Priest Andrey Lorgus
It is doubtful that biologist professor Alexey Kondrashov speaks from a scientific position, and not from a worldview. The author evaluates the essay of priest Alexander Ovcharenko as a believer. But the believer is “on the contrary.”
The professor writes that “itself has been considered by us (biologists) as an indisputable fact for more than 100 years.” Are there indisputable facts in science?
Even the most well-known scientific facts are periodically subjected to serious criticism and even canceled as such. The speed of light, the age of the Earth, the structure of the Cosmos, the origin of the pyramids - much is disputed. There is, perhaps, not a single fact that has not been subjected to, especially in biology.
It seems that “the origin of man from apes” is just a phrase. If Alexey considers himself a scientist, then the use of phraseological units is not a scientific approach, but a worldview.
Biology is a young science; it generally deals with very strange facts. Here, Alexey writes: “100 years.” But over 100 years, the attitude towards anthropogenesis has changed many times. During all these “100 years” in anthropology there is also a polygenetic theory of the origin of man, which claims that man descended from different types and in different parts of the Earth. A hundred years ago there was no talk at all that man originated from a single root. It was only in the second half of the twentieth century that it became a truly scientific belief that man has one root genome. Many anthropologists refuted it precisely with doubts about a single human ancestor.
And there are many such facts. Neanderthals were once thought to be the ancestors of humans. Now doubt arises about this too. There is not a single indisputable fact in modern biology that has not changed in a hundred years. Therefore, such an expression looks unscientific. But as an ideological phrase, this is possible.
The phrase itself “is considered by us (biologists) as an indisputable fact” is similar to an ideological slogan. So, for example, in the 60s they said: “science has proven that there is no God,” or “Gagarin flew into space and did not see God there, therefore, He does not exist.” This is a worldview context, ideological, not scientific.
The assumption about the origin of man precisely from the monkey may also be dubious for biology. Paleoanthropologists talk about a common ancestor of humans and apes, but it certainly wasn’t a monkey. And modern biology does not know the species that could be the common ancestor of humans. 30 years ago, when I was studying biology at the university, Professor Uryson said that the species of hominid that claims to be the common ancestor of humans and monkeys is most likely from the family of lemurs. As I understand it, this too is now being questioned.
The very type of phrase “man descended from apes” is an ideological phraseological unit late XIX century, which today, it seems to me, is scientifically unacceptable. Speaking in the language of evolutionary biology, we can say that man evolved from some common ancestor, common to monkeys and humans. It would be smarter that way. And we, Christian anthropologists, can argue with this, but argue on scientific grounds.
The very origin of man as a species, that is, the change of hundreds and thousands of generations of species, and such a change that leads to the formation of a new species, seems doubtful. It is not observable, it is not repeatable and thus not verifiable. From the point of view of provability, it is very shaky. In fact, this fact is disputed, and from a scientific point of view! That's why the fact of indisputability may just be questioned.
We, as scientists, can present this fact, which Alexey cites, as a fact that needs a critical attitude. In addition, this is a theoretical fact - the result of some theorizing, a complex scientific process that allows scientists to come to some conclusion. The hypothesis of the origin of man from a certain species of hominid is an act of theorizing, not observation. Categories of evidence do not apply here.
The conclusion about the origin of man from a certain species of hominid is precisely a conclusion, not a fact. Moreover, this is an assumption about the deepest past. And those scientific methods that modern science uses to reconstruction past, it is necessary to discuss, discuss in the space of other sciences - physics, chemistry, geology.
The methods themselves can also be challenged. Among them are “relative dating” methods based on sediment stratigraphy. But absolute dating methods, radiocarbon dating, etc. are not accurate for the hundred-thousand-year past. Why can't we challenge the conclusions made on such a weak basis?
In my opinion, the “disputability” of the fact of the origin of humans from other species of hominids is truly scientific. A fact can be disputed, it can be discussed, and there is no need to say that “science has clearly proven it.”
The very approach of the scientist, Professor A. Kondrashov is a little disrespectful towards the readers of Orthodoxy and Peace. He believes that we are ignoramuses, illiterate people, and do not know how the scientific worldview differs from the religious one. With this approach we cannot have any dialogue. We are conducting a dialogue, we are open to dialogue, and this, in particular, means that any fact can be disputed.
By the way, evolutionary biology has different theoretical approaches, and the respected professor knows this very well. There are different approaches to anthropogenesis. He thinks about it and scientific world, and the theological world, and anthropologists different directions. Even in the evolutionary approach there are different theories: Synthetic theory, Coevolution theory, Ecosystem non-Darwinian theory of evolution, etc. There is something to discuss here.
I understand that a respected professor treats his science of biology as something in which he is very confident. He is like a person and at the same time like a scientist - bearer of faith, a deep conviction that it is biology that provides such an indisputable fact. This is the case here his deep faith into what is, from his point of view, a fact. After all, if this fact were doubtful and disputed, he would not have acted with such aggression against the priest who wrote the essay. But he speaks with great conviction, which is quite understandable if we assume that the very “fact of the origin of man from ape” is an object of faith of the professor.
It’s normal that he believes and has such conviction. But this has nothing to do with science, because... And this type of knowledge can help a scientist in the process of comprehending some knowledge.
But the presence of such faith in a scientist is surprising. Because we said that the indisputability of a fact is unscientific. Science has generally been able to doubt since the time of Descartes. Why does Alexey consider this fact to be the only indisputable fact in the whole world - after all, everything else is disputable: the laws of physics of Newton, and the laws of Einstein, but the origin of man from the monkey is indisputable? So this is a matter of faith?
I understand that faith for a scientist is a necessary condition for knowledge. Without faith in his knowledge, Descartes would not have composed his hypotheses, despite the fact that many of them were not accepted. But this did not make Descartes’ feat any less.
A scientist can and has the right to believe. Alexey Kondrashov believes in the origin of man from the monkey. But that doesn't mean it's scientific fact. The professor speaks at in this case against religious belief in the creation of man, and this is understandable. But he acts as a person who believes in a worldview myth.
As a faith, I admit such “indisputability of a fact,” but as scientific proof, I do not.
Yes, everyone can believe in their own way. And scientific conclusions can be very different, but they must be independent of the scientist’s faith, although he himself intellectual process may rely on faith - this is normal.
And then, in anthropogenesis, in biology, in history, in archeology, so many changes have occurred over these decades, so much new material has been accumulated. And the modern anthropologist has no idea who is whose relative, who is whose ancestor. Such a number of modern views on the origin of modern human families (linguistic, genetic) does not reject the possibility of a critical attitude and attempts at dialogue in matters of anthropogenesis.
We, anthropologists, theologians, biologists, really need dialogue within the boundaries scientific knowledge, but then we cannot talk about indisputability, about the fact that science already has an accurate opinion about how everything really happened. We must speak while understanding each other and what methodology we use, what paradigm we think in, and how we believe.
1 option
Part A
1 person modern look appeared
a) 2-1.5 billion years ago
b) 4-3 million years ago
c) 100-40 thousand years ago
d) 6-5 thousand years ago
2. At the turn of the IV-III millennium BC. e.
a) the first civilizations arose
b) the Neolithic revolution began
c) modern man appeared
d) religion was born
3. Ancient Eastern ruler
a) had unlimited power over his subjects
b) chosen by the highest nobility
c) had only religious functions
d) had no property
4. “There are not many gods, but only the great Ahuramazda, who is Good and Light.” This is the basic idea of religion
a) Judaism
b) Buddhism
c) Zoroastrianism
d) Islam
5. Gaius Julius Caesar
a) first established an indefinite dictatorship in Rome
b) became a Roman emperor
c) was one of the ancient Roman kings
d) was elected as Athenian strategist
6. The Crusades were based on an idea
a) protecting the Christian world from infidels
b) extermination of all non-believers
c) take over the whole world
d) uniting the world into a single state
Part B
1. Establish a correspondence between peoples and their achievements
1) creating a sexagesimal account
2) creating an alphabet
3) construction of giant pyramid tombs
a) Sumerians
b) Chinese
c) Phoenicians
d) Egyptians
2. Define concepts
a) Neolithic revolution
b) eastern despotism
3. Character traits Sparta
a) a militarized state
b) democratic political system
c) the highest power belongs to the people's assembly
d) oligarchic type policy
d) direct democracy
Part B
- Describe the organization of the Christian church in the first centuries of its existence.
- Compare the Frankish state and the Arab Caliphate
Test on the topic “The Ancient World and the Middle Ages”
Option 2
Part A
1. The development of Chinese statehood and civilization was based on ideas
a) Buddhism
b) Taoism
c) Vedism
d) Confucianism
2. The emergence of civilization in Mesopotamia is associated with the people
a) Akkadians
b) Sumerians
c) Assyrians
3. Belief in and worship of human descent from an imaginary ancestor (human, animal or plant)
a) totemism
b) animism
c) fetishism
4. The oldest hearth Greek civilization
b) Sparta
5. Medieval European civilization was predominantly
a) industrial b) handicraft c) small-scale goods d) agricultural
6. Feature that determined the development of Byzantium in the Middle Ages
a) its ties with Ancient Rome were severed in Antiquity
b) the role of the church was weak in it
c) she was a direct heir Ancient Rome
d) it was completely destroyed by the barbarians
Part B
1. Select the signs of the Neolithic revolution (indicate only numbers)
a) cultivation of cereals and raising animals
b) lack of private property
c) predominantly nomadic lifestyle
d) the existence of a neighboring community
e) the emergence of tribal gods
f) the predominance of gathering
2. Define the concepts:
A) feudal relations
B) Carolingian revival
B) antiquity
3. Match the event with the date
1) the beginning of the conquests of Alexander the Great
2) establishment of a republic in Rome
3) fall of the Western Roman Empire
4) foundation of Rome
5) division of Rome
a) 753 BC e.
b) 509 BC e.
c) 336 BC e.
d) 395 AD e.
e) 476 AD e.
Part B
- List and explain the main provisions of the Muslim faith.
- Compare the Byzantine Empire and the Frankish Empire
Homework: Joan of Arc and Hundred Years' War(creative project)
Flattery, intrigue, and conspiracies were widespread at his court. Of the 109 emperors, only 34 died of natural causes.
Features of the Byzantine Christian Church
1) head of the church – Patriarch of Constantinople;
2) the patriarch is appointed and removed by the emperor;
3) the Byzantine church did not have extensive land holdings and wealth; the emperor bestowed and deprived them of them;
4) the church did not have independence from the imperial power;
5) church life is subordinated to state interests.
Justinian(527-565) - under him, Byzantium reached the peak of its power .
Internal and foreign policy Emperor Justinian (527-565)
Domestic policy
· supported the church;
· persecution of pagans and Jews;
· drawing up a code of laws
· reduction in the number of provinces;
· concentration of civil and military power in the hands of provincial rulers;
suppression of the uprising "Nika" in 532;
c) iron.
6. In which human group did property inequality appear?
a) in the human herd;
b) in the tribal community;
c) in the neighboring community.
7.Several tribal communities living in the same area:
a) the human herd;
c) the neighboring community.
8. Who ruled the tribal community?
c) elders.
9. The most important, powerful god of Ancient Egypt:
a) god of the Earth;
b) god of the Kingdom of the Dead;
c) the sun god.
10. Writing in Ancient Egypt:
a) hieroglyphs;
b) cuneiform;
c) papyrus.
11. Who first described the life of the ancient Egyptians?
a) Herodotus;
b) Hammurabi;
12. Writing in Ancient Mesopotamia:
a) linear writing;
b) hieroglyphs;
c) cuneiform.
a) in Phenicia;
b) in Nubia;
c) in Egypt.
14. What was the name of the country where the cities of Byblos were located,SiDon, Tyr?
a) Israel;
b) Assyria;
c) Phenicia.
WORKING WITH SOURCES
Materials on the topic “History of the Ancient East”
Read the documents. Draw a conclusion about the position of women in the states of the Ancient East.Hammurabi's Law System
From the laws of King Hammurabi
(§ 148) If a man takes a wife, leprosy will befall her (?), [and] he intends to take another for himself - he can take, [but] should not reject a wife who has suffered leprosy; she can live in the house he will build, and he must support her as long as she lives.
(§ 149) If this woman does not agree to live in her husband's house, he must return to her the dowry she brought from her father's house; she can leave.
(§ 150) If a man gives his wife a field, a garden, a house or [movable] property and gives her a document with a seal, then after the death of her husband her children cannot demand anything from her in court; a mother can give her inheritance to her favorite son; she should not give it to her brother (68).
Assyrian laws
[§ 4.] If a male or female slave accepts anything from the hands of a man’s wife, then the nose and ears of the male and female slave must be cut off to make up for the theft. A man can cut off his wife's ears. And if he forgives his wife’s sin and does not cut off her ears, then he should not cut off a male or female slave (and) compensate for the theft.
[§ 36.] If a woman still lives (?) (7) in her father's house, or if her husband has settled her separately and her husband goes into the field (8) and leaves her neither oil, nor wool, nor clothing, nor feed, or anything at all, and will not send her anything from the field, then this woman must be faithful to her husband for 5 years and should not settle with [another] husband; if she has children, then they must be hired and [thus] fed, and a woman must wait for her husband and should not settle with [another] husband. If she has no children, then she must wait 5 years for her husband, but when the 6th year comes, she can settle with whatever husband she wants. When her husband comes, he will have no rights to her, she is free for her subsequent (i.e. second) husband.
2. What crimes are discussed in the passage, what punishments were provided for these crimes?
From the laws of King Hammurabi
(§ 1) If a person, having accused a person under an oath, casts [suspicion of] murder on him and does not prove it, the one who accused him must be killed.
(§ 2) If a person casts [suspicion of] witchcraft on a person and does not prove it, the one who is suspected of witchcraft must go to the River (47) and throw himself into the River. If the River takes possession of him, the one who accused him can take his house; and if the River clears this person [of accusation] and he remains unharmed, the one who cast [suspicion of] witchcraft on him must be killed, and the one who threw himself into the River receives the house of his accuser.
(§ 3) If a person, having testified in a court case about a crime, does not prove the words he said, then, if this is a court case about life, this person must be killed.
(§ 4) If he testified in a court case about grain or silver, he must suffer the punishment determined in such a court case.
3. Draw a conclusion about the power and position of the Egyptian pharaohs.
Inscription on the tombstone of the Egyptian nobleman Shotepabra, 1888-1850. BC e.
Glorify the king in your bodies, carry him in your hearts. He is the god of wisdom who lives in hearts. ...He is the radiant sun, illuminating both earths1 more than the solar disk; it is greener than the great Nile; he fills both lands with strength; he is life giving breath. He gives food to those who follow him, and nourishes those who follow his path. Nutrition is the king, multiplication is his mouth, he is the producer of what exists... Fight for his name, purify yourself by swearing by his life, and you will be free from poverty...
1 This refers to Upper (Northern) Egypt and Lower (Southern) Egypt.
Construction of the pyramids (Herodotus, History, II, 124-125.)
The pyramid itself is made as follows: with the help of ledges, which some call teeth, others call altars. When it was first made like this, the remaining stones began to be lifted by machines made from short pieces of wood; the stone was lifted from the ground onto the first row of ledges; when the stone fell into place, it was placed on the second machine, which stood on the first row of ledges; from here to the second row the stone was lifted using another machine; for as many rows of ledges there were, so many machines were there, or there was one and the same machine, easily moved from one row to another when they wanted to lift a stone; so we have covered both methods, exactly as they say. First, the upper parts of the pyramid were finished, then the parts that supported them, and the last to be finished were the ground parts and the lowest parts that lie on the ground. An Egyptian inscription inscribed on a pyramid indicates how much was spent on radishes, onions and garlic for the workers; and as I well remember, the translator who read the letters told me that sixteen hundred talents of silver were spent (6). If this is the case, how much more could have been spent on the iron used to work, and food and clothing for the workers? If the said time went into this work, then, as I think, a lot of time also passed in breaking stones and dragging them and digging underground.
5. Draw conclusions about the development of medicine based on these sources.
Embalming the dead (Herodotus,II, 85-90)
This is how mourning for the dead and burial take place. If a man who enjoys some respect dies in the house, then the entire female population smears mud on their heads or faces. Then, leaving the deceased in the house, the women themselves run around the city and, girded high and showing their bare breasts, beat themselves and their chests. The entire female family joins them. On the other hand, men beat their chests, also belted high. After this, the body is taken away for embalming.
For this purpose, special masters have been appointed who are engaged in the craft of embalming. When a dead person is brought to them, they show the relatives a choice of wooden painted images of the deceased. At the same time, the masters are called the most The best way embalming, used [when embalming someone] whom it is not appropriate for me to call by name in this case (Osiris - Dionysus). Then they offer the second method, which is simpler and cheaper, and finally the third - the cheapest. Then they ask [the relatives] for what price [and in what way] they want to embalm the deceased. If the price is similar, then the relatives return home, and the craftsmen remain and immediately get to work with the most careful attention. First, they remove the brain through the nostrils with an iron hook. In this way, only part of the brain is removed, the rest by injecting [dissolving] drugs. Then an incision is made in the groin with a sharp Ethiopian stone and the entire abdominal cavity is cleared of entrails. Having cleaned the abdominal cavity and washed it with palm wine, the masters then clean it again with ground incense. Finally, the womb is filled with pure ground myrrh, casia and other incense, except incense, and stitched up again. After this, the body is placed in soda lye for 70 days. However, the body cannot be left in the lye for more than 70 days. After this 70-day period, after washing the body, they wrap it in a bandage made of fine linen cut into ribbons and spread it with gum - it is used instead of glue. After this, the relatives take the body back, make a wooden sarcophagus in the form of a human figure and place the deceased there. Having been placed in a coffin, the body is stored in the family tomb, where the coffin is placed upright against the wall.
This is how rich people embalm their dead. If relatives, due to the high cost of [the first], have to choose the second method of embalming, then [the masters] do this. Using a washing tube, cedar oil is injected into the abdominal cavity of the deceased, without, however, cutting the groin or removing the entrails. They inject oil through the anus and then, plugging it so that the oil does not flow out, place the body in soda lye on a certain number days. On the last day, the oil previously poured into it is released from the intestines. The oil is so strong that it decomposes the stomach and entrails, which come out along with the oil. Soda lye decomposes the meat, so that only skin and bones remain from the deceased. Then the body is returned [to the family], without doing anything else with it.
The third method of embalming, which is used to embalm the poor, is this. Radish juice is poured into the abdominal cavity and then the body is placed in soda lye for 70 days. After this, the body is returned to the family.
From a doctor's prescription for a skull fracture without damage to the soft tissues of the head (from the Smith papyrus)
If you examine a person with a skull fracture under the skin of his head, and there is nothing on it, then you feel his wound. You will find a protruding tumor on the outside of the break that is in his head, and his eye is slanted because of this on the side that is under the injury, and that he is walking and dragging the sole. You must define it as an injury inflicted from the outside, with the head of the joint of his shoulder not separated, and at the same time his fingernails are curled into the middle of his hand, he is bleeding from his nostrils and suffers from a stiff neck. We can cure the disease.
TEST ON THE TOPIC “ANTIQUE CIVILIZATION”
1. The most ancient center of Greek civilization a) Athens | 2. Julius Caesar a) first established an indefinite dictatorship in Rome |
3. Historians consider the end of antiquity to be a) the 5th century. BC e. b) IV century. BC e. | 4. The emergence of history as a special field of knowledge was associated with the name of a) Heraclitus b) Phidias |
5.Characteristic features of Sparta a) a militarized state | 6.Characteristic features of Athens a) a militarized state |
7. Octavian Augustus a) became the first Roman emperor | 8. An ancient Greek polis is a) a city-state with a district |
9. Match the event with the date | 10. Match the event with the date |
TEST ON THE TOPIC “THE ANCIENT WORLD”
1. What historical figures of the Ancient World are we talking about?
French scientist who read ancient Egyptian writings Ruler of Babylon. BC e. God of the Jews Founder of Buddhism Chinese sage Prince of Athens who killed the Minotaur Greek god thunder and lightning Ruler of Athens who abolished debt slavery. Ancient Greek scientist, “father of history.” Ancient Greek scientist, teacher of Alexander the Great. The legendary founder of Rome and its first king. Ruler of Carthage, enemy of Rome. Ruler of Rome who seized power in 49 BC. e.
Select answers from the list of personalities:
Hermes; Herodotus; Aristotle; Pericles; Demeter; Phidias; Hades; Dionysus; Artemis; Darius III; Spartacus; Solon; Apollo; Ares; Prometheus; Milo; Mars; Cato; Hannibal; Euclid; Athena; Scipio; Seneca; Titus Livy; ; Tacitus; Cleopatra; Demosthenes; Sophocles; Philip II; Vesta; Romulus; Nero. Hephaestus; Agamemnon; Hector; Aegean; Daedalus; Champollion; Hammurabi; Cheops; Confucius; Theseus; Polyphemus; Anubis; Paris; Homer; Odysseus; Poseidon; Moses; Solomon; Thutmose III; Gautama; Adam; Abraham; Ganesha; Darius I; Qin Shihuang; Eris; Aphrodite; Amon-Ra; Hercules; Penelope; Zeus; That; Yahweh.
2. What historical terms are we talking about?
In Greek, “military leader” Descendants of the founders of Rome Council of Elders (in Ancient Greece) A state governed by elected people (in Rome) World religion, which originated about 2000 years ago, the Organization of Christians Collective of relatives. Belief in supernatural forces. A request addressed to the gods. The man who stood at the head of the tribe. The first metal to be used was Tall Reed, a material for writing. Ruler of Egypt. An alloy of copper and tin. Temple servants. A creature with the body of a lion and the head of a man guards the pyramids. Writing in Mesopotamia. Small Greek state. In ancient Greek - people. People power. Council of the nobility in ancient Greece..
Choose answers from the list:
Relief; Taxes; Know; Elder; Papyrus; Gathering; Nobles; Religion; Dart; Prayer; Copper; Harpoon; Bronze; Amulet; Pebbles; Sickle; A spear; Genus; Oasis; Incense; Temple; Merchant; Pharaoh; Mummy; Bible; Priests; Leader; Sarcophagus; Cuneiform; Pyramid; Sphinx; Buddhism; Myths; Hieroglyphs; Democracy; Areopagus; Bamboo; Rent; Old Testament; Tablets; Moneylender; Slave; Ram; Caste; Huns; Fresco; Jungle; Demos; Reform; Policy. Christianity; Duty; Speaker; Veterans; Athlete; Piraeus; Amphoras; Shipyards; Ceramics; Hellas; Theater; Teacher; Apostles; Style; Portico; Tragedy; Palaestra; Orchestra; Judas; Trier; Strategist; Phalanx; Rome; Chiton; Clio; Triumph; Attica; Pirates; Laconia; Hippodrome; Vestal Virgin; Nika; Olympus; Arch; Legionary; Senate; Baths; Barbarians; Republic; Consuls; Hellenes; Agora; Comedy; Observatory; Patricia; Forum; Gladiators; Amphitheatres; Coliseum; Churches.
ASSIGNMENTS ON THE TOPIC “HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES”
1. Give the correct answer to the questions:
1. What is a fief? On what terms was it given to the feudal lord?
2. Characterize the feudal hierarchy (feudal ladder).
3. What types of duties did serfs have in the Middle Ages?
4. Explain the medieval proverb: “My vassal’s vassal is not my vassal.”
5. Explain the medieval proverb: “City air makes you free.”
6. In what year did the empire divide into Western and Eastern?
7. In 476, the inhabitants of the newly created Eastern Empire called it Rome. What did the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire call themselves?
8. In what year did Constantinople fall?
9. In what year did the split in the Christian church take place?
10. Who was the head of the Western Christian Church?
11. Indicate the name of the religion that, after the schism in 1054, the Byzantine Church began to preach.
12. In what year did the crusaders attack Constantinople and plunder it?
13. By how many years did the Eastern Empire outlive the Western?
2. Define the terms:
1. commune
3. Inquisition
4. indulgence
3. Name the classes, what did the representatives of each class do?
4. List the monastic and spiritual knightly orders known to you.
5. What did the medieval proverb mean: “What falls from the cart is lost”?
6. Read the passage and answer the question: Under what conditions did the serf peasant gain personal freedom in the city?
“Let the city enjoy freedom, so that every newcomer who has lived there one year and one day and is not recognized by anyone as a serf, will no longer be forced to perform serf duties...”
Choose the correct answer.1. The city whose inhabitants won the fight against the lord: a) monopoly; b) commune; c) fortune. | 2. City governing body elected by citizens? a) the Council of People's Deputies; b) town hall; c) city council; d) council of craftsmen. |
3. What is a workshop? a) place of extraction of raw materials; b) place of processing of raw materials; c) union of artisans of the same specialty | 4. What is a guild? a) the union of elders; B) union of merchants; c) an alliance of rulers. |
5. What is a fair? a) large area; b) annual auction; c) place of tax collection. | 6. City council building in a medieval city? c) town hall |
TESTS ON THE TOPIC “THE MIDDLE AGES”
1.What phenomenon or event was the impetus for the Great Migration? 1) the onslaught of the Huns on the Visigoths, 2) sharp climate change East of the Rhine, 3) a sharp weakening of the Western Roman Empire, 4) overpopulation and lack of land among the Germanic tribes. | 2.What is the customary name for all ministers of the Christian Church? 1) priests, 2) the clergy, 3) monks, 4) laymen. |
3.Which Church is usually called Catholic? 1) Christian Church of the East, 2) Christian Church of the West, 3) The Church, headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, 4) Armenian Church headed by the Catholicos. |
1) nobles, 2) feudal lords, 3) landowners, 4) seniors. |
5.Which majordomo became the first king of the Carolingian dynasty? 1) Charles Martel, 2) Pepin the Short, 3) Charlemagne, 4) Karl the Bald. | 6.What title did Charlemagne receive in the year 800? 1) king of Italy 2) the king of the Franks, 3) Emperor of Byzantium, 4) Emperor of the Frankish Empire. |
7.What classes were dominant in medieval Europe? 1) clergy and feudal lords 2) merchants and artisans, 3) feudal lords and bourgeois, 4) the entire third estate. | 8. A vassal was considered the one who: 1) provides his subordinate with land for service, 2) receives land from the lord for service, 3) divides the feud into parts, |
9.The medieval proverb “City air makes you free” meant that: 1) the peasants could find protection in the city from the tyranny of the lord, 2) having lived more than a year in the city, the peasant became personally free, 3) the artisan, leaving the city walls, became dependent on the lord, 4) everyone wanted to live in the city. | 10.Who was called a heretic in the Middle Ages? 1) a believer, but not in agreement with the teachings of the Church, 2) a dependent peasant who ran away from the lord, 3) the person who bought the indulgence, 4) a healer, an expert in herbs and potions. |
11.What are the names of things through which miracles occur? 2) relics, 4) religion. | 12. In the Middle Ages, they sold documents on parchment with a seal about the forgiveness of one or another sin. This document: 1) tithe, 2) alms, 3) relic, 4) indulgence. |
13.What is the main difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches? 1) their parishioners pray to different Gods, 2) nothing 3) different dogmas and rituals, 4) different degrees of influence on rulers. | 14. The Inquisition is: 1) a type of heresy, 2) monastic order, 3) church tribunal for the investigation of heresy, 4) one of the church shrines. |
WORKING WITH A SOURCE ON THE TOPIC “HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES”
Read the source text and answer the questions:
1. What punishments were provided for killing a person? Why were the amounts of fines different?
From "Salic Truth"
If anyone takes the life of a free Frank or a barbarian living under the Salic law and is caught, he will be sentenced to pay... 200 solidi.
If anyone takes the life of a person in the royal service... he is sentenced to pay... 600 solidi.
If anyone takes the life of a Roman, the royal companion, and is caught, he will be sentenced to pay... 300 solidi.
If anyone takes the life of a Roman - a landowner and not a royal companion - he is sentenced to pay... 100 solidi.
If anyone takes the life of a Roman, a taxable person, he is sentenced to pay 63 solidi.
Abstract topics
The Arab Caliphate: emergence, campaigns of conquest, collapse.
2. Aristotle, his life and writings.
Athenian democracy. The Byzantine Empire in world history. Greco-Persian Wars. Spiritual knightly orders. Imperial Rome: state and society. The use of ancient subjects and architectural forms in the art of subsequent eras (for example, painting, sculpture or architecture). From religion to mythology and philosophy: changing forms of awareness of the world in ancient times. The origin of the world and man in the mythology of the peoples of the Ancient World. The origin and development of Greek philosophy. What achievements of civilizations and peoples of the Ancient World do we still use today? History of Ancient Egypt (Mesopotamia, India, China, Ancient Greece, etc.) from the point of view of civilizational theories. Great personalities: Alexander the Great. The influence of Roman law on the law of Western states. Features of the mentality of medieval Europeans. Story medieval Europe from the point of view of historical anthropology. Arabic art. Mutual influence of Muslim and European cultures In the Middle Age. State and society in the countries of the Ancient East. The historical method of Herodotus and the “pragmatic history” of Thucydides. History, rhetoric, morality in the Greco-Roman tradition. Charlemagne and the formation of the Frankish Empire. The Crusades and their consequences. Norman conquest of England. Fundamentals of Christian chronology of history.
27. Plato’s doctrine of ideas: mythological and philosophical elements. The world of ideas, the world of things, the world of numbers.
Political and legal thought Ancient China. The reign of the Plantagenet dynasty in England and the emergence of parliament. Religious wars in France and the establishment of the Bourbon dynasty. Creation and activities of the Jesuit Order.
32. Socrates, his life, martyrdom, the ideas of his oral teaching.
The socio-political role of the medieval city. Medieval knighthood. Hundred Years' War. Cicero's teaching on law and state. Formation of the estate monarchy in France. Characteristic features of medieval historicism and genres of medieval
historiography. The Viking Age in the history of medieval Europe.
40. Ethics and social philosophy of Aristotle.
LITERATURE
Alekseev of humanity. M., 1984. Andreev of man and society. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M., 1988. Ancient civilization. M., 1973. Antiquity and Byzantium. M., 1975 Bartoshek M. Roman law: concepts, terms, definitions. M., 1989. Bengston G. Rulers of the Hellenistic era. M, 1982. Bickerman E. Chronology of the Ancient World: the Middle East and Antiquity. M., 1975. Blavatsky and ancient society. M., 1976. Vardiman E. Woman in the Ancient World. M., 1990. Vellar K. Architecture of the land of the pharaohs: the dwelling of the living, the dead and the gods. M, 1990. Vinnichuk L. People, morals and customs of Ancient Greece and Rome. M., 1988. Dreamtime: myths and legends of the Australian aborigines. M., 1987. Granovsky on the history of the Middle Ages. M., 1986. Grigulevich. M., 1985. Gurevich and the society of medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries. M., 1989. Donini A. At the origins of Christianity: (from its origins to Justinian). M., 1989. Ancient civilizations. M., 1989. Fences in the East. M., 1980. Historians of Greece: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon. M., 1976. History of the Ancient East: the emergence of the most ancient class societies and the first centers of slave-owning civilization - a dictionary of a young historian. Parts I and II. M., 1983-1988. History of the Middle Ages / Ed. 3. V. Udaltsova, . M., 1990-1991. Istrin and the development of writing. M., 1965. Calendar customs and rituals of the peoples of East Asia: annual cycle. M., 1989. Cardini F. Origins of medieval chivalry. M., 1987. Keram K. Gods. Tombs. Scientists. Novel of archeology M., 1986. Knabe Tacitus: time, life, books. M., 1981. , Shevoroshkin's writings are silent: mysteries of the ancient Aegean. M., 1970. , Gunther R. Decline and death of the Western Roman Empire and the emergence of the German kingdoms (until the middle of the 6th century). M., 1984. Koshelenko polis in the Hellenistic East. M., 1979. Culture and art of a medieval city. M., 1984. Kumanetsky K. History of culture of Ancient Greece and Rome. M., 1990. Kun and the myths of Ancient Greece. Manual for teachers. 5th ed. M., 1975. , Froyanov. Antiquity. Byzantium. Ancient Rus'. L., 1988. Larichev of Adam's ancestors: stories of an archaeologist. M., 1978. Legends and tales of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome / Comp. . M., 1988. Lipinskaya Y., Martsiniak M. Mythology of Ancient Egypt M., 1983. The Byzantines lived in Litavrin. M., 1974. Lyubimov of the Ancient World. M., 1980. Masson of civilization. L., 1989. Lighthouse of the first kings. M., 1983. Nemirovsky of Ariadne (from the history of classical archeology). Voronezh, 1972. Nemirovsky Gutenberg. M., 1989. Nikiforov and The World History. M., 1975. Plutarch. Selected biographies: In 2 vols. M., 1987. Reitses d'Arc: facts, legends, hypotheses. L., 1982. Sventsitskaya Christianity: pages of history. M, 1987. Suetonius Tranquill Gaius. The Life of the Twelve Caesars. M. , 1988. At the dawn of human history. M. 1989. Translated from German. M., 1989. Toynbee A. J. Comprehension of history. world. 3rd ed., revised and additional. M., 1976. Utchenko Caesar. 2nd ed. M., 2nd ed. . M., 1979. Fedorov cities of Italy: Rome, Florence, Venice. Monuments of history and culture. M., 1990. Frazer branch: Study of magic and religion. , 1986. Thucydides. History. L., 1981. Reader on the history of the Ancient World. Tutorial. 2nd ed., rev. and additional Saratov, 1989. Tseren E. Biblical hills. M., 1986. Civilization: Theory, history and modernity. M., 1989. , Cheboksarova. Races. Cultures. 2nd ed., rev. and additional M., 1985. Schachermayr F. Alexander the Great. 2nd ed., rev. M., 1986. , Temkin ancient india. M., 1975.
Talk to the earth and he will instruct you,
And the fish of the sea will tell you.
Who does not recognize in all this,
Why did the hand of the Lord do this?
Job. 12:8-9.
The question of the origin of the world, the nature and nature of this origin is one of the most difficult, but at the same time one of the most fundamental and significant in the dialogue between science and religion in modern society. What is the origin of the world: creation or evolution? This is a problem that is extremely important not only for Orthodox dogmatic theology, but also for all Orthodox Christians, since the solution to this problem is related to many questions that directly affect our Orthodox teaching and worldview: about the relative merits of science and theology, about modern philosophy and patristic teaching, about the doctrine of man (anthropology), about our attitude to the writings of the holy fathers, to knowledge and serious understanding of their creations, about our attitude to modern philosophy, i.e. so-called “the wisdom of this age”, and about the Orthodox interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, especially the book of Genesis.
In this study, based on the experience of the Church, mainly the judgments of the holy fathers, and consideration of the theory of evolution in its scientific embodiment, I will try to resolve the question of the degree of legitimacy of the evolutionary theory in its claims to be presented as the only correct and true teaching about the origin and development of the world and person.
SCIENCE AND DIVINE REVELATION
What is the source of our true knowledge of the primordial world, and how different is it from science? The Orthodox Church teaches us as follows: “ Without any doubt, God is the Creator of all visible and invisible creatures. First of all, He created with His thoughts everything heavenly powers... After that, God created this visible and material world out of nothing. Finally, God created man, who was composed of an immaterial rational soul and a material body, so that from one man thus composed, it could already be seen that he is the Creator of both worlds, both the immaterial and the material." These words, coming from the lips of the Mother Church, are based not on the empty wisdom of the worldly mind, burdened with passions and sin, but on the basis of Divine Revelation and patristic experience, on the creations of the fathers of the highest spiritual life. Let us supplement the arguments we have begun with the words of St. Isaac the Syrian, who spoke about the ascent of the soul to God based on his own spiritual experience: “ And from here he already ascends with his mind to what preceded the creation of the world, when there was no creation, no heaven, no earth, no angels, nothing that was brought into being, and to how God, by His sole good pleasure, suddenly brought everything from non-existence into being, and every thing appeared before Him in perfection».
From this it is clear that the holy ascetics comprehended the primordial world, being in a state of Divine contemplation, which is beyond the limits of natural knowledge. So St. Gregory of Sinaite states that the “eight main objects of contemplation” in a state of perfect prayer are the following:
1) God;
2) The order and structure of life of intelligent forces;
3) Construction of existing(peace) ;
4) Economic descent of the Word;
5) General Resurrection;
6) The terrible second coming of Christ;
7) Eternal torment;
Why should he include “the order and structure of life of rational forces” and “the structure of the existing” with other objects of Divine contemplation that belong to the sphere of theological knowledge, and not science? Is it because there is an aspect and state of creation that is outside the sphere of scientific knowledge and can be seen, just as the Venerable Isaac the Syrian himself once saw God’s creation, contemplatively by the grace of God? The objects of such contemplation can be seen and understood. St. Gregory of Sinai says that, “He with his lips... speaks wisdom and the meditation of the heart - knowledge (Ps. 49: 4) who clearly... with his mind sees imprints of prototypes in things and with his lips, with the assistance of the living word, preaches wisdom from wisdom, but illuminates the heart with the power of renewed spiritual knowledge.”
CONFLICT BETWEEN DIVINE REVELATION AND HUMAN PHILOSOPHY
What is the reason for the dispute between the patristic understanding of the book of Genesis and the teaching of evolution? The latter tries to understand the mysteries of God's creation through natural knowledge and worldly philosophy, without even admitting that there is something in these mysteries that places them beyond the capabilities of this knowledge. After all, the book of Genesis itself is a narrative about God’s Creation, seen in Divine contemplation by the God-seer Moses, and what he saw is confirmed by the experience of the holy fathers who lived later. And although revealed knowledge is higher than natural knowledge, we still know that there can be no contradictions between true Revelation and true natural knowledge. But there may be a conflict between Revelation and human philosophy, which is often erroneous. Thus, there is no disagreement between the knowledge of creation contained in the book of Genesis, as it is interpreted to us by the holy fathers, and the true knowledge of creation acquired by modern science through observation. But here, of course, there is an insoluble conflict between the knowledge contained in the book of Genesis and the empty philosophical speculations of modern scientists, not enlightened by the Faith, about the state of the world during the six days of Creation. Knowing that there is a genuine conflict between the book of Genesis and modern philosophy, and striving to comprehend the truth, we must accept the teaching of the holy fathers and reject the false opinions of philosophers from science. After all, the modern world is so infected with vain modern philosophy posing as science that even very few Orthodox Christians are able or willing to examine this issue dispassionately and find out what the holy fathers really taught, and then accept the patristic teaching, even if it seems incorrect and “dark.” "for the empty wisdom of this world.
PATRISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CREATED WORLD
Regarding the true patristic vision of the primordial world, the most surprising thing is that the holy fathers understand the text of Holy Scripture “as it is written,” but at the same time they do not allow us to interpret it freely or allegorically. “But many “modernly educated” Orthodox Christians are accustomed to associating such an interpretation with Protestant fundamentalism, and are afraid that they will be considered “naive” by sophisticated philosophers of science; but it is clear, on the one hand, how much deeper the patristic interpretation is in comparison with that of the fundamentalists, who have never heard of Divine contemplation and whose interpretation only sometimes accidentally coincides with the patristic one; and on the other hand, how much deeper is the patristic interpretation than that which uncritically accepts the speculations of modern philosophy as if they were true knowledge.”
The primordial world before Adam’s crime was incorruptible, because... there has not yet been death in this world, for “ God did not create death"(Wis. 1:13). A modern Orthodox Christian can understand how the incorruptibility of the primordial world is beyond the purview of scientific research, if he considers the fact of incorruptibility, as it appears through God's action even in our present corruptible world. We cannot find a higher manifestation of this incorruptibility than that of the Most Pure Mother of God, about which we sing: “ Without the corruption of God the Word, we magnify You, who gave birth to the living Mother of God" The Theotokos of our Orthodox services are filled with this teaching. St. John of Damascus points out that in two respects this “incorruption” is outside the laws of nature: ... " and what is without a father is above the natural laws of birth... and what is painless is above the law of birth" What should an Orthodox say when a modern non-believer, under the influence of modern naturalistic philosophy, insists that such “incorruption” is impossible, and demands that Christians believe only in what can be proven or observed scientifically? One should adhere to the Holy Orthodox Faith, which is revealed knowledge, despite the so-called. “science” and its philosophy, and explain the act of incorruptibility as the supernatural works of God. Not in vain St. John Chrysostom closely connects the correct and strict interpretation of the Holy Scriptures (specifically the book of Genesis) with the correctness of the dogmas that are urgently necessary for our salvation. Speaking of those who interpret the book of Genesis allegorically, he writes: “ But we, please, will not listen to these people, we will close our ears to them, but we will believe the Divine Scripture, and, following what it says, we will try to keep sound dogmas in our souls, and at the same time lead a correct life , so that life bears witness to dogmas, and dogmas impart firmness to life... if we... living well, we neglect the right dogmas, we cannot acquire anything for our salvation. If we want to get rid of Gehenna and receive the kingdom, then we must adorn ourselves with both - both the correctness of dogmas and the severity of life».
There is one more question regarding the state of the primordial world that may arise: what are these “millions of years” of the existence of the world that science “knows as a fact”? After all, the fallacy of the “radiocarbon method” and other “absolute” dating systems has already been proven, so it remains to admit that these “millions of years” are also not a fact at all, but again philosophy, some version of the duration of the prehistoric era. The very idea of a million-year existence of the Earth did not arise until people, under the influence of naturalistic philosophy, began to believe in evolution, and since evolution is true, then the age of the world should be calculated in millions of years. And here is the reason for the deception: since evolution has never been observed, it is conceivable only on the assumption that countless millions of years could have caused processes too “small” for modern scientists to record. If we examine this issue objectively and dispassionately, separating genuine evidence from assumptions and philosophy, then it is easy to notice that there is no factual data that would force us to believe that the earth is more than 7500 years old (I, as a historian by first education, was convincingly convinced of this even in the first year of the University). Therefore, scientists’ views on the age of our planet completely depend on their philosophical attitude towards Creation.
It would be appropriate to sum up the review of the patristic teaching about the primordial world with the divine words of St. a father who shone so brightly in prayer that the entire Orthodox Church calls his third “Theologian.” This is St. Simeon the New Theologian. In his 45th Word he speaks from patristic tradition, and also, probably, from own experience, the following: " God in the beginning, before he planted paradise and gave it to the primeval ones, in five days he created the earth and what is on it, and the sky and what is in it, and in the sixth he created Adam and made him lord and king of all visible creation. There was no heaven then. But this world was from God, like a kind of paradise, albeit material and sensory. God gave him into the power of Adam and all his descendants...“And God planted paradise in Eden in the east. And God grew from the earth every red tree for vision and good for food” (Genesis 2:9), with various fruits that never spoiled and never ceased, but were always fresh and sweet and gave great pleasure and pleasantness to the original. ... After Adam’s crime, God did not curse paradise... but cursed only all the other earth, which was also incorruptible and grew everything by itself... The one who became corruptible and mortal because of the crime of the commandment, in all justice, had to live on the corruptible earth and to feed on corruptible food... It is not fitting for the bodies of people to put on the glory of the resurrection and become incorruptible, first all creation was created incorruptible, and then man was taken from it and created, so it is necessary again, first of all creation, to become incorruptible, and then to endure and become incorruptible and the corruptible bodies of people, so that the whole person will again be incorruptible and spiritual and may he dwell in an incorruptible, eternal and spiritual dwelling... Do you see that all this creation was incorruptible in the beginning and was created by God in the order of paradise? But after God she was subordinated to corruption, and submitted to the vanity of men. Know also that what kind of glorification and radiance of creation will be in the next century? For when it is renewed, it will not again be the same as it was created in the beginning. But it will be such as, according to the word of the divine Paul, our body will be... All creation, according to the command of God, will be, after the general resurrection, not as it was created - material and sensual, but will be re-created and become some kind of immaterial and spiritual a dwelling that surpasses all feelings."
Could there be a clearer teaching about the state of the primordial world before Adam's crime?
ORTHODOX VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE
NE. GREGORY PALAMA
Now we should come to the last and most important issue, raised before Orthodox theology by modern evolutionary theory: about the nature of man, and, in particular, about the nature of the first-created man Adam. This teaching about man - anthropology - touches theology most closely, and here, probably, it becomes most possible to identify the theological error of evolutionism. It is well known that Orthodoxy teaches about human nature and Divine grace in a completely different way than Roman Catholicism. In other words, the theological view of human nature implied by evolutionary theory is a non-Orthodox view of man, but a point of view close to Roman Catholic anthropology. This is only a confirmation of the fact that the theory of evolution, which no Orthodox father teaches, is simply a product of the Western apostasy way of thinking and even, despite the fact that it was originally a “reaction” to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, deeply rooted in the papist scholastic tradition. This patristic view was very well expressed by the great hesychast father St. Gregory Palamas, when he was forced to defend Orthodox theology and its spiritual experience specifically from the Western rationalist Varlaam, who wanted to reduce spiritual experience and knowledge of hesychasm to something achievable by science and philosophy. Answering him, St. Gregory, in his famous work, Triads in Defense of the Sacred Silents, puts forward general principles that are quite applicable today, when scientists and philosophers think that they can understand the mysteries of creation and human nature better than Orthodox theology. He's writing: " The beginning of wisdom is to be wise enough to discern and prefer low, earthly and vain wisdom - truly useful, heavenly and spiritual, coming from God and leading to Him, and making those who acquire it pleasing to God».
He teaches that only the second wisdom is good in itself, and the first is both good and evil:
« Knowledge various languages, the power of rhetoric, historical knowledge, the discovery of the secrets of nature, the various methods of logic... all this is both good and evil, not only because it manifests itself according to the idea of those who use it, and easily takes the form that the opinion of those gives it who owns it, but also because studying it is good only to the extent that it gives insight to the vision of the soul. But it is bad for those who devote themselves to these studies so as to remain in them until old age».
Moreover, even " if one of the fathers says the same thing as the outside ones, this agreement is only verbal, and the thoughts are completely different. The first, according to Paul, have“the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16), and the latter are expressed in best case scenario human understanding. “But as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts,” says the Lord (Isa. 55:9). Moreover, even if the thoughts of these people were sometimes the same as those of Moses, Solomon or their imitators, what benefit would it do them? What person in his right mind and belonging to the Church can conclude from this that their teaching is from God?».
From worldly knowledge, writes Saint Gregory, “ we absolutely cannot expect any accuracy in the knowledge of divine things; for it is impossible to derive from it any definite doctrine of the divine. For "God fooled him" ».
And this knowledge can be harmful and hostile to true theology:
« The power of this understanding, which fools and carries, enters into battle against those who accept tradition in simplicity of heart; it despises the writings of the Spirit, following the example of people who treated them carelessly and set the creature against the Creator».
There can hardly be a better estimate than this of what modern "Christian evolutionists" have attempted to do by considering themselves wiser than the Holy Fathers, and by using worldly knowledge to pervert the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. Isn’t it clear to everyone that the rationalistic, naturalistic spirit of the views of the medieval heretic Varlaam is quite similar to the spirit of modern evolutionism?
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION: SCIENCE OR PHILOSOPHY?
It should be noted that St. Gregory speaks of scientific knowledge, which, at its level, is true, and becomes false only when at war with higher, theological knowledge. Is the theory of evolution even scientifically true? And here we must ask the question: why should we treat the works of modern scientists and philosophers “simply”, taking them at their word when they say something is true - even if accepting their statement forces us to change our theological views? On the contrary, we should be very critical when modern sages tell us how we should interpret the Holy Scriptures. We should critically perceive not only their philosophy, but also the so-called. "scientific evidence" which is considered to speak in favor of modern neo-pagan philosophy, for often "scientific evidence" is itself such a philosophy.
This is especially true of the Jesuit scientist Teilhard de Chardin, for “he not only built the most elaborate and influential philosophical and theological system based on the concept of evolution, but was also closely associated with the discovery and interpretation of almost all the fossil evidence in favor of “human evolution” , found during his life."
Now we ask ourselves a basic scientific question: what is the evidence for “human evolution”? While studying at the history department of the university, I had the opportunity to study history primitive society, and I remember how the teacher told us beautiful stories about various “human ancestors,” of which there were about two dozen. But I could not understand where the real evidence was of the actual existence in the distant past of all species of these animals: no one provided them to their students.
In fact, the scientific fossil "evidence" for "human evolution" consists of: Neanderthal fossils (many specimens); Sinanthropus (several skulls); the so-called Javanese, Heidelberg and Piltdown "people" and finds in Africa (all of which are extremely fragmentary) and from a few other remains. Thus, all fossil evidence of “human evolution” can be placed in a box the size of a small coffin, and they come from places far removed from each other, in the absence of reliable indications of at least relative (let alone “absolute”) age , and without any indication of how these different “people” are related to each other by kinship or origin.
Moreover, one of these " evolutionary ancestors man”, “Piltdown man”, as it turned out later, was a deliberate fake. Interestingly, the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin was one of the "discoverers" of the "Piltdown Man" - a fact that can be found in most textbooks. He "discovered" the fang of this fabricated creature - a tooth that had already been stained, with the intention of misleading as to the age of the find. This “discovery,” of course, was what was needed for the “missing link” between man and ape, which is why the Piltdown forgery consisted of human and ape bones. Teilhard de Chardin was involved in the discovery, and most importantly, in the interpretation of some of the “Java Man” finds, which were fragmentary. In fact, wherever he was, he found “evidence” that exactly met his expectations - namely, that man “descended” from ape-like creatures.
If you examine objectively all the fossil evidence in favor of “human evolution,” you will find that there is no convincing or even reasonable evidence for this “evolution.” All scientific work on this problem comes down to semi-fantastic speculation, with an implausible reconstruction of the structure and life of ancient human society, not confirmed by real archaeological finds and other documentary sources. But it is still generally accepted that there is evidence of evolution because people want to believe it; they believe in an atheistic materialist philosophy, which requires that man descended from ape-like creatures. Of all the fossil "people" only the Neanderthal (and, of course, the Cro-Magnon man, who is simply modern man) appears to be genuine; but he is just homo sapiens, no more different from modern man, how modern people differ from each other. But the pictures of Neanderthal man in textbooks on the history of primitive society are the inventions of artists who have preconceived ideas about what a “primitive man” should look like, based on evolutionary philosophy.
As a result, we come to the following conclusions:
1) Evolution is not a scientific fact at all, but philosophical system,
2) Evolution is a false philosophy (loving not wisdom, but the father of lies), invented in the secularized West, as a reaction to Catholic-Protestant theology, and disguised as science in order to deceive people who agree to accept a supposed scientific fact on faith.
PATRISTIC TEACHING ABOUT CREATION AND THE CREATION OF MAN
Where should an Orthodox Christian turn if he wants to learn the true teaching about the creation of the world and man? Saint Basil the Great clearly tells us: “ What to talk about first? Where to start the interpretation? Should we expose the vanity of the pagans? Or magnify the truth of our teaching? The Hellenic sages talked a lot about nature, and not a single one of their teachings remained firm and unshakable: because subsequent teachings always overthrew the previous ones. Therefore, we have no need to denounce their teachings; they themselves are enough for each other to their own overthrow».
Following the example of St. Basil, “ Leaving external teachings external, let us return to church teaching" Like him, we will become " to explore the composition of the world, to consider the universe not according to the principles of worldly wisdom, but as God taught this to His servant, who spoke with him“by reality, and not by fortune telling” (Num. 12:8).”
Returning to the holy fathers, we must admit that evolutionist views on the origin of the world and man, in fact, not only teach us nothing about the origin of man, but, on the contrary, speak falsely about man.
The Orthodox teaching on human nature is most concisely presented in the “Soulful Teachings” of Abba Dorotheus. "This book has been accepted Orthodox Church as the alphabet, the main textbook of Orthodox spirituality; This is the first spiritual reading that is given to an Orthodox monk, and it remains his constant companion throughout his life, read and re-read. It is extremely important that the Orthodox teaching about human nature is set forth on the very first page of this book, since this teaching is the basis of the entire Orthodox spiritual life.”
What kind of teaching is this? Abba Dorotheos writes in the very first lines of his First Teaching: “ In the beginning, when God created man(Gen. 2:20), He placed him in paradise, as the divine and holy Scripture says, and adorned him with every virtue, giving him the commandment not to eat from the tree that was in the middle of paradise. And so, he dwelt there in the pleasure of paradise: in prayer, in contemplation, in all glory and honor, having sound feelings, and being in the natural state in which he was created. For God created man in His own image, i.e. immortal, autocratic and adorned with every virtue. But when he violated the commandment by eating the fruit of the tree, from which God commanded him not to eat, then he was expelled from paradise (Genesis 3), fell from the natural state and fell into the unnatural, and was already in sin, in the love of glory, in love to the pleasures of this age and in other passions, and was possessed by them, for he himself became their slave through crime...
(Lord Jesus Christ) took on our very nature, the firstfruits of our composition, and became a new Adam, in the image of God, who created the first Adam, renewed the natural state and made the feelings healthy again, as they were in the beginning...
And the children of humility are: self-reproach, distrust of your own reason, hatred of your own will; for through them a person is honored to come to his senses and return to his natural state through cleansing himself with the holy commandments of Christ.”
DAMAGE TO PRIMARY NATURE DUE TO THE FALL AND ITS RESTORATION BY CHRIST THE SAVIOR
The Holy Fathers clearly teach that when Adam sinned, man did not simply lose something that had been added to his nature, but rather human nature itself changed, became corrupted at the very time that man lost the grace of God. The divine services of the Orthodox Church, which are the basis of our Orthodox dogmatic teaching and spiritual life, clearly teach us that human nature is not natural to us, but is in a corrupt state: “ Healing human nature, corrupted by an ancient crime, the Child is born without ashes, and in Your bosom, as if on a throne, sits, Brideless, Do not leave the Fatherly proximity to the Divine"(Mineaion December 22, Theotokos 6th song of the canon at Matins). " To save at least from decay the Creator and Lord of the decayed human nature, who indwelled the womb cleansed by the Holy Spirit and was indescribably imagined"(Mineaion January 23, Theotokos 5th song of the canon at Matins).
And in such hymns our whole Orthodox concept of the incarnation of Christ and of our salvation through Him is connected with a proper understanding of human nature as it was in the beginning, and which Christ restored in us.
Professor of the Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville I.M. rightly writes. Andreev: “Christianity has always considered current state matter, as a result of the Fall... The Fall of man changed his entire nature, including the nature of matter itself, which God cursed (Gen. 3:17).” Agreeing with this statement, we conclude that evolutionary teaching not only rejects the act of Creation described in the book of Genesis, but also rejects the idea of sin, sin itself, rejects the great experience of repentance accumulated by Christianity over two thousand years.
Therefore, it is logical to draw the following conclusion: evolution contradicts the teachings of the Holy Fathers, i.e. does not fit into the framework of the patristic teaching about Creation and the creation of man.
From the experience of cohabitation with our corruptible body, it is impossible for us to understand the state of Adam’s incorruptible body, which had no natural needs, as we know, ate “of every tree” in paradise without excreting any waste, and did not know sleep (until the direct action of God forced him to sleep so that Eve would be created from a rib). And how much less able are we to understand the even more exalted state of our bodies in the coming age! But we know enough about the nature of the primordial world and the life of the first people in paradise from the Holy Scriptures and Tradition, i.e. from the teachings of the Church, to refute all those who believe that they can understand these mysteries through scientific knowledge and worldly philosophy. The state of man in paradise and the primordial world is forever removed beyond the bounds of scientific knowledge by the barrier of Adam’s sin, which changed the very nature of primordial man and all creation, as well as the nature of knowledge itself.
CONCLUSION
According to Orthodox teaching, which comes from Divine contemplation, Adam's nature in paradise was different from the present human nature, both in body and soul, and this sublime nature was enlivened by God's grace. And according to the Latin doctrine, based on rationalistic deductions from the current fallen nature, man is by nature corruptible and mortal, as he is now, and his state in paradise was a special, supernatural gift. All this shows how the wonderful patristic vision of Adam and the primordial world is distorted when they approach it from the position of the wisdom of the fallen world. Neither science nor logic can tell us anything about heaven; “and yet many Orthodox Christians are so deceived by modern science and its rationalistic philosophy that they are afraid to read seriously the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, knowing that modern “wise men” find there so much that is “dubious” or “confusing” or that is subject to “new interpretation” “, or that you can get the reputation of a “fundamentalist” if you dare to read this text simply “as it is written,” as all the holy fathers read.”
common sense Orthodox Christian prompts us to turn away from the “deep” fashionable point of view that man descended from the ape or any other lower creature. Therefore it is fair when St. the fathers express their righteous anger at those who try to prove that man is the ape from which they boast they were descended. This is the point of view of Orthodox holiness, which knows that creation is not as the modern sages with their empty philosophy describe it, but as the Lord revealed it to Moses “not by fortune,” and as the holy fathers saw it in Divine contemplation. Human nature is different from monkey nature and has never been mixed with it. If the Lord God, for the sake of our humility, would have wished to carry out such a mixture, then the holy fathers, who saw the very “composition of visible things” in Divine contemplation, would have known this.
“How much longer will the Orthodox remain captive to this empty Western philosophy?” - the greatest ascetic of our time, Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), calls to us. And he's not the only one. Much has been said about the “Western captivity” of Orthodox theology; when will we understand that in an even more desperate “Western captivity” today lies every helpless captive of the “spirit of the times”, the prevailing current of worldly philosophy, dissolved in the very air we breathe in a God-apostate, God-hating society? An Orthodox Christian who does not consciously fight against the empty philosophy of this age, but simply accepts it into himself and is at peace with it, because his own understanding of Orthodoxy is distorted, does not conform to the patristic institutions.
Those sophisticated in worldly wisdom laugh at those who call evolutionism “heresy.” Indeed, evolutionism, strictly speaking, is not a heresy, but evolutionism is an ideology deeply alien to the Orthodox Christian teaching, and it involves so many false doctrines and opinions that it would be much better if it were simply heresy, which could be easily identified and denounced. Evolutionism is closely intertwined with the entire apostasy mentality of secularized “Western Christianity”; it is a tool of the “new spirituality” and “new Christianity” into which Satan is now seeking to immerse the last true Christians. Evolutionism offers an explanation of Creation that is contrary to the patristic one; it brings the Orthodox under such influence that they read the Holy Scripture and do not understand it, automatically “adjusting” its text to the biased worldly natural philosophy. Having accepted evolutionism, it is impossible not to also accept an alternative explanation for other parts of Divine revelation, the automatic “adjustment” of other texts of the Holy Scriptures and patristic works to scientific “wisdom”.
Modern science knows only what she observes, and what can be reasonably inferred from observation: her guesses about the earliest times of creation have no more and no less significance than the myths and fables of the ancient pagans. True knowledge about Adam and the primordial world, as far as it is useful for us to know, is available only through Divine Revelation and in the Divine contemplation of the saints.