Collingwood draws attention to:

….there is a peculiar illusion incidental to all knowledge acquired in the way of education: the illusion of finality. When a student is in statu pufillari with respect to any subject whatever, he has to believe that things are settled because the text-books and his teachers regard them as settled. When he emerges from that state and goes on studying the subject for himself he finds that nothing is settled. The dogmatism which is an invariable mark of immaturity drops away from him. He looks at so-called facts with a new eye…. On the other hand, if he emerges from the status of pupil without continuing to pursue the subject he never rids himself of this dogmatic attitude. (Ibid: 8)

Continuing our discussion on this topic, it should be noted that, contrary to Collingwood's opinion, there must be definitively established basic facts that form the foundation of any research. However, sometimes such basic facts prove false, and then the entire superstructure built on them instantly collapses as soon as a fact is discovered. For example, in history, it is necessary to clearly know who the bearers of a particular archaeological culture were. Without such knowledge, further conclusions will not correspond to reality.

The topic of faith and knowledge is even broader. In general, the meaning of faith in the process of learning is infused with a hidden amount of knowledge. For example, the acquisition of current knowledge about cosmology in a significant world change faith in the dogma of eschatology. You can find other applications.

Initially, man's most reliable guide, from his very appearance on Earth, was instinct, guiding his behavior like that of animals. Human spiritual development, through the instinctive struggle for existence and the preservation of offspring, begins with the development of an inner need for knowledge, which initially manifested itself in the search for stereotypes of appropriate behavior in various conditions, new means of maintaining life and health, food, methods of keeping warm, treating wounds and illnesses, and so on. Long before Bacon, people understood the truth that "knowledge is power." Even sexual desire includes the desire for mutual knowledge between man and woman. The process of knowledge begins with contemplation of the surrounding world and perception through sensations, which initiate the process of thought within a person. Without delving into the intricacies of epistemology, which generally boils down to two theories—empiricism and rationalism—we agree that knowledge is a complex process involving the senses and the human mind. As a result of knowledge, the first forms of human society emerged, and their development must be linked to human spiritual development. Even before humans began using language as a means of transmitting information in society, they began to learn by deliberately following the behavior of their loved ones, be it parents or the most successful hunters. However, speech also develops through imitation of the sounds of one person to another. The first consonants learned by a child (primarily labials) are formed naturally (STETSYUK VALENTYN. 2019). Subsequently, they follow the sounds of adults. However, imitation is not unique to children. The French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (1843 – 1904) even believed that all social life is largely based on the instinct of people to imitate each other, and there is ample evidence of this in everyday life (TARDE GABRIEL. 1903). Imitation is also inherent in animals, so it can be assumed that it is one of the instincts in the animal kingdom. During the development of speech, imitation ensures the communicative properties of speech, that is, mutual understanding between people through the involuntary standardization of sound signals. Closely connected to nature, primitive humans imitated not only their own kind but also animals.

But even after a person has mastered a language, a good example always has a positive effect on an observant person. Observing nature and the behavior of others can trigger a whole series of associations that can lead to the invention of useful tools, effective weapons, or weapons if a person sees not only with their eyes but also with their mind. This requires the potential of a brain. The world created by God is based on certain immutable laws, so when a person's train of thought takes these laws into account, their conclusions correspond to reality. The proven validity of conclusions not only strengthens a person's confidence in their own reason but also accustoms them to logical thinking within certain patterns. Those who follow these patterns are successful and live long and healthy lives. Those who disregard them, acting under the influence of false ideas, are unsuccessful and cannot imitate others. Thus, the complex process of human thought develops in society under the influence of various factors during the struggle for existence, but categorically, it is based on two fundamental phenomena: faith and reason. In this case, reason refers to a person's ability to acquire knowledge rationally, rather than metaphysically.

When we speak of rational knowledge, we presume the existence of truth in the most general sense of the word. Clearly, man cannot know all truth. Some part of it is grasped by reason, and this part of knowledge is rational by definition; some is accepted by authority on faith; and some truth remains unknown. This is true regardless of whether the entire truth can be known or not. The existence of the phenomena of reason and faith, as well as unknown truth, has far-reaching consequences, so it is not surprising that prophets and thinkers have long attached great importance to the relationship between faith and reason in the cognition of truth: "Unless you believe, you will not understand" (Isaiah 7:9). Saint Augustine (354-430) also seriously considered this problem and, having concluded the primary importance of faith in relation to authority, advanced the synthesized presumption "I believe to understand" (GRITSANOV A.A. 2002, 12). However, authorities were not always able to convey their knowledge to society, either in their own interests or in the interests of society (sometimes misunderstood); they kept their knowledge secret, and esoteric knowledge with privileged access has always accompanied the development of human society. There is reason to believe that a certain esoteric doctrine also spread among philosophers over the centuries

Doubt gave rise to individual opinions, but for the most part, people are inclined to believe fantasies if they offer hope for improved living conditions or even a carefree future. Primitive man lived in poverty and fear of death, the forces of nature, and other people. This created discomfort and self-doubt in his soul, and he tried to overcome this state of mind, searching for a means by which this could be done effectively. This means was faith in one's own knowledge, and this method proved so effective that faith has accompanied man throughout his existence, right up to the present day, since fear and uncertainty have always accompanied him. Spengler wrote, “Die Weltangst ist sicherlich das Schöpferste aller Urgefühle” (SPENGLER OSWALD. 1920: 116). This formulation by the German philosopher can only be roughly translated: Fear of the world is an ancient feeling, certainly possessing the greatest creative potential. Spengler then continued: “Reverent fear, first of all, of him (man – V.S.) independent, of laws and legality, of foreign forces in the world, is the primary source of every one of the elementary forms of spiritual development” (Ibid: 117).

Thus, in addition to the instinct to preserve life, fear can also drive knowledge. It is fear that awakens faith in a person, and knowledge itself can inspire fear. A person can believe in something if it helps them overcome fear and uncertainty. She may believe in God and the afterlife, but she can also believe that there is no God and no punishment for sins, for this too can help her achieve greater or lesser peace of mind. A person can believe in things that bring practical benefit in everyday life and in a bright future for themselves or at least for their children, in communism or another utopia. She can believe in obvious nonsense, and overcoming such a faith is difficult because a person feels that when they lose faith, they become depressed. This is where the strange phenomenon of faith emerges: it doesn't matter what you believe in; you just have to believe. The existence of various philosophical schools, whose doctrines have been applied in practical life, as well as the successful existence of various religions, confirms the existence of this phenomenon.

Nevertheless, those of a stronger spirit sometimes still harbor doubts, especially if they have already been convinced that certain phenomena in the surrounding world can be explained by reason. Such people begin to trust reason more than others, but faith remains a refuge for them in times of uncertainty or fear. Although faith in rational knowledge gained through one's own reason is stronger than faith in authority, there is a form of truth that a person cannot comprehend rationally, but can grasp when they are left to simply believe, to avoid complicating their lives. Faith in the process of learning provides an effect similar to the placebo effect in medicine, when a disease is treated with a substance that has no medicinal properties. In science, the placebo role is played by erroneous theories that people believe until they raise doubts.

Thus, faith is a universal means of maintaining a person's spiritual well-being, while doubt deprives them of this comfort, and then they must either strengthen their faith or find support in their own minds. Thus, in the struggle between faith and doubt, human spiritual development began, in which, according to these two phenomena of the human soul, two components must be considered: moral and intellectual. The first to ask about the relationship between these two categories was, apparently, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his work "Did the Renaissance of the Arts and Sciences Contribute to the Purification of Morals?" Considering science and virtue incompatible, he expressed his opinion in this artistic form:

O virtue! Sublime science of simple souls, are so many troubles and trappings necessary for one to know you? Are your principles not engraved in all hearts, and in order to learn your laws is it not enough to go back into oneself and listen to the voice of one's conscience in the silence of the passions? There you have true philosophy. Let us learn to be satisfied with that, and without envying the glory of those famous men who are immortalized in the republic of letters, let us try to set between them and us that glorious distinction which people made long ago between two great peoples: one knew how to speak well; the other how to act well (ROUSSEAU JEAN-JACQES. 1749)

When Rousseau spoke of the two peoples, he had Athens and Sparta in mind. Clearly, Athens represented science, and Sparta morality, but B. Russell clarified this distinction when he wrote about two schools of thought, one championed by the disciplinarians and the other by the liberals. The former advocated tightening social bonds, while the latter sought to relax them. A fundamental conflict between them was inevitable, and unresolved, it became a long-standing one:

This conflict existed in Greece even before the rise of what we recognize as philosophy, and it is quite clearly expressed in the representatives of the earliest Greek thought. Modified, it persists up to the present time and, undoubtedly, will persist for many centuries to come (RUSSELL BERTRAND. 2001: 13].

Russell linked this distinction to others. Clearly, a certain morality is easier to maintain in a disciplined society, while liberalism allows for democratic moral standards. The search for a compromise between these approaches will determine the future development of philosophy.

Nowadays, it's not customary to write about complex matters in the same lofty style characteristic of Rousseau; preference is given to a dry, scientifically stilted approach that has little impact on the hearts of modern scientists. The relationship between science and morality is often at a lower level than in the days of Newton and Leibniz. Scientific endeavor is, to some extent, similar to sports—in both cases, the agonistic factor is at work. However, athletes in competition strive to demonstrate the principle of "fair play," which is implicit in science and depends on the moral standards of their opponents. This alone suggests that Rousseau was right.

Intellectual development can erode faith, and with it, existing morality, although it can also provide new impetus for its development. Kant was certainly right when he asserted that moral concepts are a priori inherent in reason and generated by it, but by introducing the concept of the categorical imperative, he excluded the possibility of a moral purpose beyond reason. Perhaps, from a purely metaphysical perspective, morality can be viewed in this way, since a person can adhere to certain moral norms as laws without realizing their benefit to themselves. However, the very change in moral norms testifies to their orientation toward the benefit of the individual, which can also be utilitarian. The purpose of morality is especially clear when it comes to the interests of society.

With the formation of the first social structures, the increasing complexity of social relations created a need for a specific tool for their regulation. This tool became the primitive morality, which combined both ethical and legal norms of behavior within a group. The norms of primitive morality were formed from the practical needs of the group to ensure the safety, health, and growth of its members in a world rife with a brutal struggle for survival. With the development of articulate language, the first moral norms, the effectiveness of which had been tested in practice, along with useful experience, were cemented in the mass consciousness in the form of legends passed down from generation to generation. These legends had both practical and aesthetic implications. This was the beginning of organized human intellectual creativity, from which later developed such forms of social consciousness as morality and law, science and art, and, ultimately, religion. Having common roots, these categories remained so closely linked throughout their development that even today it is difficult to delineate the boundaries between law and morality, science and religion, given that morality influences law, and religion influences morality, and all of this is reflected in art. True, science, due to the specific characteristics and laws of its development, has occupied a more independent position in the public consciousness, insofar as it is based on rational knowledge rather than dogma or authority, as is the case in law, morality, and religion. However, the connection between science and religion is ensured by philosophy, as the science of sciences, which attempts to tie together the entire body of human knowledge and, in doing so, intersects with theology in some areas.

As people learned about the world, their imaginations gradually changed. Spengler describes the first human imagination of the world as follows:

In reality, the dark, primitive-souled environment of ancient humanity, as its religious customs and myths still testify, is a world of complete chaos, hostile demons and capricious forces, a living, incomprehensible, unpredictable whole, fluctuating mysteriously (SPENGLER OSWALD. 1920: 141).

Examples of myths representing this worldview can be found in Olya Hnatiuk's collection "Witches, Devils, and Saints of the Hutsul Region." To understand the extent to which an archaic worldview can coexist in a modern, rational world, consider a fact cited by the author in this book. In one Hutsul village, the chairman of a collective farm and the secretary of the party cell accused a woman at a peasant meeting of stealing milk from the collective farm cows (HNATIUK OLA. 1997: 246). Accordingly, Hutsul myths, preserved since ancient times, may testify to a more ancient worldview.

Because of its practical significance, rational human knowledge, acquired empirically, was the first to distinguish itself from the general body of knowledge that had occupied humanity in the form of legends. The discovery of effective methods for making fire, hunting, fishing, farming, food storage, weapon and tool making, patterns in natural phenomena, knowledge of the nutritional and medicinal properties of plants, and so on, not only transformed human perceptions of the environment but also laid the foundations for the future sciences that developed. Having discovered that certain phenomena are interconnected and that knowledge of these connections could be useful, humans began to purposefully seek the causes of both positive and negative phenomena. In doing so, they resorted to assumptions that were tested by practice.

Assumptions that were refuted by practice were rejected outright, while those that came true were cemented in memory. However, some human assumptions could not be refuted or confirmed by practice. This primarily concerns assumptions about the causes of natural phenomena, such as thunderstorms or snowfalls. Since rain and snow fall from above, from where the sun and moon move and the stars shine, it was logical to assume that some kind of "heaven" exists up there, and that someone lives in the heavens and sends rain or snow to earth. Having mastered the method of making assumptions, people imperceptibly transitioned to ideas that soothed their desire to understand natural and astronomical phenomena. Primitive beliefs developed based on these ideas, although recently the press has reported on scientists' theories that faith in God is genetically ingrained in people. If this assumption is correct, then it should be considered that this peculiarity of the human psyche merely provides impetus for the development of primitive beliefs.

In his time, Buckle concluded that intellectual development, in its broad sense, is primary, and he supported this opinion by analyzing the changes that had occurred in the public consciousness regarding the "two greatest evils known to mankind"—religious persecution and war. While he rightly asserts that history offers no example of an ignoramus, with good intentions and the full power to carry them out, causing far more harm than good, Buckle errs in his conclusion that moral sentiments are completely incapable of even mitigating religious persecution, and that the main enemy of intolerance is not humanity, but knowledge. His reasoning is tainted by a purely logical error. Even if religious persecution was carried out exclusively by people of impeccable morality, it does not at all follow that all highly moral people approved of it (BUCKLE T. Part 2, 1863: 136). He further argues that intellectual development in Europe led to a weakening of the warlike spirit that had characterized most people since ancient times. He cited three significant events as illustrations: the invention of gunpowder, the discovery of political economists, and the advent of steam transport. Firearms made war expensive and professional, while free trade and new routes of communication fostered rapprochement between nations. All this, Buckle argued, led to wars in Europe becoming a rare occurrence. But all of his conclusions are shattered only by the two terrible wars that swept across Europe after Buckle's death.

Spiritual development can be contrasted with physical development, just as we contrast the soul and body. But the development of soul and body must be an interconnected process. Moral and intellectual development should be even more closely linked. But in practice, this is not always the case. A highly moral person can be ignorant, and conversely, a vicious person can be highly intellectual, and this is the result of the internal struggle between doubt and faith. However, societal development can only be discussed when both components of this process proceed harmoniously, without lagging behind one another. There must be a desire to observe moral norms, but one must also be convinced of their correctness and know how to fulfill them. A person's moral development is determined by their natural aspirations for goodness and justice. Faith in absolute goodness balanced the right of the strong, which has reigned throughout human history. But one must distinguish between the evil and the good (in the true sense) intentions of the strong. There is an opinion, advocated by Socrates, that no person commits evil consciously. Therefore, to prevent evil, only rational knowledge is needed. But while objective truth exists in science, it does not exist in ethics. This means we must accept that morality is always subjective, and the development of morality differs from the development of science. It should also be added that, from a scientific perspective, the possibility of evil intentions cannot be ruled out. One way or another, the need to define good and evil has always existed and will always exist for humanity.

Morality has an advantage over science in that, unlike science, its laws are established by humans themselves, so the right to choose can save a person in a critical situation. However, in both science and morality, new ideas are put forward by innovators, and they are supported by a few, not the majority. Therefore, democratic principles, at least in their pure form, should not apply to the assessment of either moral norms or scientific ideas. Morality appears to be the most flexible and changeable form of social consciousness, because people do not always adhere to moral norms, which, in principle, should not change. Defining such norms and adhering to them should be a very important matter. Bertrand Russell wrote about one such norm:

In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held (RUSSELL BERTRAND. 1995: 58).

Perhaps such behavior is not a purely moral norm, but it is inherent in some people by virtue of their character, and it is precisely thanks to this behavior that new ideas can find universal acceptance, contributing to the advancement of science. Conversely, the absence of upfront goodwill hinders its development, especially in areas where a new idea cannot be tested in practice. Recognition of the importance of this approach to new ideas has not yet become a moral imperative in scientific circles, but its adoption as a norm of behavior cannot fail to be beneficial for the advancement of science. This specific example not only confirms the connection between science and morality but also illustrates one possible direction for moral development.

The importance of morality in society as a whole is underestimated. When I comment on articles on topical issues and claim that all our problems are solved through morality, other readers ridicule me. The general public places all their hopes on strict laws, without understanding that in a society where people are willing to take and give money for the right to break the law, no law will work. However, in the scientific community, attitudes toward morality are changing:

Only recently have economists once again realized the importance of the concepts of “morality” and “trust,” without which it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of a social institution, the level of the judicial system, business ethics, corruption, etc., as well as the importance of studying their impact on the economy and accelerating economic growth (TOMÁŠ SEDLÁČEK. 2016, 117).

Much can be written on the topic of reason, faith, and morality, and an important conclusion can be drawn from what has been written. A person does not doubt their knowledge when they firmly believe in it. Overcoming faith through logic and facts is simply impossible—unlikely, a recognized authority—but this, too, is due to faith in them. Faith in one's knowledge is stronger when it has come to them through their own efforts, through the power of their own reason. When a person is psychologically unprepared to accept a new truth, there is no point in convincing them, but they will accept a new idea or theory if they arrive at the truth on their own. There is no doubt that the process of cognition is gradual, and a person must acquire fundamentally new knowledge based on what has already been assimilated by both faith and reason. Clearly, the principle of gradual understanding of the world is general and can provide an answer to the so-called "Fermi paradox." As is well known, this Italian physicist asked why more advanced space civilizations, which according to the laws of physics and probability theory should exist, have yet to contact earthlings. They adhere to this principle, knowing that the assimilation of certain achievements by earthlings is impossible without going through a certain stage of development, which cannot be skipped or bypassed.

Thus, truth doesn't need to be proven; it's enough to simply publish it to the masses. Those who embrace it will prosper, while those who don't will become victims of their own obscurantism. This, to some extent, parallels Jesus Christ's parable of the wedding feast, which ends with the words, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

Science and Religion

When discussing faith, the topic of religious beliefs should be highlighted. While acknowledging the existence of a supernatural absolute with which man communicates, one must proceed from the premise that God cannot ignore human religious beliefs. Every religion is a creation of the human spirit, arising from the enlightenment of an individual when they understand God in their own way. However, God cannot completely entrust the ideological meaning of religions to man. Religion influences human activity, and it can run counter to God's plan. History provides us with examples of religious practices that do not contribute to the development of societies and sometimes have disastrous consequences. The world was not conceived by man, so man cannot shape it at his own discretion, but must serve as God's helper. However, God certainly takes human opinions into account. This is the purpose of prayer.

The Lord, step by step, reveals to people the means of communicating with Him as their worldview develops and their readiness to develop a more refined understanding. But not everyone hears these cues, and those who do may interpret them in their own way. This explains the existence of religions that, from a Christian perspective, are cruel. Such religions were, for example, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. And their unfortunate historical fate unfolded not because it was God's will, but because their leaders failed to understand God's voice and acted solely out of human interests. On the other hand, some people profess religions in which the concept of a Supreme Creator is absent altogether (Buddhism, Confucianism), or in which there are many gods (Shintoism). Nevertheless, these people not only thrive but also boast large numbers, which may even be an indicator of great success. However, the question of the historical success of nations is complex, especially if one believes in Christian dogma. The only thing that seems indisputable is that it is more rational to understand God's ideas, rather than His essence.

The diversity of religions reflects different paths to knowing God, and their mutual influence leads to the development of new forms, increasingly consistent with the worldviews of people at a new stage of development. According to Harvard University President Charles Elliott, expressed over a hundred years ago, every religion is a constantly changing phenomenon (STEPANOVA E.V. 2012: 86). However, a new understanding of God's ideas requires the will and the ability to convey them to the masses. Nevertheless, to understand God's ideas, one must also have the will and the ability to convey His ideas to the masses. Perhaps this requires a divine gift, but people themselves must also be ready to accept new ideas. The preaching work of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome serves as an example. The Romans were not ready to immediately embrace the new religion in its final form until they became acquainted with other Eastern cults prevalent in the Roman Empire, which gave them the concept of a savior deity who himself suffers for the sake of humanity (BEDOUELLE GUY. 2000, 52). At the same time, at the beginning of Christianity's development, thinkers of the time attempted to interpret the philosophical achievements of the ancient world in developing the dogma of the new church. These facts show us that the evolution of religion proceeds with the use of certain previous tenets. Later, Christian missionaries also attempted to reconcile pagan customs with Christian sacraments. This is precisely why God tolerates the diversity of religions in accordance with His universal principle of polymorphism, which humanity must learn from the example of nature and utilize, through the principle of pluralism in the organization of social life, as the basis for its optimal development. Ultimately, the diversity of religions is determined by the differences in the ethnopsychology of different peoples. Heinrich Heine demonstrated this well using the example of the correspondence between the French character and Catholicism and the German Lutheranism (HEINE HEINRICH. 1966). But the diversity of people also exists by God's will, which is why the different races He created exist, along with their differences.

Thus, we conclude that religions, despite their diversity, evolve and must continue to evolve in a specific direction. From primitive beliefs (animism, totemism, fetishism, etc.) through ethnonational religions with their characteristic polytheism, religious worldviews evolve toward monotheism and new religious forms. Their diversity indicates that the paths to understanding God and His ideas may vary, but as we approach an understanding of God, ecumenical tendencies should strengthen. At the same time, as a person's spiritual development progresses, religions that utilize outdated dogmas lose their authority among people, and therefore, they must be reformed as they gain greater knowledge of God. But this is not always the case, because each religion influences a person's spiritual life through a specific practice of communication with God, established by special institutions whose existence requires maintaining influence over the conservative masses, while a new understanding of God is revealed to a select few, whom the majority may not perceive. Alexander Kyrylyuk consistently defends the view that Catholicism in Europe was a true driver of scientific development (KYRYLYUK A. 2025, KYRYLYUK A.S. 2025). In his view, the Catholic Church has always encouraged scientific research as a path to understanding God's wisdom. He also notes:

In the West, the notion of the Church's hostility to science is believed to have emerged quite recently, in the late 19th century, in the works of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Theologian David Bentley Hart assessed how well these works met scientific criteria, pointing to their complete lack of evidence. (KYRYLYUK O.S. 2025: 39.)

However, this idea requires clarification. Only the Church hierarchy was interested in scientific advances and encouraged scientific research. The middle, and especially the lower, clergy were not and could not initiate the introduction of scientific ideas into religious practice, due to the very nature of the Church's organization. Furthermore, churches can be led by people who profess outdated dogmas and pursue spiritual careers using the same methods used by secular leaders, in their own interests and the interests of the Church as a social institution. Having their own interests, clergy cannot always listen to and hear the Voice of God addressed to them. Then the Church begins to develop within its own tradition, contrary to God's will, but individuals can sense this and, by listening to the Voice of God, receive divine revelation.

By adopting the characteristics of an ordinary social institution, the church cannot prevent the emergence among the clergy of individuals who lack a calling to pastoral work, driven solely by the prospect of achieving a privileged status. Those who feel the need to serve God are as rare as those who seek truth by realizing their creative potential in science or art. Lacking a divine calling, such priests themselves violate religious dogma, thereby engendering mistrust not only of the church itself but of religion in general. This was the case in the 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment, although the emergence of this movement was also associated with other factors. Some enlightenment figures, such as Voltaire, Holbach, Diderot, and others, denied the existence of God altogether, but to explain the universe, they had to rely on their own philosophy, which was largely based on the ideas of Confucianism, the fundamental concept of which is "ren"—humanity. This example demonstrates that man cannot do without some kind of religion and the importance of its diversity for the development of thought. And from all this diversity, beliefs of a humanistic nature are selected.

If Christianity had satisfied the spiritual needs of the broad masses of the Middle East, Islam would not have been able to develop into a world religion. Theologians can explain this, but without God's support, it could not have happened. Clearly, complex Christian dogmas were not suited to the mental capacities of the people of that time and required faith rather than reason and imagination to comprehend them. Islam, in its simplicity, was easier to grasp and offered the opportunity to channel human creativity into culture and science, which explains the Islamic world's success in these fields over several centuries.

However, in the Islamic world, secular and spiritual authority were closely united; the caliphs embodied both secular and spiritual authority, and this situation imposed certain limitations on the realization of Muslims' creative potential. Meanwhile, in Christianity, different conditions were ripe for the development of a new mentality, and these proved more fruitful. In Europe, the struggle between the papacy and numerous secular rulers was ongoing, with varying success. This weakened control over theological thought and even stimulated it to interpret complex Christian dogma from various angles, both in the interests of the opposing sides and in the interests of theology itself. The matter was also facilitated by the fact that the foundations for such work had already been laid by the Church Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries: Ambrose of Milan, St. Angustin, and Jerome of Stridon. Under such conditions, Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142), Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) and others began to work in Western Europe.

Clearly, Christianity allowed for greater freedom of will than Islam. When the Church in Europe ceased to satisfy the spiritual needs of the people, the opportunity arose for a reform movement to emerge, which touched the Church itself. Since God is not indifferent to religion, the success of the reformers could not have occurred without His support. But believers must also be prepared to embrace new ideas. History shows that new ideas in science and art are not always accepted by the masses. It might be thought that some ideas matured in the minds of individuals but were not accepted, so we may not know about them. They may not have been accepted by the masses because they were false. Nevertheless, as historical experience shows, certain false ideas, that is, those contrary to the will of God, are accepted. The examples of Nazism in Germany and Communism in Russia, which led to the sacrifice of millions of human lives and the sorrow and suffering of the people, demonstrate that God cannot oppose false ideas accepted by the masses. That is, it is not only Hitler or Stalin who are to blame for the misfortunes endured by humanity, but also the people themselves, for people choose as leaders those who best correspond to their collective consciousness. Therefore, certain questions may arise. Is human will connected to the will of God? And if so, how? If we accept Hegel's formulation that "the will of man is nothing but man’s thought expressing itself outwardly in action" (COLLINGWOOD R. G. 1996: 126), then we must first understand the nature of human thoughts. Certainly, some of them may be inspired by God, and the realization of precisely such thoughts will be God's will, and their very presence testifies to God's desire to have His helper in man. Many human opinions may be prompted by natural needs. Others may arise to develop the results of learning, the assimilated previous experience of both oneself and others, or the imitation of prevailing traditions and customs. It is the realization of such thoughts, some of which may be erroneous, that constitutes human will, which manifests itself when a person fails to hear the voice of God, revealed in their conscience. God can instill thoughts in a person aimed at their further development and improvement, which means that if thoughts lack novelty, they lack the will of God. However, the presence of novelty does not necessarily mean that the thoughts are inspired by God.

At the heart of mass human consciousness lies a collective belief in the possibility of quickly and easily improving one's living conditions. People can fall for their own fantasies and fictitious explanations of reality, and mutual hypnotic influences are inevitable, especially when clear and expressive ideas are thrown into the crowd by self-confident individuals. Most people don't consider their own psychology and don't understand that believing in an idea doesn't mean they believe in its truth.ность.

An authoritative institution that preaches moral principles and enforces them can convince people of the fallacy of accepted ideas. When the church loses its authority due to outdated religious dogma or when it is stripped of its authority by secular power, it is unable to resist the spread of false ideas. The church loses its authority even more so when its ministers themselves violate the commandments they preach. When the church fails to influence the masses, the possibility of the emergence of individuals like Stalin and Hitler arises, and when the church becomes a handmaiden of secular power, individuals like Putin emerge.

To maintain stability in the state, secular power must support the authority of the church, and the church itself must reform from time to time. It follows that the state and church cannot be separated; they must actively cooperate. Moreover, the ideal form of government should be a Regimentum mixtum (mixed government), which can overcome the conflict between the adherents of discipline and liberalism.

FRANCE ANATOLE. 1911. Honey-bee. London. John Lane.

COLLINGWOOD R.G. 1946. The Idea of History. Oxford.

JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts.