Authors

Yuki Fukui¹;  ¹ Waseda University, Japan

Discussion

This paper explores the ideas of the integration of “faith and reason”, or “science and religion” in nineteenth-century Russian Thought. Slavophiles such as Ivan Kireevsky and Aleksei Khomyakov sought for the integration of “faith and reason” introspectively. In his concept of “believing thought”, Kireevsky intended to elevate the faculty of reason to the faculty of faith. This elevation will be realized in us when we penetrate the depth of our soul and restore the integrity of our reason. Harmony with God and with the world is pursued in this inner transcendence. In line with German mysticism and pietism, Kireevsky concentrated in this introspective direction. In this respect, he coincides with such predecessors as Hryhorii Skovoroda and Vladimir Odoevsky. Khomyakov developed Kireevsky’s concept of “believing thought” in the context of conciliarity (sobornost’). He argued for the restoration of the wholeness of humanity and reason in the fulness of the Church. He thus revealed the ecclesiological dimension of “believing thought”, but his understanding of Church corresponds more to the Invisible Church than to the visible church, so we can make sure that he sought the wholeness of reason in the inner transcendence of humanity. Nikolai Fedorov inherited the Slavophile concept of “believing reason”, but he did not look for it in the depth of our soul. He argued for the integration of “science and religion” in his project of Common Task. He attributed the religious element of humanity to ordinary people and the scientific one to educated people. In this way, the integration of “science and religion” is realized in the Common Task of all humanity. His concept of regulation of nature signifies the scientific realization of the transfiguration of our bodies and the world. All educated and ordinary people will be gathered into the single body through a network of local “school-temple-museums” which serve as small bases of the Common Task. Thus, Fedorov’s integration of “science and religion” is not an internal and mysterious, but sociological, technological, and methodological. In my opinion, this change in attitude is brought about by the intellectual transition from natural philosophy to natural science in the 19th century. The industrial revolution, Darwinian theory of evolution, the need for scientific knowledge keenly felt after the defeat in the Crimean War – all these contributed to this transition. In 1860, Chernyshevsky maintained a materialistic view of humanity in The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy. Furthermore, Russian academic philosophers started to embrace Neo-Kantianism. As Pamfir Yurkevich and Vladimir Soloviev developed their metaphysical ideas of “science and religion”, this was by no means a simple path, but Fedorov’s synthesis of “science and religion” served as a linking chain between 19th-century Russian religious philosophy and 20th-century cosmic and Promethean art, literature, science, etc.