- PII
- S004287440005740-9-
- DOI
- 10.31857/S004287440005740-9
- Publication type
- Article
- Status
- Published
- Authors
- Volume/ Edition
- Volume / Issue 7
- Pages
- 143-149
- Abstract
The article discusses debates between M.O. Shakhov and G.D. Levin. The reason for the controversy is the thesis of inadmissibility of idealistic ideas in the present-day scientific paradigms. The author believes that the very statement of the questions the opponents are trying to answer is not correct. The present-day science does not need the idea of the God and asserts the necessity of the compliance with the principle of methodological atheism. However, the basis of the scientific activity of the Modern Time scholars was theological because the Christian theology contained postulates necessary for the natural science genesis. The theological arguments made theoretical speculations more socially acceptable and trustworthy. Now the confidence in the scientific knowledge objectivity is supported by the continuous coherence of the scientific experience but these arguments enable stating that a present-day scientist involuntarily becomes an empath sharing the epistemological optimism of his predecessors. Albert Einstein equalized epistemological optimism and the ‘cosmic religious feeling’ and believed that one of the functions of science consists in the transfer of this feeling from one person to another. Critical re-evaluation of this concept enables making a conclusion that the idealistic provisions are implicitly present in the modern scientific paradigms and they cannot be eliminated without rejecting the scientific activity. The results of Antonio Damasio’s studies are interpreted as an empirical evidence of the conclusions made.
- Keywords
- history of science, empathy, habitus, priming, theology, cosmic religious feeling
- Date of publication
- 28.07.2019
- Year of publication
- 2019
- Number of purchasers
- 89
- Views
- 933
References
- 1. Gejzenberg 1987 – Gejzenberg V. Shagi za gorizont: Per s nem. M.: Progress, 1987 [Heisenberg, Werner K. Tradition in der Wissenschaft (Russian translation)].
- 2. Zhizhek 2008 – Zhizhek S. Ustrojstvo razryva. Parallaksnoe videnie. M.: Izdatel'stvo «Evropa», 2008 [Zizek, Slavoj The Parallax View (Russian translation)]
- 3. Levin 2004 – Levin G.D. Mozhno li religioznoe znanie priravnyat' k nauchnym gipotezam? // Voprosy filosofii. 2004. № 11. S. 81–88 [Levin, Georgiy Is it Possible to Equalize Religious Knowledge and Scientific Hypotheses? (In Russian)].
- 4. Levin 2008 – Levin T.D. Metodologicheskie printsipy dialoga materialistov s veruyuschimi // Voprosy filosofii. 2008. № 10. S. 78–90 [Levin, Georgiy Methodological Principles of Dialogue of Materialists with Believers (In Russian)].
- 5. Rodzhers 1984 – Rodzhers K. Ehmpatiya // Vilonas V.K., Gippenrejter Yu.B. (red.). Psikhologiya ehmotsij. Teksty. M.: Izd-vo MGU, 1984. S. 235–237 [Rogers, Carl Empatic: an unappreciated way of being (In Russian)].
- 6. Shakhov 2004 – Shakhov M.O. Religioznoe znanie, ob'ektivnoe znanie o religii i nauka // Voprosy filosofii. 2004. № 11. S. 65–80 [Shakhov, Michael Religious Knowledge, Objective Knowledge of Religion and Science (In Russian)].
- 7. Shakhov 2008 – Shakhov M.O. Realizm kak obschaya osnova religioznogo i nauchnogo znaniya // Voprosy filosofii. 2008. № 10. S. 66–77 [Shakhov, Michael Realism as the Common Basis of Religious and Scientific Knowledge (In Russian)].
- 8. Shakhov web — Shakhov M.O. Ob irratsional'nom bezbozhii i «ratsional'nykh» ateistakh // http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/396084.html
- 9. Ehjnshtejn 1967a – Ehjnshtejn A. Iogan Kepler // Sobranie nauchnykh trudov. T. 4. M.: Nauka, 1967. S. 121–125 [Einstein, Albert Johannes Kepler (Russian translation)].
- 10. Ehjnshtejn 1967b – Ehjnshtejn A. Religiya i nauka // Sobranie nauchnykh trudov. T. 4. M.: Nauka, 1967. S. 126–129 [Einstein, Albert Religion und Wissenschaft (Russian translation)].
- 11. Karyagina 2013 – Karyagina T.D. Ehvolyutsiya ponyatiya «ehmpatiya» v psikhologii. Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata psikhologicheskikh nauk. M., 2013.
- 12. Pashukova, Troitskaya 2010 – Pashukova T.I., Troitskaya E.A. Mekhanizmy i funktsii ehmpatii // Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. 2010. №. 586. S. 197–209.
