Atheism, Orthodoxy and mental health. Sergey Kapitsa: “I am a Russian Orthodox atheist

Sergey Kapitsa: “If we don’t get out of this soap-serial crisis on television, we are doomed”

Could we have won the Great Patriotic War with such television?

"If you continue such a policy in relation to public consciousness, we will have a country of fools, it will be easier for you to rule this country, but such a country has no future."

Science occupies a central place in modern life.

Soviet journalists were more responsible, than now.

The thing must be done!

Sergey Petrovich Kapitsa gave a published interview in 2009.

He extremely sharply assesses the state of Russian television, which has become entirely commercial, which, in his opinion, should not be at all.

Sergei Petrovich called himself an "Orthodox atheist" and regretted that we had completely forgotten Marx, from whom we can take a lot of valuable things.

And, contrary to popular belief, the USSR, according to Kapitsa, created nuclear weapons on its own.

"... KRASNOBAY AND BALAMUT ABOUT THE POWERFULNESS OF SCIENCE FROM THE SECRET OF BERMUDA..."

- If you take a generation who are now over forty, offhand they will quote: "Oh, how many wonderful discoveries the spirit of enlightenment prepares for us ..." So who was more popular, you, Sergei Petrovich, or Alexander Sergeevich?

— (Laughs). Do not exaggerate - Pushkin, of course, was more popular. Alla Pugacheva was more popular... Yes, this poem has become our brand. The epigraph was found by our director Levkovich. By the way, this poem was never published in Pushkin's writings. It is scattered in fragments... Nathan Eidelman has a whole essay on the subject. The name of the program - "Obvious - incredible" - was suggested by my assistant Zhelezova. In my opinion, before that it appeared in films made by the Kyiv film studio. Today we have to defend this phrase, because it has already been tried several times to steal. We even specially received a copyright certificate for the title of the TV show - "Obvious - incredible."

- I will allow myself one more poetic quotation: "He spoke, wringing his hands, rhetoric and troublemaker about the impotence of science before the mystery of Bermuda ..."

- ... from "Kanatchikov's dacha". Yes, great! I was familiar with Vysotsky, we talked. Rather, I was very well acquainted with the Taganka Theater, where he was the central figure. I was very flattered that a wonderful artist, the voice of the era, reacted so much to what I was doing. I believe that this is one of the highest assessments of the activity in which I was engaged, and it is expressed in an undeniably talented manner.

- Was the audience of "Obvious - Incredible" used to be larger than today?

- Twenty million. First channel, good time. We still have pretty decent ratings. About five or six million viewers. Of course, both our brand and a certain inertia help, but today the contrast of our program with the idiocy that is happening on television is so strong!

I'm like a white crow! I've been told by a lot of people that they can't watch TV except Obvious - Incredible. In my opinion , television should not be commercial. It can be controlled through money, but you cannot make money with it. Not to mention that ratings can justify anything. There must be responsibility. Not all states have it in relation to television, which is an instrument of politics ...

—... ideology, not a trading stall.

- Of course! How could we win the war with such television? By and large, television is also a question of our moral future. If we don't get out of this soap-serial crisis on TV, we're doomed. I once said at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers: "If you continue such a policy in relation to public consciousness, we will have a country of fools, it will be easier for you to rule this country, but such a country has no future." It was during the time of Prime Minister Kasyanov.

Kasyanov himself was not present; Khristenko presided over him. And when we summed up, he said: "I can agree with the thoughts of Professor Kapitsa, but I cannot agree with his formulations." By the way, he was the only one of all those present at that meeting who spoke on this topic.

A few years later, at one of the events, the Deputy Prime Minister of that government approached me and reminded me of my speech: "Sergei Petrovich, they have never heard such words in their lives. You have no idea what an impression you made!" No one speaks to them in such terms.

THE MOST TERRIBLE CENSORSHIP IS MONEY

- Television, paradoxically, ruined your scientific career? Who do you consider yourself more: a TV presenter and popularizer of science or a scientist?

— Yes, of course, television ruined a scientific career... But "Obvious - Incredible" is not engaged in the popularization of science. There, of course, there is popularization, but the main thing is to show what place it occupies in our life through a story about science, about scientists. Science is the basis of worldview, worldview, a whole system of knowledge. Medicine without science is also meaningless. That's why science occupies a central place in modern life.

- In Soviet times, in principle, was it more difficult to be a journalist?

- Well, of course, it was more difficult! Then journalists were more responsible, than now. The resonance from the speeches was much more noticeable. At the same time, you should never count on the fact that the authorities will follow your instructions. This is the naive dream of the intellectuals... if we write a letter to the tsar, the first secretary, the chairman of the council of ministers, everything will change at once.

But the thing to do, nevertheless, is necessary!

Even if nothing changes, we must do our duty.

Information must be recorded in the minds of people.

Just as it was with Pugwash (the Canadian village where the first world conference of nuclear scientists took place in 1957 and the Pugwash Movement was founded - ed.). It was obvious to all scientists that this was not the way to solve military problems. But it was necessary to sharpen them in the public consciousness.

- "Kapitsa does not correspond to the prevailing stereotype of a TV presenter" ... Was it not offensive to hear such verdicts?

- Yes, some of my colleagues considered me a non-professional on television. On television, you have to be a bit of an artist, it teaches you to express yourself accurately and speak correctly. Now the culture of speech on television is terrible. Previously, there were special commissions that monitored the norms of the Russian language. There could, of course, be a difference between Moscow speech and more aristocratic Petersburg speech. Just like there is a difference in the length of the legs of the ballerinas of Moscow and St. Petersburg. In Petersburg, ballerinas have longer legs. Volochkova is the best proof of this.

Are you friends with computers? Is the Internet good?

— I have been using a computer since the early eighties. It was a desktop computer with a text program, some kind of ancestor of Word. Essentially, of course, it was more like an electric typewriter. There were no modern bells and whistles there. Now I also continue to work on the computer (points to the laptop on the desk). I don't like using email. The Internet is convenient primarily as a reference book, as a library. The internet is definitely a blessing.

- Did censorship interfere with your program, Sergey Petrovich? And is she on TV today?

— Now censorship is money, it's much worse! The scripts of my broadcasts were not censored in Soviet times. In general terms, I coordinated the guests, and nothing more. Everything was quite free, I don’t remember any serious incidents ... Now on the Rossiya channel we are broadcasting the most interesting and important things. The policy of the program coincides with the interests of the channel.

- "Obvious - incredible" went on record or was it live? I mean: have there been any technical overlays, and how were you punished for them?

- There was a funny episode with Maya Plisetskaya. She's a big hooligan! We had to, imitating a conversation, climb the stairs of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Then this passage, accompanied by the music of Mozart, was to become the screen saver for the program. The first take went down the drain, because a cleaning lady suddenly came out from under the stairs with a bucket and ruined all the lyrics. They started reshooting. Plisetskaya began to tell me how she was filming with a French director in a Russian village: “In the background, just as now, an outsider appears. I ask Monsieur to leave through an interpreter. Zero attention. Then the interpreter takes matters into his own hands and says to him: " Hey, you, get out of here..." Maya uttered the last words of her story directly into the camera, and we just left the frame. I told her: "Maya, one percent of our listeners are deaf and dumb, they read lips." only music sounded to people, and the deaf-mutes perfectly recognized what Plisetskaya said.Then letters went: "Why did you allow Maya to express herself like that ?!"

"I AM A RUSSIAN ORTHODOX ATHEIST"

- Do you somehow feel your popularity among the people?

- I say that if every time I took five dollars for being photographed, I would become a rich man. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible for me to just walk around Moscow. There was an assassination attempt on me in 1986. Three times some madman from Leningrad came to Moscow and followed me. Yakovlev (Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1986-1990 - ed.), with whom I discussed this, said that the use of marginals is a typical method of terrorism. And Savinkov used women in love with him to assassinate him.

- As far as I know, they attacked you with an ax, and then you had to be treated for a long time. Why kill you, Sergei Petrovich?

- I was the "chief Jewish Freemason" of the country (laughs). This turned out to be a sufficient argument. Although how can one be a Freemason and a Jew at the same time? We even thought about making a separate program on this topic. There are specialists in the history of Freemasonry in our country.

— You were born in Cambridge. Did you speak with an English accent after moving to the USSR in the 1930s?

- I don't remember. Ask my wife, we went to the same school with her. This year we will celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of our life together. I don't know if this is a diamond wedding or something else ... Rather, uranium. At first I went to a Moscow school in 2nd Obydensky Lane. Children from the famous government "House on the Embankment" studied there with me. Stepan Mikoyan and I sometimes see each other at meetings of graduates of this school. By the way, I still have English citizenship - it is given in England according to the place of birth. But in my heart, of course, I am a Russian person. Although it is easy for me to communicate with foreigners. True, sometimes they cannot understand my origin. In England, after all, by accent you can determine the region in which you were born ... Just, for example, there are differences between Moscow and St. Petersburg speech. Eraser - gum ...

"Do you believe in God, Sergei Petrovich?" Does God exist in a physiological sense?

— My father's generation was actively anti-religious due to party principles. BUT I am a Russian Orthodox atheist. This, by the way, is a very common formula of attitude to faith, to spiritual culture. Essentially, science grew out of religion. I met with many of our patriarchs. With Pitirim, with Cyril... The difference in worldview between us and them is not as great as it might seem (laughs). I met Alexy II when he was still a bishop. I was one of the few scientists who was generally ready to talk with the ministers of the church. I remember that a meeting of scientists with theologians was once scheduled, but no one, except me, from the scientists came to it. My appearance, of course, was remembered. The patriarch caressed me. But my statement that theology is not needed in schools and that I am an Orthodox atheist, he was somewhat rejected from me. I told Patriarch Kirill: "If you could be cloned and sent to every school, I would be "for" theology lessons." He laughed.

You need to have a level to teach such things. The planting of Orthodoxy in pre-revolutionary schools in Russia was the best anti-religious propaganda. Marxism was also ruined by the teachers of Marxism. Although there was a lot of reasonableness in Marxism, it was absolutely wrong to completely cut off this phenomenon!

"USSR ITSELF CREATED THE ATOMIC BOMB"

Is nuclear energy good?

Vernadsky wrote and published in one of his collections prophetic words: “The time is not far off when a person will receive atomic energy in his hands, such a source of power that will give him the opportunity to build his life as he wants ... Will a person be able to use this power, direct it for good, and not for self-destruction? Has he matured to the ability to use the power that science must inevitably give him?

This prompted him to organize a radium institute in 1922 in Leningrad. The radium industry emerged. Radium was isolated not from minerals, but from natural waters. The institute's staff, who were the most advanced radiochemists of the time, then applied their skill to splitting plutonium. I, still a young man, had a chance to work with them in practice during the search for oil structures in Bashkiria in 1943. Even then, we were discussing nuclear matters with might and main. By the way, they are very dangerous. One day I went swimming with one of the radiochemists. They bathed in their natural form so as not to wet their underpants, and I noticed that he had overgrown ulcers on his thighs and rough scars. I asked what it was, and he replied: "The result of tuning the cyclotron."

“After almost half a century, the main witness for the prosecution of the Rosenberg couple suddenly repented, saying that he had slandered Ethel Rosenberg. It turns out that we did not steal from the United States the secret of creating nuclear weapons?

— The USSR itself created the atomic bomb. Beria's information only helped him persuade Stalin to begin work on nuclear weapons. Huge money was required. Roosevelt invested two billion dollars in the nuclear project! More than in the automotive industry.

Something else is more interesting. Physicists who fled from Germany to England from Hitler were the first to understand the reality of this case. But the British did not have enough material resources, and they offered to carry out the creation of a nuclear bomb to the Americans. They agreed, but immediately classified all information on the project. And at that time, the US-England-USSR agreement on the exchange of scientific and technical information was in force. They gave us the data of America's second most important military project in the field of radar, but kept silent about the work on the atomic bomb. This gave us the full moral right to engage in espionage with the allies.

Did the Pugwash movement save the world from nuclear war?

— It was a curious phenomenon. Scientists around the world in 1957 were given the opportunity to discuss nuclear problems. After all, most political and even military leaders of that time had a very vague idea of ​​what nuclear weapons were. It was said that even Kurchatov, having visited the test of the hydrogen bomb, was completely shocked by what he saw. And Sakharov completely lost control of himself for a while ...

- ... after that, his drift towards dissidence began?

- It is hard to say. Sakharov is a very complex, unusual personality. I was greatly impressed by my last meeting with him. In essence, Andrei Dmitrievich was already drawn into the political business by his wife Elena Bonner.

THE PROBLEM OF OUR CIVILIZATION IS THE FERTILITY

- Many do not understand the meaning of the newfangled word "nano". Explain, please, Sergey Petrovich...

- It's a normal term. All modern biology - the management of living things at the atomic-molecular level - these are the same nanotechnologies. Only earlier it was called not nanotechnologies, but microbiology. The name was associated with the use of a microscope - so it sounded more logical than nanobiology.

- By the way, you devoted "Obvious - incredible" to economic sciences too. They anticipated the time, so to speak.

- In the summer of 1977, Leontiev arrived in the USSR (an American economist of Russian origin, Nobel Prize winner, - ed.). I decided to make a transmission in the form of a discussion with him and Inozemtsev (Soviet economist, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences - ed.). Inozemtsev said: "This must be agreed upon." I had to call Lapin (Chairman of the State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting, - ed.) He answers: "I'm not against it, act." During the transmission, both Leontiev and Inozemtsev understood that they were walking on the edge of a knife. Step right, step left...

Leontiev was, after all, a responsible person. They defended their points of view: Inozemtsev - a planned model of the economy, Leontiev - a market one. By the way, it was in that program that an image first appeared, a comparison of a market economy with a ship whose sails were torn off, and it is sailing to no one knows where.

This comparison became especially relevant during the Gaidar reforms. In 2007, Alexey Leonidovich Kudrin, Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation, visited my program. An interesting conversation took place. Kudrin expressed his personal view on the development of the country. And the reason for our conversation was the program with my friend, the economist Lev Dmitrievich Semenovich, with whose position Kudrin did not agree.

The late Michael Jackson tried to outplay nature. He changed his race, mutilated himself with plastic surgeries, slept in a pressure chamber, ate rice and nuts - he dreamed of living one hundred and twenty years... Is such a future awaiting humanity?

Michael Jackson is an absolutely crazy person. The brightest spokesman for the collapse of social norms. It seems to me that he died because he could not bear the burden of his terrible image. There is a general deep crisis of spiritual values ​​that have evolved over thousands of years. Families are breaking up all over the world. Illegitimate children, who used to be a shameful phenomenon, now make up half of all children.

Now humanity is moving from population growth, which has been millions of years, to a different mode of existence - to constant population values. To other distributions within age categories. There will be more old people. Life expectancy in Russia will rise to eighty years.

- And yet what is the biggest problem for humanity, connected with its future?

- On the issue of fertility, all developed countries have reached a dead end. In families, one child is born less than necessary. There must be at least two children in the family, not one. This is very serious!

As a result, there are now five million Arabs in France who have no reproductive problems.

The situation is very difficult in Ukraine, where there is no Muslim component that we have. By the way, there monetary compensation for the birth of a child, as I was told, is much more than in Russia. But this does not help the situation.

By the way, one of the causes of the First World War was the fact that the population of the countries participating in this war grew by 2%, and the economy by 10%. They weren't able to manage it.

Fontanka.ru

Sergey Petrovich Kapitsa (February 14, 1928, Cambridge - August 14, 2012, Moscow) - Russian physicist, academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, founder and permanent host of the TV program Obvious - Incredible.

Comes from the Ukrainian noble family Kapits-Milevsky. Born in the family of the famous Russian physicist, Nobel Prize winner Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa. The grandson of engineer Leonid Petrovich Kapitsa - the builder of the Kronstadt forts and (by mother) Academician A.N. Krylov - Russian mathematician and shipbuilder; great-nephew of the famous French biochemist V.N. Henri; great-grandson of the famous Russian geographer I.I. Stebnitsky. The godfather of Sergei Kapitsa was the great Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. Sergey Petrovich's brother is Andrey Petrovich Kapitsa, Soviet geographer and geomorphologist, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1970.

Since 1935 he lived in Moscow. Graduated from the Moscow Aviation Institute.

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (1961), Professor (1965). President of the Eurasian Physical Society, member of the European Academy of Sciences, full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, member of the Club of Rome, president of the interdisciplinary discussion club "Nikitsky Club of Scientists and Entrepreneurs of Russia", member of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, member of the Pugwash movement of scientists since 1977, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Pugwash Committee at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1987, member of the Pugwash Council in 1987-1997.

Laureate of the Kalinga Prize (UNESCO), the State Prize of the USSR (for the TV show "Obvious - Incredible", 1980).

In December 1986, he suffered an assassination attempt by a mentally ill person, as a result of which he was injured and spent some time in the hospital.

He was engaged in extreme sports: he flew a plane, in 1967, in the vicinity of Sydney, he descended into one of the deepest caves in Australia. For many years he was engaged in scuba diving, he had a diver's license number 0002.

In recent years, a completely insane term has appeared in the media - "Orthodox atheism." It is obvious that this is caused by too hard work of the authorities in terms of aggressive propaganda of religion. And Orthodox atheists - who? As a rule, people directly connected with the authorities, interested in propaganda of obscurantism.

The President of Belarus once said:

“I am an atheist, but I am an Orthodox atheist!”

This is the credo of modern supporters of such a dubious idea. In fact, Mr. Lukashenko calls himself that only because he is interested in the Orthodox cult as a political tool. Otherwise, he wouldn't call himself that.

It is especially important to emphasize that during the period of the USSR, when figures like Lukashenko were members of the CPSU, none of them ever said that they were supposedly "Orthodox atheists." The term apparently originated somewhere in the mid-2000s, when questions like this started to be asked.

Today in Russia this is how public figures call themselves. For example, Vitaly Tretyakov ...

How to explain Exodus 32:27 to an atheist in terms of love? After all, God told Moses to kill. Asks Igor
Answered by Alexandra Lantz, 04/29/2010

Peace be with you, Igor!

Here is the verse you are asking about:

“And he (*Moses) said to them: Thus says the Lord God of Israel: put each one of his sword on his thigh, go through the camp from gate to gate and back, and kill each his brother, each his friend, each his neighbor.”

It is my deep conviction that a truly sound understanding of this verse can only come if you, together with the questioner, carefully read all the previous chapters of the book of Exodus, while you have to constantly pray that the Author of the Bible Himself will help you in this reading. Praying, as you understand, will have to be for two, tk. An atheist is a person who does not recognize the existence of the One Author of the Bible.

About atheism

We have been assured for many years that there is no God, referring to the achievements of modern science...

Of course, many people are accustomed to materialistic thinking, hope for science research. They say: "Science has proved that there is no God."

I met with one priest, and he said:

- When perestroika began, I somehow left the temple. A woman comes up to me and says: “We would like to invite you to a party meeting. More than a thousand people will gather. Military, doctors, teachers. I agreed to come.

Yes, it is indeed a full house. They put me on the presidium. I look, a man with a briefcase sits at the end of the table and looks askance at me. The performances began. It's this man's turn. He spoke for a long time, and at the end he said: “Science has completely proved that there is no God. But there are still believers among us, even priests.” He finished. I get up and ask: “Dear brothers and sisters! If any of you say what science has proven that...

Does a Christian have a guardian angel?

Yes. In the Gospel there are the words of Christ: “Look, do not despise any of these little ones [i.e. believers]; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 18:10). In general, a Christian lives in a universe that is full of other created beings, including angels. Here the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to minister to those who are to inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:14), that is, spiritual beings who remember us, take care of us.

But if God is omnipotent, why would He use anyone to take care of people?

Because God wished to share the good of His existence with the created world. Well, you can also put the question: “Why did God create the world at all, because He does not need anything? For example, He could proclaim the gospel Himself, right? But no, He wanted us to be His partners in this work. Imagine an adult builds himself ...

Hello, Mothers and everyone, everyone who happens to be here. I have such a story and I don’t know who to turn to, because I’m not churched (I didn’t even go to confession). I never believed in God, my father is an atheist to the core (he says nasty things about everything related to faith), he is a very powerful person and he knows how to convince, knows a lot, reads, says “you need to know the enemy by sight” and reads the Bible. Mom and grandmother believe, as they say now, a special category of believers "in the soul." Until the age of 25, she did not believe and blasphemed God (Lord, forgive me). We have been married for 8 years and have a 2 year old son. And then a series of events happened, I realized that it was impossible to go on like this. And this is what things are now, everyone is working for me, the child is with me, I don’t know how to go to church myself, or is it better to just go and give communion to the child for now? but how about yourself? (I want to confess, I can’t even dream about it, my soul hurts), and there’s no one to leave the child with ... My husband generally said about going to church, “do whatever you want, just don’t touch me,” and thanks for that. This is the first moment.
…

It just so happens that Christians, especially Orthodox Christians, know practically nothing about other religions. It is strictly not recommended for Orthodox Christians to study the religious views of other people. It is even forbidden to read the sacred books of other peoples. And everything that is written in them is interpreted as "the machinations of the devil."

If you are an Orthodox Christian, then you may be annoyed by such views, and perhaps you will even begin to argue. But there is nothing to argue with. I can guarantee that if you are Orthodox and are not professionally engaged in religious studies, then you have not read a single holy book of other religions or a book containing a different creed. No, of course you could see these books, hold them in your hands, even flip through the pages, but you didn’t bother to read it completely.

If you are originally Orthodox, of course, and not a baptized adherent of any religion or sect. (By the way, this is precisely why a lot of prejudices reign in the Christian Orthodox environment, ...

Scientific facts in the Bible

Editor's note: We invite you to read an article that reveals some interesting parallels between the Bible and scientific discoveries made sometime in the past. Today, all scientists only study what was once created by the Creator. Starting from the universe itself, ending with those who fill it - all living creatures, including you and me. And there seems to be no end in sight to this research. We have not even explored such things as: our bodies, our oceans, our bowels of the earth, not to mention space and other galaxies. It is difficult to say whether this will ever be done, but the fact remains that we are only exploring what has already been created. No more. We strive to understand and see what everything was created from. But we do not devote much time to the seemingly obvious — the search for the One Who created all this. After all, it is by the creations that we can judge the Creator. And in this article we will consider only a tiny part of what God created. And once again we will be convinced of His greatness and ...

Lord... enlighten my mind with the light of reason
thy holy gospel
(Orthodox prayer book)

There are many reasons for this spiritual illness, but the main ones are probably three: the believer either does not want to grow in Christ, or he simply does not know that his life must be subordinated to the Word of God. And, perhaps, he mistakenly thinks: why work on yourself, it is enough to go to church once a week to become righteous ... Yes, “Russia cannot be understood with the mind.”

Even at the beginning of the last century, Doctor of Theology I. Evseev wrote: "To our shame, Holy Russia did not love and does not love the Bible." Unfortunately, these words are still relevant today. Recently, a familiar parishioner of an Orthodox church said: "I don't have time to read the Gospel." Paradox! The Christian wants to follow the Teacher - Christ, but neglects His Word. I think it would be useful for such busy believers to “bow their ears” (and knees) before the words of the Lord: “But this is whom I will look at: the humble and contrite in spirit, and the one who trembles at my word” ...

One of the favorite methods of fighting religion among atheists is to look for contradictions in the Holy Scriptures. In the Bible, indeed, there are historical inaccuracies and errors made either by the evangelists and the apostles, or by later scribes. But the revealed truths remained intact. The Bible is immutable Divine truths inspired by the Holy Spirit to specific people without violating their personality (i.e. character, nationality, upbringing, etc.). Archimandrites Alipy and Isaiah write in their Dogmatic Theology: “The Holy Scripture is called divinely revealed or inspired by God. It is called the Word of God, because preserves for us and conveys to us the word of God in the language of man... It would be unworthy of God to think that at the time of the communication of the Revelation, the sacred authors were like mediums, in a state of trance and automatically fixed the divine words. God never tramples on the freedom of man and does not depersonalize him.
The influence of the Holy Spirit on the prophet, ...

This question has to be answered frequently. They ask it, as a rule, in order to justify their unbelief, like a lawyer who asked Jesus: who is my neighbor? (Luke 10.29)

And, as often happens in such cases, I have long formed the answer. With slight variations, I answer something like this:
- In my Bible it is written: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph.4.5). Therefore, there is only one true faith. The remaining "faiths", or rather religions, are human inventions. To find the right faith, one should turn to this One God. And He will remind you how to believe correctly.

I see the true faith in the deeds of the Catholic Mother Teresa, the Orthodox ascetic Sergius of Radonezh, the Lutheran Erlo Stegen, the Baptist Georg Müller, the Congregationalist Gladys Elverd. Their faith worked by love, and for me this is the main proof of the correct faith. That is my answer. However, these arguments of the mind, in the absence of the heart's need of the questioner in God, as a rule, ...

Years passed. Abraham is very old. And his son, Isaac, had already reached the age of majority, but had not yet been married. Then Abraham began to take care of finding a bride for him. But he did not want to intermarry with any of the kind of idolaters, the inhabitants of Canaan. Therefore, calling Eliezer, who was in charge of all his estates, he told him that the time had come for Isaac my son to take a wife for himself. I instruct you to find and bring to my house a bride for my son, but “swear to me by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son Isaac from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but you will go to my land, to my country (and to my people), and you will take from there a wife for my son Isaac.”

“The servant said to him: perhaps a woman will not want to go with me to this land, should I return your son to the land from which you came?

Abraham said to him: Beware, do not bring my son back there; The Lord God of heaven, who took me out of my father's house and from the land of my birth, who spoke to me and who...

You can often hear reproaches against the Orthodox, as if they have much that contradicts the Holy Scripture of Christians - the Bible. For example, they pray to the Mother of God and the saints, and not only to God, and also venerate icons and call priests “fathers,” although the Bible forbids this. They perform many rituals that the Bible does not seem to mention. What does this mean: the Orthodox abandoned the Bible, replacing it with their own inventions, which they call "Tradition"? Let's Understand. The Church That Wrote the Bible

One Orthodox priest in the United States told such a story. A preacher came up to him on the street and said, "Do you want me to tell you about a Church that is based on the Bible?" To this the priest replied: “Do you want me to tell you about the Church that wrote the Bible?” His answer may seem brash and arrogant, but if you think about it, it accurately reflects how the Orthodox Church sees itself. This does not mean, of course, that she completely equalizes ...

One of the typical attacks

There are different ways to talk about religion and atheism; deep, thorough conversation is possible, and I have had occasion to deal with serious, thoughtful atheists who sincerely strive for honest and independent judgment. I am sincerely grateful to some atheistic authors for helping me acquire one of the most valuable habits - the habit of thinking. However, serious talk about serious issues is often replaced by crackling propaganda aimed at an ignorant and, even sadder, intellectually lazy audience. Both believers and atheists can fall into such propaganda; its harm, first of all, is that it encourages and forms the habit of intellectual laziness and intellectual dishonesty.

One of the stamps of atheistic propaganda I would like to consider in this article. A common place for propaganda is the indication of crimes committed under the banner of religion; Look, they say, to what madness people are driven by faith in God. Therefore, this belief itself is insane and harmful. This argument is repeated all the time, and we can find it in Richard Dawkins' recent book, The God Delusion. According to the BBC website, the book "is a resounding success and sells in huge numbers." The arguments that Dawkins puts forward are quite typical; so I will use his book to answer one of the typical atheistic arguments. Dawkins writes:

In January 2006, I was on a TV show on British Television called "The Root of All Evil?" I didn't like the title at first; religion is not the root of all evil, because no single thing can be the root of everything at once. But I was pleased with the announcement of the program, which the fourth channel placed in the newspapers. It depicted the skyscrapers of Manhattan with the caption "Imagine a world without religion." What is the connection between the picture and the caption? The twin towers clearly remained in place. Imagine, with John Lennon, a world without religion. Imagine a world without suicide bombers, without the 9/11 attacks, without witch burnings, without the Gunpowder Plot, without Indian castes, without the Israeli-Palestinian wars, without the Yugoslav massacres, without persecution of Jews for "Christicide", without conflict in Northern Ireland, no honor killings, no beaming televangelists cutting money off gullible simpletons saying, "God wants you to donate all you can." Imagine a world without the Taliban blowing up ancient statues, a world without the public beheading of blasphemers, a world where women are not whipped for violating religious "decency."

In fact, one can agree that in a world without religion, no Taliban would destroy Buddhist statues - for lack of Buddhism, and no one would persecute Jews - for lack of Jews themselves, as well as other peoples, civilizations and cultures created by religions. However, as I understand it, the author is not talking about this a little, but about the fact that religion, in his opinion, is the source of all this evil. That "honor killings" or militant nationalism get along admirably without any religion, the author does not know; he seems inclined to attribute all the evil that goes on in non-atheistic societies to religion. Dawkins writes in his book:

There is a cowardly reluctance to use religious terms to name warring factions. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants are figuratively referred to as "Nationalists" and "Loyalists" respectively. The very word "religion" is replaced by "community" when it comes to "communal clashes"

Parenthetically, I would note that many participants in the Northern Ireland (and not only) conflict - the same atheists as Dawkins, "Catholic" and "Protestant" means for them precisely belonging to a national community. However, we can successfully turn the reproach of "cowardly unwillingness" to call a spade a spade to Dawkins.

Indeed, we have a lot to say about bigotry, intolerance, and persecution for our beliefs. Our country has suffered greatly from fanaticism and intolerance - I think that more than any other country in the world, with the exception of Cambodia. The horror of these events must by no means be forgotten. We should cherish their memory as stubbornly as the Jews cherish the memory of the horror of the Holocaust. Because the words “he who forgets the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them” are not only terrible, they are also true words. We must remember the victims of fanaticism - those who were shot in the back of the head, chopped with swords, starved to death or killed in many other ways; we must remember the works of culture and art destroyed by fanatics; we must remember that they created one of the worst tyrannies in history. We must also remember that it was atheistic fanaticism. It was not the clerics who shot the atheists at the Butovo firing range; it was exactly the opposite. The historical reality is that atheist fanatics have killed many more people than Islamic extremists and inquisitors put together. This is not to say that all atheists are bloodthirsty fanatics - they are not - but only to draw attention to the fact that one of the most destructive forms of fanaticism, Bolshevism, was precisely atheistic. Therefore, to consider hatred, fanaticism and persecution as a product of religion, and even more so to recommend atheism as a remedy for all these disasters, means to declare the entire Russian (and not only) history of the 20th century as if it had not been. Dawkins writes:

The question is not whether Stalin and Hitler were atheists, but whether it can be argued that under the influence of atheism people systematically commit evil deeds. There is not the slightest evidence that this is so.

Both in our country and in other countries, people who loudly declared their atheistic beliefs persecuted believers precisely with the aim of instilling atheism and eradicating religion. When people burned churches and killed priests and laity - here, in Spain, in Mexico, and in many other places - they did it precisely under atheistic slogans. And for Dawkins (and others like him) "there is not the slightest evidence that people have done evil deeds under the influence of atheism." What to say to this? Dawkins reproaches fundamentalist Protestants that no evidence convinces them of the reality of evolution, while an honest scientist is always ready to reconsider his views. But the Theory of Evolution is still a theory that describes facts, while atheistic persecution is a fact in itself. Numerous Russian, Spanish, Mexican, Chinese and many other New Martyrs, whose names and circumstances of death are often well known, who suffered precisely from atheists and precisely for their faith, do not exist for Dawkins. I don't think Dawkins is deliberately lying. It would be wrong to imagine him winking slyly and saying "it's great I deceived these mugs, my readers." I think he believes in himself, just as, for example, revisionist David Irving is sincere in his Holocaust denial. A person can simply not see point-blank what does not fit into his picture of the world - regardless of whether he is a believer or an atheist. Atheism does not cure this at all.

The argument “from historical atrocities” sounded quite impressive on the lips of, for example, the figures of the Enlightenment. They (and their listeners) had nothing to compare with. But soon Europe saw no less impressive crimes committed under the banner of Enlightenment and Reason. The "hell columns" of General Turrot engaged in the Franco-French genocide in the Vendée, and the revolutionary soldiers began to shoot nuns for refusing to renounce their vows. Since then, the experience of French, Spanish, Mexican, and especially Russian atheism has shown that fanatical persecution, massacres, tyranny, and witch hunts have been carried out under anti-religious banners on an even greater scale than under religious ones.

There is an obvious way to determine whether factor X is responsible for the phenomenon Y - whether this phenomenon continues after the elimination of this factor. If we got rid of the murderous doctors, and the patients only got worse, we probably sinned against the doctors in vain; if the accused is captured and executed, and the serial killings continue, then we have captured the wrong person; if, finally, we got rid of religion and believers, and the disasters and atrocities previously attributed to religion not only did not stop, but acquired an even greater scope, then it was not a matter of religion. If atrocities have only gotten worse in a situation where it is absolutely impossible to blame religion for this, then religion is by no means the cause of atrocities. Recognition of this also means the rejection of atheism as such; it means abandoning the phobia in the style of "all adversity, all trouble, from the insidious priest." And it also means a more sober - that is, a more pessimistic view of human nature.

Some objections

During discussions on the Russian Internet, people most often say that communism is a surrogate for religion, and communists cannot be considered atheists in the exact sense of the word - Holy Scripture was replaced by the works of the Founders, Martyrs and Saints - fallen Fighters for People's Happiness, religious rituals - communist. Here it is important for us to avoid confusion in definitions. The same Richard Dawkins is such an ardent and zealous missionary of atheism that some of his fellow atheists say to him:

Does your hostility turn you into a "fundamentalist atheist" like the religious extremists in the fundamentalist Bible Belt?

Dawkins exhibits some of the traits that we are accustomed to seeing in religious people (I will note in brackets, not the best of them) - does this stop him from being an atheist? Can we declare as believers, say, a patriot who pays homage to a flag, or a politician who is deeply committed to his party? Are, for example, Spartak fans believers of the Spartak cult? Theoretically, we can declare anyone to be a believer, but then the very meaning of the words "religion" and "atheism" will be lost.

So let's use these words in their dictionary meaning. In the dictionary meaning of the word, the communists were atheists, adherents of a secular ideology, including the most militant atheism as an obligatory component; in the same dictionary sense, they were by no means religious. As T.P. Samsonov, head of the secret department of the Cheka, wrote on December 4, 1920, to the chairman of the Cheka, F.E. Dzerzhinsky,

Tov. Latsis is deeply right when he says that Communism and Religion are mutually exclusive, and he is also deeply right that religion cannot be destroyed by any other apparatus, except for the apparatus of the Cheka.

If we use the words "religion" and "atheism" in arbitrary meanings, we, of course, can say anything about the communists - but these statements themselves will be meaningless, for the reason given above.

Is it necessary to hold on to a worthless argument?

I would like to be understood correctly. I'm not going to say something like "atheists have killed millions of people, so now let them keep quiet in a rag." I do not believe that some people - in particular some atheists - can be blamed for the crimes of others. Most of my atheistic opponents did not destroy anyone and do not approve of destruction. Moreover, I do not doubt the right of atheists to challenge my faith; I believe that arguing with faith is a necessary part of the search for faith. But I'm not even talking about faith now; I'm talking about elementary intellectual conscientiousness.

I acknowledge that wicked people can use religion for wicked purposes, and moreover, even sincere believers can sin and err in terrible ways. I do not consider this evidence against the Gospel - where, if not in the Gospel, the Savior says that whoever kills you will think that he is serving God(John 16:2), and that some of those who speak of His name, He actually never knew (Matt. 7:23). Scripture does not promise the Church either the purity of the ranks, or the church people - personal sinlessness, but rather prepares us for the opposite.

While much can be attributed to "black legends" and propaganda exaggerations, there is indeed much sin in the history of the Church; God does not deal with plasticine, but with sinful people living within the framework of a sinful society. Serious cruelties and injustices were indeed committed under the banner of Christianity, which I am not going to justify.

It seems to me that it would be natural for atheists to admit that yes, mass atrocities were committed under atheistic banners, there were fanatics of the most gloomy nature among atheists, atheism by no means guarantees its adherents neither from hatred, nor from fanaticism, nor from blind trust in leaders. Some atheists admit this. Valery Kuvakin, for example, writes that any ideas - including the ideas of atheism and secular humanism - can be perverted in the most anti-human way. Recognition that even more blood was shed under the banners of atheistic ideologies than under the banners of religion does not in any way signify agreement with the reality of the existence of God. You can remain an atheist - in the sense of not recognizing the supernatural reality - and admit these crimes. However, for a certain type of atheist, such recognition is unacceptable - and here, I think, there is a border between atheism as a worldview and atheism as a phobia, between argumentation and propaganda, between the desire to understand and the desire for simple (and incorrect) answers.

Two sides of atheism.

In such a diverse phenomenon as atheism, two sides can be distinguished - I would designate them as atheism-worldview and atheism-phobia. A person may believe that there is no God, but the one who believes that God exists and worships Him is mistaken. Such a belief, generally speaking, does not necessarily imply hostility to faith and believers. This kind of atheist may show a tolerant (“so be it”) or even a benevolent (“benefit to society”) attitude towards faith and believers. Such atheism can still be called "non-militant." I wouldn't say that just not believing in God will induce people to persecute their fellow men. I just want to point out that it does not in the least insure against falling into fanaticism, hypocrisy, and focus-not-seeing unpleasant facts - vices that atheist propaganda traditionally describes as specifically religious.

Atheism-phobia repeats the general features of phobias in general - national or confessional, and the similarity of this kind of atheism, for example, with anti-Semitism, has already been repeatedly noted. A certain group of people is declared the source of all adversity and all misfortune and a great threat to society, the history of this group is described as a history of crimes, the most repulsive representatives of the group (“Jewish commissar”, “Islamic terrorist”, “greedy TV preacher”, “perverse monk”) are served as its typical representatives characterizing the group as a whole.

I saw an intelligent, gentle preacher of atheism who himself was horrified, looking at how the people who listened to him turned his views into a primitive hatred of faith and believers. He didn't mean it at all. But - he seems to have overlooked this - there is a demand for a phobia, and people were ready to take material anywhere, including from him. Explanations of where all the hardships and troubles come from, and who exactly drank all the water in the tap, are always in some demand. In the dark depths of the human psyche, there is, alas, something that readily responds to the temptation to place reality in a simple scheme, where some people - Jews, Muslims, Americans, Russians, churchmen, cyclists - are declared the source of world evil. A refined philosophical discussion about how solid the evidence for the existence of God is is unlikely to attract many supporters to you, but the storm and onslaught, bold generalizations, broad strokes, and most importantly - the provision of an enemy who can be despised, feared and hated - will attract. It's also a respectable, socially acceptable phobia.

And it is precisely for a phobia that it is impossible to admit that in the history of the 20th century, atheistic regimes demonstrated both a fanatical passion for persecution, and a witch hunt, and the most cruel suppression of dissent - all that atheistic propaganda incriminated religions. This, in itself, does not disprove the thesis "There is no God." But it completely refutes the thesis "all adversity, all the trouble from the insidious priest." But a phobia cannot refuse him.

This kind of dishonesty is all the more sad because there is nothing in it that is necessary to establish a proper atheistic position. The recognition of the reality of atheistic fanaticism does not yet mean the rejection of atheism; this means the rejection of that primitive version of him, which believes that "all the hardships, all the trouble from the insidious priest." After getting rid of the insidious priests - and already in the process of this deliverance - adversity and troubles only increased.

The phrase in the title is not an oxymoron or a joke. This is a statement of a phenomenon that has become widespread in Russia in the 21st century.
Orthodox communists have not surprised anyone in our country for a long time. Members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, headed by Comrade Zyuganov and Lenin, Marx and Stalin, pray in friendly columns on banners in Orthodox churches and march in religious processions.
Soon no one will be surprised by an Orthodox atheist either. Moreover, they are already present among us in large numbers and declare themselves. You just need to accept it as a fact, and then it will not be excruciatingly painful from cognitive dissonance.
At first, I experienced this unpleasant sensation when I read the data of a survey of Orthodox Christians made by sociologists at the Levada Center.
Briefly, the results of their study showed that: among those who call themselves Orthodox, only 40% are sure of the existence of God, 60% do not consider themselves religious people, and 30% even believe that there is no God.
At the same time, 90% of self-named Orthodox do not take part in the activities of the Church, 80% do not attend communion, and 55% do not attend services in churches.
I admitted that one could consider oneself Orthodox and not attend church, not observe the canons, and not even know the prayers. But suppose there is no God? Do not consider yourself a religious person?!
What then is the basis for calling oneself Orthodox? Or do they not even know the meaning of the word "Orthodox"? Maybe those 30% who do not believe in the existence of God, or those 60% who do not consider themselves religious people, think that "Orthodox" is a synonym for the word "Russian", and gave answers about their nationality? Well, as in a joke about a man who flew abroad for the first time and wrote in the questionnaire in the column "sex" - "twice a week."
When I realized this, the world took on its former shape, and I calmed down. Yes, these 90% of those who call themselves Orthodox and do not believe in God are Orthodox atheists. They were atheists for a long time - by upbringing, and they recently became Orthodox - out of fashion or some other necessity. At the same time, they did not change their worldview - just as they were not religious people, they remain so.
And how many real Orthodox are among those who apply such a self-designation to themselves? According to the results of a survey by the Levada Center, no more than 10% is obtained.
In general, this is true. Approximately as many religious people were in the USSR. Nothing has changed since then. After all, religiosity cannot be the result of fashion or a political trend. It is an internal need, and does not depend on external trends. Fashion and political trends change, but the faith of believers remains (with the rare exception of a severe mental breakdown).
People come to faith in two ways: as a result of being brought up in a family of believers (not often, more often in a family of devout believers, children grow up as atheists) and as a result of a conscious coming to faith, most often due to severe trials, physical ailments, moral suffering, finding in faith in God, support and comfort for oneself, restoring the harmony of the world and soul.
The rest either stupidly imitate their parents, without even thinking about what and why they do, as a rule, and their parents are the same people who do not burden themselves with thoughtfulness, or they are opportunists who quickly react to fashion and trends.
Of course, the last two categories are not believers in God. At best they are superstitious, at worst they are extremely cynical.
But where does this "Orthodox hysteria" of recent years come from? Where do the crowds of those eager to touch some “shrine” exhibited in the temple come from? Whence the darkness of the fasting? Where are the ranks of the offended for the "scandalized faith"?
All from the same place - these are those 90% allegedly Orthodox, who follow fashion, some political necessity, some ordinary wild superstition (with the same zeal they attend psychic sessions and go to fortune-tellers for advice).
Well, let's say there is nothing to offend these 90%, more than they themselves offended a person in themselves, it is impossible to offend. Therefore, all insinuations about offended faith, desecrated shrines and concern for children are pure lies. They do not and cannot have religious shrines - a rusty nail and a piece of decayed cloth are not symbols of faith for a Christian (and Orthodoxy is, whatever one may say, the Christian faith, no matter what imaginary Orthodox believers invent). They also do not have faith in God (which they themselves admit). In such obscurantism and such lies, to raise children, as imaginary Orthodox do it, it is difficult to harm children more, psychological traumas for life are provided to these children by parents who care for their morality.
10% of believing Orthodox Christians could probably be offended by hurting their religious feelings, but it is very difficult to offend them, because their faith gives them the strength to be merciful, able to forgive, able to separate vanity and superstition from truth, accept the world in all its diversity and do not judge anyone for mistakes and incomprehensible actions. They are able to distinguish the external, the formal, from the essential, from the content. They are confident in their faith, they know that it is impossible to shake it from the outside. Their faith in God gives them inner strength and confidence. Therefore, neither punk prayers, nor exhibitions of contemporary art, nor bare shoulders and bright dresses of women, nor the love of a person for a person of his sex offends them. The world is diverse, there is a place for everyone and everything in it; Judge not lest ye be judged.
“The Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore, the Son of Man is the lord of the Sabbaths too,” these words of the Gospel do not like to be remembered by those who see faith in God as blind adherence to rules and canons. Meanwhile, they, like the Sermon on the Mount, contain the quintessence of Christian doctrine - one should not be a slave to customs, rules, canons, especially when they contradict the legitimate interests of a person. A person is more important than all canons, essence is more important than external manifestations, content is more important than form.
Therefore, the arguments in the Khamovnichesky court about where a woman can stand in the church and where not, in what clothes the girls from the Pussy Riot group came to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, how they moved and how they were baptized, from the point of view of a Christian, are absurd. And the punishment for “wrong clothes”, “wrong movements” and “wrong place” for singing is real blasphemy, because it completely perverts the teachings of Christ, discredits him.
However, the values ​​of Orthodox atheists and the values ​​of Orthodox Christians are very far from each other. The values ​​of Christians are spiritual, therefore they cannot be scolded and desecrated, they do not need to be poured with holy water in order to “consecrate them again”.
And for Orthodox atheists, all values ​​are exclusively material. They can be broken, spoiled by nano-dust, desecrated by dances on the salt. They can be "consecrated" as many times as you like - after abundant sprinkling they will be as good as new - as after a psychic session or a shaman's ritual. And for their material values, Orthodox atheists are ready to break their mouths and gouge out their blinkers - both in a figurative and in the most direct sense.
It is they - Orthodox atheists - who are now judging the girls from Pussy Riot in Hamsud. They also condemned Samodurov and Erofeev for the Forbidden Art exhibition. They also disrupted the opening of an exhibition of contemporary art in Krasnodar and spat in the face of its curator Marat Gelman. They also filed a police report against Madonna, who gave a concert in the once cultural capital of Russia, St. Petersburg.
Orthodox atheists - this gene mutation, a hybrid of militant atheism and dense superstition - impose their rules of life, their tastes, their views on all citizens of Russia - believers and non-believers. And so far they have been doing quite well, because among them there are figures who occupy supreme positions in secular and religious power.
So, Orthodox atheists are not at all funny, and sometimes even scary.
But like any deviation from the norm, like any anomaly, this subspecies of Homo erectus is doomed to extinction. He is a dead end branch of history. It will back away until it crashes with all its foolishness into the abyss of oblivion. After all, the moral law inside every rational person, fed by love for God, or love for truth, or love for close people, helps to understand where is the lie and where is the truth, where is good and where is evil, where is the way forward, and where is the dead end. But when the moral law is replaced by a thirst for money, a thirst for power, hatred and malice, a person becomes like an ancient reptile - a large threatening carcass with a small brainless head, and his fate is to die out.

Father, can an atheist be virtuous?
- Quite, quite. It's just hard for him to die.
From a conversation between the author and Elder Eli. 1990

Historical roots
Orthodox atheism is a spiritual doctrine in which adherence to Orthodox ethics is not associated with faith in God.
Tens of millions of people live in Russia today who could call themselves Orthodox atheists. Orthodox atheism is a very serious phenomenon of contemporary Russian life. His followers speak about their beliefs, however, rarely and with some embarrassment. It's like they're asking for forgiveness.
They can be easily understood if we trace the origins of the formation of Orthodox atheism in our country. In the Soviet Union there were 20 million members of the Communist Party, which at that time regarded faith in God as a relic of the former socio-economic formations. A member of the CPSU, as well as a Komsomol member with a pioneer, was forbidden to believe in God and participate in religious rites. However, a good half of the Communists, mainly at the initiative of their grandmothers, were baptized into Orthodoxy in early childhood.
Soviet education, school, and then university, made it possible to explain the world without the help of God. There was simply less and less room for God in this world.
In fairness, it should be noted that in the West, especially in Protestant countries, in the 20th century, secularization processes also took place, individual and group consciousness was freed from the influence of religion. In Holland, since the 70s of the last century, empty churches began to be occupied by supermarkets and student dormitories.
In the USSR, science successfully replaced belief in all mystical phenomena, including the supernatural. But the grains of Orthodox morality could not be eliminated, for they supported the entire supporting frame of human living arrangements. Even the moral code of the builder of communism was built "in the image and likeness" of the decalogue of Moses.
In 1991, we lost a fifth of our territories and a number of gains of socialism, which, no matter what anyone says, still were. But we did get something. Someone will think that queues that are humiliating for a person have disappeared, and they will be right. But the most important thing is that the nations have regained the true, and not declarative, right to freedom of conscience.
The released pendulum swung sharply in the opposite direction. Going to church and declaring oneself Orthodox has become fashionable. However, God cannot dwell in the heart simply by the will of man. Faith also cannot be the result of a chain of logical conclusions. Religiosity is a feeling, and a feeling must mature.
For many, this feeling never came... But on the other hand, the understanding came that mankind has not come up with a better moral doctrine than the Orthodox one. Such people have no doubts that Orthodoxy has played a huge positive role in the history of the Russian people.

What do Orthodox atheists believe?

Orthodox atheists accept the Gospel with all their heart and soul. The principles set out in the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus, they could call their life credo.
These people are ready to live according to the commandments. Moreover, in order to act virtuously, they do not need to carry the fear of God in their hearts. They do not commit sins (if they do not) not because they are afraid of the punishment of the Lord, but because sin is unpleasant to them.
Orthodox atheists go to church with pleasure, participate in rituals and sacraments. They willingly baptize their own and other people's children.
The question of the existence of God for Orthodox atheists remains open. They just don't know the answer to it. In this sense, of course, it will be more difficult for them to die than for church people.
A believer knows where he is going. He entrusts himself into the hands of the Lord and with hope passes into eternal life. And where does the atheist go who does not believe in the immortality of the soul? Into non-existence?
But Orthodox atheists and militant atheists differ significantly in their views. The militant, or vulgar, atheist categorically does not accept anything that is connected with the dogma. The Orthodox atheist himself does not believe in God, but he admits his existence, realizing that not everyone can believe.
The same goes for the members of the Creed and the miracles described in the Bible and the Lives of the Saints. If science cannot explain the Resurrection of Christ, this does not mean that such a thing could not have happened in principle.
Believers consider science to be one of the ways of knowing the Creator. Perhaps the time will come when science will find laws that explain the immortality of the soul and bodily resurrection. But until this happens, not all people who have received a good secular education are ready to believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
And what do Orthodox atheists have no doubts about? For Orthodox atheists, there is no doubt that Jesus Christ (Yeshua) existed as a historical figure.
It was an itinerant preacher, the son of a simple Jewish woman.
From his followers, he founded a new religious movement based on Judaism, later named after him. In Palestine, already during his lifetime, they began to consider Christ the messiah, a descendant of David.
Jesus' sermon was addressed mainly to the low-income segments of the population. He also did not divide people along ethnic lines. All people were equal to Jesus.
Christ was executed by the verdict of the procurator of Judea, with the warm consent of the Jewish religious elite. The Sanhedrin rightly saw in Jesus a dangerous competitor in the struggle for the sympathy of the flock. In addition, the Jewish political leaders understood that the behavior of the crowd is unpredictable and the people, guided by a popular Teacher, could bring the wrath of the empire on Judah. The Jerusalem elite decided to "surrender" Christ to the Romans.
According to Roman law, the most dangerous criminals were executed by crucifixion. This is how Jesus ended his earthly life.

"Irreligious Orthodoxy" and the Russian Orthodox Church
Orthodox atheism, as a spiritual position, is not formalized into a more or less integral doctrine. Yes, and there is no need for this.
In the West, non-religious Christianity has existed for 65 years as a separate theological concept. Its founder was the German Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906 - 1945), a member of the Resistance who was executed by the Nazis. In 1943-1944. in letters from prison, he proclaimed that "the world has come of age and does not need the idea of ​​God." The essence of Christianity, according to D. Bonhoeffer, is expressed in love for one's neighbor ("one's neighbor"). According to D. Bonhoeffer: "To be a Christian does not mean to be religious, but to be human."
Unlike classical Protestantism (Lutheranism), where salvation is postulated only by faith, D. Bonhoeffer calls for the active practice of "doing justice for people."
It is unlikely that any of the Orthodox atheists has read the aforementioned theologian, but the closeness of the positions is obvious.
"Religious Orthodoxy" presupposes life in the world according to Christian commandments. How well each one succeeds is a purely personal matter. Here, sincere intentions and their embodiment in good deeds are important, for "faith without deeds is dead."
The difference between Orthodox atheism and the Protestant branch of non-religious Christianity is that we do not deny the pastoral role of the Church. "Religious Orthodoxy" categorically does not accept the thesis of secular theology (T. Altitzer, W. Hamilton, P. Van Buren) about the denial of the traditional church form of Christianity, as having lost its significance for modern man.
The ecclesiastical form of the organization of Christian life is by no means outdated, just as the truths proclaimed by Christ cannot become outdated.
The Russian Orthodox Church remains objectified conscience of the nation. Without the Church, we are doomed to spiritual impoverishment. The Church teaches about the goals of life that go beyond life, but if they are accepted by a person, they align his earthly path with a vector that goes to heaven, even if he does not believe in a transcendent God. And it turns out that this "straightening" is good for earthly affairs as well. It is incorrect to say that the Church molds people. The Church calls, offers, in extreme cases - instructs, and the person listens, thinks and chooses independently. There is complete freedom and complete responsibility. For if there is no freedom, there is no judgment.
Orthodox atheism is not heresy in the body of the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, this is the path to the potential churching of millions of Russian people.

Sergey Grechishnikov