home Mantras Essay on the topic of the modern picture of the world. My worldview

Essay on the topic of the modern picture of the world. My worldview

People have always sought to make the world in which they live understandable. They need this in order to feel safe and comfortable in their own environment, to be able to anticipate the onset of various events in order to use favorable ones and avoid unfavorable ones, or minimize their negative consequences. Knowledge of the world objectively required understanding the place of a person in it, a special attitude of people to everything that happens in accordance with their goals, needs and interests, one or another understanding of the meaning of life. A person, therefore, has a need to create a holistic picture outside world that makes this world understandable and explicable. At the same time, in mature societies, it was built on the basis of philosophical, natural-science and religious knowledge and ideas about the world around it, and was fixed in various kinds of theories.

This or that picture of the world is one of the elements of the worldview, contributes to the development of a more or less holistic understanding of the world and people themselves.

Worldview is a set of views, assessments, norms, attitudes, principles that determine the most general vision and understanding of the world, the place of a person in it, expressed in life position, programs of behavior and actions of people. In the worldview, the cognitive, value and behavioral subsystems of the subject in their interrelation are presented in a generalized form.

Let's highlight the most important elements in the structure of the worldview.

1. A special place in the worldview is occupied by knowledge and namely generalized knowledge - everyday or life-practical, as well as theoretical. In this regard, the basis of the worldview is always one or another picture of the world: either ordinary-practical, or formed on the basis of theory.

2. Knowledge never fills the entire field of worldview. Therefore, in addition to knowledge about the world, the worldview also comprehends the way and content of human life, ideals, expresses certain value systems (about good and evil, man and society, state and politics, etc.), certain ways of life are approved (condemned), behavior and communication.

3. An important element of the worldview are the norms and principles of life. They allow a person to value-orientate himself in the material and spiritual culture of society, realize the meaning of life and choose a life path.

4. The worldview of the individual and the social outlook contain not only an already rethought body of knowledge, closely associated with feelings, will, norms, principles and values, with differentiation into good and bad, necessary or unnecessary, valuable, less valuable or not at all valuable, but also, most importantly, the position of the subject.

Being included in the worldview, knowledge, values, action programs and its other components acquire a new status. They absorb the attitude, the position of the bearer of the worldview, are colored by emotions and feelings, combined with the will to act, correlated with apathy or neutrality, with inspiration or tragedy.

In various ideological forms, the intellectual and emotional experience of people is presented in different ways. The emotional-psychological side of the worldview at the level of moods and feelings is the worldview. The experience of forming cognitive images of the world using sensations, perceptions and ideas is referred to as world perception. The cognitive-intellectual side of the worldview is worldview.

Worldview and picture of the world correlate as beliefs and knowledge. The basis of any worldview is one or another knowledge that makes up one or another picture of the world. Theoretical, as well as everyday knowledge of the picture of the world in the worldview is always emotionally "colored", rethought, classified.

The picture of the world is a body of knowledge that gives an integral understanding (scientific, simply theoretical or everyday) of those complex processes that take place in nature and society, in man himself.

In the structure of the picture of the world, two main components can be distinguished: conceptual (conceptual) and sensory-figurative (ordinary-practical). The conceptual component is represented by knowledge, expressed by concepts and categories, laws and principles, and the sensual component is represented by a set of everyday knowledge, visual representations of the world, and experience.

The first pictures of the world were formed spontaneously. Attempts to purposefully systematize knowledge took place already in the era of antiquity. They were of a pronounced naturalistic nature, but reflected the inner need of a person to cognize the whole world and himself, his place and attitude to the world. From the very beginning, the picture of the world was organically woven into the worldview of a person, had a dominant character in its content.

The concept of "picture of the world" means, as it were, a visible portrait of the universe, a figurative-conceptual copy of the Universe. IN public consciousness historically, different pictures of the world are formed and gradually change, which more or less fully explain reality, contain a different ratio of subjective and objective.

Pictures of the world that give a person a certain place in the Universe and thereby help him navigate in being, grow out of everyday life or in the course of special theoretical activities of human communities. According to A. Einstein, a person strives in some adequate way to create in himself a simple and clear picture of the world; and this not only in order to overcome the world in which he lives, but also in order to try, to a certain extent, to replace this world with the picture he has created.

A person, building this or that picture of the world, relies, first of all, on everyday practical, as well as theoretical knowledge.

The everyday-practical picture of the world has its own characteristics.

First, the content of the everyday picture of the world is knowledge that arises and exists on the basis of a sensory reflection of the everyday, practical life of people, their immediate immediate interests.

Secondly, knowledge, which forms the basis of the life-practical picture of the world, is distinguished by an insignificant depth of reflection of people's everyday life, the lack of consistency. They are heterogeneous in terms of the nature of knowledge, the level of awareness, inclusion in the culture of the subject, the reflection of national, religious and other types. social relations. Knowledge at this level is quite contradictory in terms of accuracy, spheres of life, orientation, relevance, in relation to beliefs. They contain folk wisdom and knowledge of everyday traditions, norms that have universal, ethnic or group significance. Progressive and conservative elements can simultaneously find a place in it: philistine judgments, ignorant opinions, prejudices, etc.

Thirdly, a person, building an everyday-practical picture of the world, closes it to his own everyday-practical world and therefore objectively does not include (does not reflect) the extrahuman cosmos, in which the Earth is located. Outer space is as important here as it is practically useful.

Fourthly, the everyday picture of the world always has its own framework for everyday vision of reality. It is focused on the current moment and a little - on the future, on that near future, it is impossible to live without taking care of the rotor. Therefore, many discoveries of a theoretical nature and inventions quickly fit into a person’s life, become something “native”, familiar and practically useful to him.

Fifth, the everyday picture of the world has fewer typical features that are characteristic of many people. It is more individualized, its own for each person or social group.

We can only talk about some common features that are characteristic of the everyday vision of the world by each of us.

The theoretical picture of the world also has features that distinguish it from the ordinary-practical picture of the world.

1. The theoretical picture of the world is characterized, first of all, by a higher quality of knowledge that reflects the inner, essential in things, phenomena and processes of being, an element of which is the person himself.

2. This knowledge is abstract-logical in nature, it is systemic and conceptual in nature.

3. The theoretical picture of the world does not have a rigid framework for seeing reality. It focuses not only on the past and present, but to a greater extent on the future. The dynamically developing nature of theoretical knowledge indicates that the possibilities of this picture of the world are practically unlimited.

4. The construction of a theoretical picture in the mind and worldview of a subject necessarily presupposes that he has special training (education).

Thus, everyday practical and theoretical knowledge are not reducible to each other, not interchangeable when building a picture of the world, but equally necessary and complementary to each other. In the construction of a particular picture of the world, they play a different dominant role. Taken in unity, they are able to complete the construction of an integral picture of the world.

There are philosophical, natural science and religious pictures of the world. Consider their features.

The philosophical picture of the world is a generalized, expressed in philosophical concepts and judgments, a theoretical model of being in its correlation with human life, conscious social activity, and corresponding to a certain stage of historical development.

The following types of knowledge can be distinguished as the main structural elements of the philosophical picture of the world: about nature, about society, about cognition, about man.

Many philosophers of the past paid attention to knowledge about nature in their works (Democritus, Lucretius, J. Bruno, D. Diderot, P. Holbach, F. Engels, A.I. Herzen, N.F. Fedorov, V.I. Vernadsky and etc.).

Gradually, questions entered the sphere of philosophy and became a constant subject of its interest. public life people, economic, political, legal and other relations. The answers to them are reflected in the titles of many works (for example: Plato - "On the State", "Laws"; Aristotle - "Politics"; T. Hobbes - "On the Citizen", "Leviathan"; J. Locke - "Two Treatises on public administration»; C. Montesquieu - "On the Spirit of Laws"; G. Hegel - "Philosophy of Law"; F. Engels - "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", etc.). Like natural philosophers, forerunners of modern natural science, socio-philosophical thought paved the way for specific socio-political knowledge and disciplines (civil history, jurisprudence, and others).

It should be noted that the subject of philosophical development was the person himself, as well as morality, law, religion, art and other manifestations of human abilities and relationships. IN philosophical thought this issue was reflected in a number of philosophical works (for example: Aristotle - "On the Soul", "Ethics", "Rhetoric"; Avicenna - "The Book of Knowledge"; R. Descartes "Rules for the Guidance of the Mind", "Discourse on the Method"; B. Spinoza - "Treatise on the Improvement of the Mind", "Ethics"; T. Hobbes - "On Man"; J. Locke - "Experiment on the Human Mind"; K. Helvetius - "On the Mind", "On Man"; D Hegel - "Philosophy of Religion", "Philosophy of Morals", etc.).

Within the framework of the philosophical vision of the world, two models of being were formed:

a) a non-religious philosophical picture of the world, formed on the basis of generalization of the data of natural and social sciences, understanding of secular life;

b) the religious-philosophical picture of the world as a system of dogmatic-theoretical views on the world, in which the earthly and the sacred are mixed, the world is doubling, where faith is considered higher than the truths of reason.

It is necessary to single out a number of provisions that indicate the unity of these pictures of the world.

1. These pictures of the world claim to be an adequate theoretical reflection of the world with the help of fundamental philosophical concepts such as being, matter, spirit, consciousness and others.

2. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world forms the basis of the worldview of the corresponding type (non-religious-philosophical and philosophical-religious).

3. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world is largely pluralistic. They are ambiguous in their content, can be developed in the most different directions.

Firstly, the philosophical picture of the world is built on the basis of knowledge about the natural, social world and the world of man himself. They are supplemented by theoretical generalizations of concrete sciences. Philosophy builds a universal theoretical picture of the world not instead of specific sciences, but together with sciences. Philosophical knowledge is part of the scientific sphere of knowledge, at least part of its content, and in this respect, philosophy is a science, a type of scientific knowledge.

Secondly, philosophical knowledge, as knowledge of a special kind, has always performed the important task of forming the basis of a worldview, since the starting point of any worldview is precisely such rethought and general essential knowledge related to the fundamental interests of people and society. Since ancient times, categories have crystallized in the bosom of philosophical knowledge as leading logical forms of thinking and value orientations that form the core and framework of the worldview: being, matter, space, time, movement, development, freedom, etc. On their basis, worldview theoretical systems were built, expressing a conceptual understanding of culture, nature (space), society and man. The philosophical picture of the world is characterized by the unity of cosmocentrism, anthropocentrism and sociocentrism.

Third, philosophical ideas are not static. This is a developing system of knowledge, which is enriched with more and more new content, new discoveries in philosophy itself and other sciences. At the same time, the continuity of knowledge is preserved due to the fact that new knowledge does not reject, but dialectically “removes”, overcomes its previous level.

Fourth, the philosophical picture of the world is also characterized by the fact that, with all the variety of different philosophical directions and schools, the world around a person is considered as a holistic world of complex relationships and interdependencies, contradictions, qualitative changes and development, which ultimately corresponds to the content and spirit of scientific knowledge.

Philosophical worldview expresses the intellectual desire of mankind not just to accumulate a lot of knowledge, but to understand, comprehend the world as a single and integral in its basis, in which objective and subjective, being and consciousness, material and spiritual are closely intertwined.

The natural-science picture of the world is a collection of knowledge that exists in the form of concepts, principles and laws, giving a holistic understanding of the material world as a moving and developing nature, explaining the origin of life and man. It includes the most fundamental knowledge about nature, verified and confirmed by experimental data.

The main elements of the general scientific picture of the world: scientific knowledge about nature; scientific knowledge about society; scientific knowledge about man and his thinking.

The history of the development of natural sciences testifies that in its knowledge of nature, mankind has passed through three main stages and is entering the fourth.

At the first stage (before the 15th century), general syncretic (undifferentiated) ideas about the surrounding world as something whole were formed. A special field of knowledge appeared - natural philosophy (philosophy of nature), which absorbed the first knowledge of physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, navigation, astronomy, medicine, etc.

The second stage began in the 15th-16th centuries. Analytics came to the fore - the mental dismemberment of being and the allocation of particulars, their study. It led to the emergence of independent concrete sciences of nature: physics, chemistry, biology, mechanics, as well as a number of other natural sciences.

The third stage in the development of natural science began in the 17th century. In modern times, the transition from separate knowledge of the "elements" of inanimate nature, plants and animals to the creation of a holistic picture of nature based on previously known details and the acquisition of new knowledge began to gradually take place. The synthetic stage of its study has begun.

From the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 20th centuries, natural science entered the fourth, technogenic stage. The use of diverse technology for the study of nature, its transformation and use in the interests of man has become the main, dominant.

The main features of the modern natural-science picture of the world:

1. It is based on the knowledge of objects that exist and develop independently, according to their own laws. Natural sciences want to know the world "as it is" and therefore their object is material reality, its types and forms - space, its micro-, macro- and mega-worlds, inanimate and living nature, matter and physical fields.

2. The natural sciences strive to reflect and explain nature in strict terms, mathematical and other calculations. The laws, principles and categories of these sciences are a powerful tool for further knowledge and transformation of natural phenomena and processes.

3. Natural science knowledge is a dynamically developing and contradictory system that is constantly evolving. Thus, in the light of new discoveries in natural science, our knowledge of the two main forms of the existence of matter has significantly expanded: matter and physical fields, matter and antimatter, and other ways of the existence of nature.

4. The natural-science picture of the world does not include religious explanations of nature. The image of the world (cosmos) appears as a unity of inanimate and living nature, having their own specific laws, as well as obeying more general laws.

Noting the role of this picture of the world in the worldview, you should pay attention to the following:

– firstly, an abundance of worldview problems are initially rooted in natural science knowledge (problems of the fundamental principle of the world, its infinity or finiteness; movement or rest; problems of subject-object relations in the cognition of the microworld, etc.). They are essentially the source of the worldview;

- secondly, natural science knowledge is rethought in the worldview of the individual and society in order to form a holistic understanding of the material world and the place of man in it. Thinking about the cosmos and the problems of natural sciences, a person inevitably and objectively comes to a certain worldview position. For example, the material world is eternal and infinite, nobody created it; or - the material world is finite, historically transient, chaotic.

For many people religious outlook acts as a kind of alternative in relation to the non-religious philosophical and natural-science pictures of the world. At the same time, from the point of view of faith, it can be difficult to separate the religious worldview and the religious picture of the world.

The religious picture of the world does not exist as an integral system of knowledge, since there are dozens and hundreds of different religions and confessions. Each religion has its own picture of the world, based on the symbols of faith, religious dogma and cults. But the general position in all religious pictures of the world is that they are based not on the totality of true knowledge, but on knowledge-delusions and religious faith.

We can name some features of the generalized modern religious picture of the world in relation to the main world religions: Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

1. Religious knowledge is knowledge - belief or knowledge - delusions that there is a supernatural. If you treat him with respect, honor him, then a person can receive blessings and mercy. The central point of any religious picture of the world is the supernatural symbol of God (gods). God appears as a "true" reality and a source of blessings for man.

In the religious pictures of the world, God is an eternal and non-developing absolute of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. He rules over the whole world. However, in different religions this power can be both unlimited and limited by something. Gods in Christianity and Islam possess absolute omnipotence and immortality. In Buddhism, the Buddha is not only not the creator of the world, but also not the ruler. He preaches divine truth (faith). By the multitude of gods, Buddhism represents paganism.

2. In the doctrine of the world as the second after the god of reality, an important place in various religions occupies the question of its creation and device. Proponents of religion believe that the material is created by God, and the world exists both this-worldly empirical, in which a person temporarily lives, and the other world, where the souls of people live forever. The other world is divided in some religions into three levels of existence: the world of the gods, the world of paradise and the world of hell.

The sky as the abode of the gods, for example in Buddhism and Christianity, is very complex. Christianity builds its own hierarchy of the upper world, which includes hosts of angels (messengers of the gods) of different ranks. Three hierarchies of angels are recognized, each of which has three "ranks". So, the first hierarchy of angels consists of three "ranks" - seraphim, cherubim and thrones.

Part of the sacral (sacred) space is also present in the earthly world. This is the space of temples, which becomes especially close to God during divine services.

3. An important place in the religious pictures of the world is occupied by ideas about time, which are interpreted ambiguously in different faiths.

For Christianity, social time is built linearly. The history of people is a path that has its own divine beginning, and then life “in sin” and prayers to God for salvation, then the end of the world and the rebirth of mankind as a result of the second, saving coming of Christ. History is not cyclical, not meaningless, it follows a certain direction, and this direction is predetermined by God.

Buddhism operates with periods of "cosmic time", which are called "kalpas". Each kalpa lasts 4 billion 320 million years, after which the "burning" of the Universe occurs. The cause of the death of the world every time is the accumulated sins of people.

Many religions have "fateful" days and hours, which are expressed in religious holidays, reproducing sacred events. Believers act, in this case, as it is considered, personally involved in a great and beautiful event, to God himself.

4. All denominations consider the existence of a person turned to God, but define it differently. Buddhism sees human existence as an extremely tragic fate, filled with suffering. Christianity in the first place puts the sinfulness of man and the importance of its redemption before God. Islam requires unquestioning obedience to the will of Allah already during earthly life. Man in religious explanations belongs to the lower levels of the world created by God. It is subject to the law of karma - the relationship of causes and effects (Buddhism), divine predestination (Christianity), the will of Allah (Islam). At the moment of death human form splits into body and soul. The body dies, but by the nature of its earthly life it will determine the place and role of the soul in afterlife. Because in Buddhism earthly life- this is suffering, insofar as the highest goal for a person is to “stop the wheel of samsara”, stop the chain of suffering and rebirth. Buddhism orients a person to get rid of passions, if you follow the "middle" the eightfold path. It means the transition from life in the midst of suffering to the state of nirvana - eternal inner peace, abstracted from earthly life. Christianity considers the earthly existence of man, created by God in his image and likeness, as sinful due to non-observance of divine commandments. A precious gift of God - life - a person uses all the time for other purposes: to satisfy carnal desires, a thirst for power, self-affirmation. Therefore, a terrible judgment for sins awaits all people ahead. God will determine the fate of everyone: some will find eternal bliss, others - eternal torment. Anyone who wants to receive immortality in paradise must strictly follow all the moral teachings of the Christian church, firmly believe in the basic provisions of Christianity, pray to Christ, lead a righteous and virtuous lifestyle, not succumbing to the temptations of the flesh and pride.

The content of the religious concepts of the world is the basis of the ordinary or theoretical (theological-dogmatic) worldview. Knowledge about the supernatural in religious pictures of the world is empirically and theoretically unprovable and irrefutable. These are knowledge-illusions, knowledge-delusions, knowledge-faith. They can tolerantly exist with worldly and scientific-theoretical secular knowledge, or they can conflict and confront them.

The considered pictures of the world have common features: firstly, they are based on generalized knowledge about being, although of a different nature; secondly, building a visible portrait of the universe, its figurative-conceptual copy, all pictures of the world do not take out the person himself. He is inside her. The problems of the world and the problems of man himself are always closely intertwined.

Significant differences between these worldviews include:

1. Each of the pictures of the world has a specific historical character. It is always historically determined by the time of appearance (formation), by its unique ideas that characterize the level of knowledge and development of the world by man. Thus, the philosophical picture of the world, formed in the era of antiquity, differs significantly from the modern philosophical picture of the world.

2. An important point that makes pictures of the world fundamentally different is the nature of knowledge itself. Thus, philosophical knowledge has a universal and general essential character. Natural-science knowledge is predominantly concrete-private, subject-material in nature and meets modern scientific criteria; it is experimentally verifiable, aimed at reproducing the essence, objectivity, and is used to reproduce material and spiritual-secular culture. Religious knowledge is characterized by belief in the supernatural, supernatural, secret, a certain dogmatism and symbolism. Religious knowledge reproduces the corresponding aspect in the spirituality of man and society.

3. These pictures of the world are built (described) with the help of their categorical apparatus. Thus, the terminology of the natural science reflection of reality is not suitable for describing it from the point of view of religion. Everyday speech, although included in any description, nevertheless acquires specificity when used in the natural sciences, philosophy or theology. The perspective of the constructed model of the world requires an appropriate conceptual apparatus, as well as a set of judgments with the help of which it can be described and accessible to many people.

4. The difference between the considered pictures of the world is also manifested in the degree of their completeness. If philosophical and natural science knowledge are developing systems, then the same cannot be said about religious knowledge. The fundamental views and beliefs that form the basis of the religious picture of the world remain largely unchanged. Representatives of the church still consider it their main task to remind humanity that higher and eternal divine truths exist above it.

Modern concepts of being, material and ideal, the content of the main pictures of the world are the result of a long and contradictory knowledge of the world around people and themselves. Gradually, the problems of the cognitive process were singled out, the possibilities and limits of the comprehension of being, the features of the cognition of nature, man and society were substantiated.

List of sources used

1. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy / Spirkin A.G. 2nd ed. - M.: Gardariki, 2006. - 736 p.

2. Kaverin B.I., Demidov I.V. Philosophy: Tutorial. / Under. ed. d.ph.s., prof. B.I. Kaverina - M.: Jurisprudence, 2001. - 272 p.

3. Alekseev P.V. Philosophy / Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. 3rd ed., revised. and additional – M.: TK Velby, Prospekt, 2005. – 608 p.

4. Demidov, A.B. Philosophy and methodology of science: a course of lectures / A.B. Demidov., 2009 - 102 p.

On the way to modern science. Scientific picture of the world

Worldview and natural science knowledge

Prudnikov V. N., Nedelko V. I., Khunjua A. G.

Worldview and natural science

"It is incomprehensible that God exists, it is incomprehensible that he does not exist; that we have a soul, that it does not exist; that the world is created, that it is not made by hands..."

Blaise Pascal.

The main questions for a person about the purpose and meaning of life are closely related to his worldview. A worldview is defined as a system of generalized views on the objective world and a person's place in it, on people's attitudes towards the surrounding reality and themselves, as well as their beliefs, ideals, principles of cognition and activity due to these views.

Despite the fact that a person's worldview is purely individual and it is hardly possible to find two people with identical views on all aspects of life, in the main it all comes down to two types of worldviews: theistic and atheistic. And this division is based on faith in God or on faith in his absence. The choice of the theological system of a person (including atheism) is laid in the first years of life, usually in the family, long before the beginning of his natural science education. Changes in this basis of worldview rarely occur, and if they do, it is not under the yoke of "scientific evidence", but rather as a result of life's upheavals.

In the same phenomena, people, depending on their worldview, can see different essences, as regards the interpretation of scientific data, for example, attitudes towards scientific hypotheses. Differences in solving the main worldview issues (about God, the Universe as a whole, the planet Earth and life on it) within the two worldviews are easy to see in the atheistic and theistic formulation anthropic principle, which is worth a closer look.

Anthropic principle

We live on the third of nine planets, orbiting in an almost circular orbit around our star, the Sun, at a distance of ~150x106 km from it. Of the planets of the Solar System, Pluto is the most distant from the Sun - the radius of its orbit is ~ 6x109 km. The nearest star to the Sun - Alpha Centauri is at a distance of 4 light years (a light year - the distance that light travels in one year is 9.5x1012 km). There are about 50 nearby stars within a radius of ~17 light years. The Sun and other ~ 1011 stars form the Galaxy - the Milky Way. The edge of the observable universe roughly corresponds to a distance of 109 light years.

Such figures amaze the imagination, and the question of our place in this World involuntarily arises. Is the Universe really our home, or did we come here by coincidence? When we see how many accidents work for us, then there is confidence that humanity itself is not accidental. Our presence is predetermined right here on Earth.

Let us consider in more detail what exactly causes amazement in the structure of the Universe, the Solar System, the Earth's biosphere, and then it is up to you to decide whether it all happened by chance and organized itself, or is based on the intelligent design of the Creator.

The ranges of science are enormous - cosmology, which operates with super-large distances and quantities, and elementary particle physics at the level of ultra-small masses and extensions, reveal the amazing structure of the Universe. Science says that the world in which we live, what we see around and what surrounds us - everything that exists, is determined by three types of interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak (the last two determine the laws of nuclear physics). These interactions determine the laws of micro- and macroworlds: from nuclear reactions and the structure of the atom to the structure of stars and galaxies. The intensity of these interactions is determined by the so-called coupling constants, or interaction constants, sometimes the term world constants is used. Theoretical physicists analyzed the possible consequences of changing the ratios between the coupling constants: it turned out that almost any change in the existing ratio destroys our world, and life on Earth becomes impossible. The universe is so fragile that small changes in the coupling constants have catastrophic consequences.

Nuclear interaction determines the stability of nuclei and processes in the interiors of stars and the Sun. If it were 2% weaker and there would be no stable bonds of neutrons and protons, i.e. no nuclei, no atoms, etc. If it is 0.3% stronger, then instead of the light elements of hydrogen and helium (the two main elements in the universe), heavy metals will prevail.

The gravitational interaction determines the movement of the planets in the solar system, the structure and, as a result, the temperature of the stars. The force of gravity that pulls us to the Earth is of a gravitational nature.

Electromagnetic interaction carries out the connection of electrons and the nucleus in atoms and the connection between atoms in molecules and crystals. Friction and elasticity forces have an electromagnetic nature.

Weak interaction - the rate of radioactive decay, if it were a little less - there would be no neutrons in the Universe, and it would consist exclusively of hydrogen, because. the nuclei of all other elements contain neutrons.

The ratio between the constants of nuclear and electromagnetic interactions cannot differ by more than one billionth part - otherwise stars will not be able to form.

The constants of electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are no less accurately coordinated with each other. If their ratio were different, and if it deviated in one direction, only small stars would exist, and in the other - only large ones.

Life on Earth is unthinkable without water, and it turns out that water, a compound of H2O, has a number of unique properties, including anomalous ones, due to the influence of hydrogen bonds, without which life on Earth would be impossible. From the point of view of chemistry, water is a molecular hydride of oxygen (an element of group VI of the periodic system). Hydrides of other elements of group VI of sulfur, selenium and tellurium, H2S, H2Se, H2Te, unlike water, are poisonous and their melting and boiling points lie in the region of negative temperatures, in the range from -10 to -100 ° C.

Water is one of the few substances that expands when it freezes, resulting in ice floating on the water, protecting water bodies from freezing from above in the winter. Another anomalous property, which also protects water bodies from freezing, is that when the temperature rises from 0 to 4 ° C, the density of water increases (usually the density increases with increasing temperature). It is thanks to these anomalies, as well as the enormous heat capacity of water in reservoirs under ice, that life is preserved.

We should not forget that water is a universal solvent, due to which chemical reactions can take place in cells.

The optical properties of water vapor are adapted to the transmission of solar radiation, the maximum of which lies in the visible spectrum, and the absorption in the earth's atmosphere of the Earth's backward radiation flux (maximum in the infrared radiation region). As a result, the temperature regime of the Earth differs significantly from the regime of other planets in the solar system with huge daily temperature fluctuations.

The preservation of life on Earth is unthinkable without its anomalously large magnetic field, ionosphere, and ozone layer.

This list, concerning literally all aspects of human life, can go on and on, but the main conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the data presented. We formulate it as follows: the harmony of the world and its suitability for the existence of a person in it can be traced at all levels: from the characteristics of elementary particles, atomic nuclei and atoms to the speed of the Earth's rotation around its axis, the structure of the solar system and the expansion of the universe.

These thoughts are reflected in the anthropic principle, which says: the Universe is such, because life is impossible in another. And further, the formulations of the anthropic principle differ depending on the worldview, since either the reality of God and the uniqueness of our World, or the denial of God and the plurality of worlds follow from the anthropic principle; a blind chance, suggesting a myriad of worlds, or the Creator's plan and the only world of man - the Earth. That is why there are two formulations of the anthropic principle, which read:

The Creator of the World determined the fundamental laws of physics so that human life was possible on Earth;

There are many worlds, with a chaotic spread of parameters, and most of them are uninhabited. On Earth, conditions were accidentally created that are compatible with life.

It is clear that the abyss separates these formulations of the anthropic principle, and it is embedded in the worldview. Answers to all critical issues humanity is also determined by its worldview. Similarly, the answers to the question: what lies behind the observable Universe will also be alternative.

The Christian worldview asserts: behind matter there is a creative Mind, God, who is not an integral part of the Universe, but determines its laws and the path of development.

Atheistic worldview: there is nothing but moving matter, it is blind and devoid of purpose, while it has the ability to self-organize and develop, also not subject to any purpose. The diversity of nature and the world is the result of random processes of the development of matter.

Let's ask a more specific question, how did our world come into being? And again we get two mutually exclusive answers:

Christian worldview: The Universe, the Solar system, the Earth are created in such a way in order to ensure the possibilities of life on Earth.

Atheistic worldview: matter itself arose as a result of the Big Bang and eventually formed the solar system with a system of planets, on one of which, in an incomprehensible way (scientifically inexplicable and not reproducible), organic life appeared as a result of spontaneous generation; as a result of evolution through mutations and natural selection (these mechanisms are also not controlled by anyone and have no ultimate goal), the current variety of forms of wildlife has arisen.

Which answer system to adhere to is a matter of free choice for each person, and it would not be worth talking about it so much if the atheistic worldview was not persistently imposed on us by the ideologies of communism and globalism. Unfortunately, the atheistic ideological views given here are declared part of the scientific picture of the world, although the postulates underlying them are the subject of faith, i.e. have little to do with science and should be taken out of its scope.

Scientific picture of the world

At all times, the awareness of the existence of patterns in nature and the possibility of its rational knowledge has led scientists and philosophers to attempt to paint a scientific picture of the world. At the same time, to explain everything in the world, people have always had enough of the available scientific knowledge that forms the core of the scientific picture of the world - the totality of the most stable hypotheses and theories in time, which are now the principles of thermodynamics, conservation laws, and the constancy of fundamental physical quantities. The replacement of the core of the scientific picture of the world is associated with a revolution in science, due to which the scientific picture of the world is stable, and theories that undermine it are met with fierce resistance, both from the scientific community and from near-scientific and far from science sections of society. For the latter, the dominant picture of the world has time to become an object of faith.

The scientific picture of the world is a model formed as a result of unlimited extrapolation of specific limited scientific knowledge beyond the limits of observations and experiments possible at a given time. The spontaneously scientific picture of the world extends to all conceivable reality. So it was at all times, and Newton, who created the first scientific picture of the world, was no exception.

Newton, as a theologian and thinker of the largest scale, could not help thinking about the problems concerning the structure of the Universe. At the same time, following his own rules, he applied the method of induction by analyzing the consequences of the established laws. So, analyzing the consequences of the law of universal gravitation, in applying it to the entire universe (although at that time the law was confirmed by the motion of the planets only within the solar system), Newton came to the conclusion that the universe is infinite in space. The Universe must be infinite, since only in this case it could have equal centers of gravity and many space objects. In the finite Universe, all these objects would sooner or later merge into a single body (the center of the world). Therefore, the foundation of Newton's model of the Universe and many subsequent models (up to the creation of the general theory of relativity at the beginning of the 20th century) was the idea of infinite space and countless space objects. These objects are attracted to each other by the force of gravity, which determines the nature of their movement.

The core of Newton's mechanistic picture of the world was the idea of the material unity of heaven and earth, that is, the world once created by God and existing according to the natural laws of nature. Mechanical movement was seen as the basis of all phenomena and processes, and gravitation was considered the most universal and main force in the Cosmos. The physical picture of the world was drawn in terms of absolute space and absolute time, existing independently of matter. The creation of matter itself was presented as a kind of distant overture to an endless performance, the action of which unfolds according to the natural laws of nature under the influence of gravitational forces.

Newton was also concerned with the question of the origin of the universe. He understood that, limited only by mechanical forces, it would not be possible to explain not only the origin of the Universe, but also the origin of the solar system. Therefore, in questions of origin, Newton resorted to an organizing force more powerful than gravity, which he thought of as God the Creator. The "divine hand" gave the planets the necessary initial impulse for their orbital movement, thanks to which they did not fall into the Sun. Then the motion of the planets was explained by a natural physical cause - the law of universal gravitation. However, there was no explanation for the steady nature of the planets' motions. Moreover, the mutual attraction of the planets must inevitably cause a perturbation in their motion and as a result of deviation from strictly elliptical trajectories. These deviations could have a secular character, growing with time, and Newton concluded that it was necessary from time to time to correct, through divine intervention, the mechanism of planetary motion, loosened by mutual disturbances, i.e. wind up the "world clock," as Leibniz aptly put it.

Phenomenological, but based on strict quantitative laws, Newton's physics determined the main features of the new, cosmophysical picture of the world, which for two centuries became the guiding and controlling factor in the development of natural science. But Newton's worldview ideas did not fully inspire the 18th century that would follow Newton's century - the century of enlightenment, the century of resurgent materialistic teachings. It took half a century of development not of science, but mainly of an atheistic worldview, for the idea of a divine "initial push" to be categorically rejected. Its place in natural science was taken by the forgotten idea of the natural evolution of matter in the Cosmos, the driving force of which this time was gravity.

The discovery by Newton of the basic laws of mechanics gave rise to the opinion of their universalism, and the understanding of these laws, as well as the discovery of new ones, is a guarantee of a complete understanding of nature and society and power over them. In such a world, subject to strict mathematical laws, according to atheists, there was no place for God. Science was called upon to explain the origin of the solar system - the founder of these ideas was the French scientist J. Buffon. According to Buffon, all the planets were formed from a jet of fire-breathing substance knocked out of the Sun when it collided with a comet (Newton himself pointed out the possibility of such a collision); further, planets, including the Earth, were formed from fragments of the jet.

The classic went even further German philosophy Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who did not confine himself to considering the solar system, but directed his thoughts to the expanses of the Universe. Having put forward the ideas of the evolution of the Universe, Kant developed in detail the cosmogony of the solar system, including the origin of the Sun, which later became known as the "nebular hypothesis". The main drawback of Kant's cosmogony is the assumption of the possibility of the rotational motion of the system as a result of the interaction of its constituent parts.

Many shortcomings of Kant's hypothesis were eliminated by the great French scientist P.S. Laplace (1749-1827). In 1796, Laplace, in his Exposition of the System of the World, suggested that the same gravitational forces that determine the movement of the planets can also be considered the cause of the emergence of the solar system and considered the possibility of its formation from an initially rotating rarefied nebula. Under the influence of gravitational forces, the cooling of the nebula was accompanied by compression, which led to the formation of a star in its center - the Sun and the simultaneous exfoliation of rings in the equatorial plane, from which, in the end, planets and their satellites were formed. Within a short time, Laplace's hypothesis became popular and seemed to prove the omnipotence of the rational approach to explaining nature. If Kant assigned the role of the creator of matter to God in his cosmogony, then the atheist Laplace rejected God altogether. It is known that when Napoleon Bonaparte, who showed an interest in the natural sciences and especially in mathematics, asked Laplace about the place of God in the system of the world, he arrogantly replied: "Sir, I do not need this hypothesis."

Thus, in less than a hundred years, Newton's scientific picture of the world, of which God the Creator and Provider was an integral part, first lost the Provider, and then, in Laplace's system, the Creator. And they are trying to convince us that this happened under the pressure of scientific facts. But in this case, such a turn would be final and irreversible, however, in later times there were scientists no less important than Laplace, who possessed a significantly larger amount of knowledge, who did not reject God and adhered to the Christian worldview. And in the 19th and early 20th centuries, such scientists were in the majority. So Ampere, Becquerel, Volta, Gauss, Dalton, Joule, Kelvin, Coulomb, Charles, Mayer, Maxwell, Ohm, Planck, Faraday adhered to the Christian worldview. Although Albert Einstein was not a Christian, he was not an atheist either.

Would it be correct to say that Christian scientists were not convinced by Laplace's hypothesis due to a number of its significant unremovable shortcomings, the most important of which are the discrepancy between the distribution of angular momentum between the Sun and the planets, the reverse rotation of Venus and Uranus? Hardly. Let us ask one more question - how far has science advanced in the knowledge of nature since the time of Laplace? The successes of science in the material sphere are colossal; it is the basis of technical progress, which has embraced many aspects of human activity. Science paints a picture of the world with the colors of many branches of natural science, but it should be recognized that in matters of the origin of the Universe, the Solar System, and the Earth, new hypotheses are rather the fruit of a sophisticated mind, albeit equipped with the most modern mathematical refinements, than a reflection of some new discoveries and laws of physics. No wonder the Laplace hypothesis, corrected and modified, for example, by O.Yu. Schmidt, and is still in use, although its shortcomings have not only not been eliminated, but have become even more obvious. The conclusion suggests itself - the basis of the scientific picture of the world is a worldview, which is not limited to the data of science. That is why atheists and Christians, using the same amount of scientific knowledge, manage to draw fundamentally different scientific pictures of the world.

Bibliography

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.portal-slovo.ru/ were used.

People have always sought to make the world in which they live understandable. They need this in order to feel safe and comfortable in their own environment, to be able to anticipate the onset of various events in order to use favorable ones and avoid unfavorable ones, or minimize their negative consequences. Knowledge of the world objectively required understanding the place of a person in it, a special attitude of people to everything that happens in accordance with their goals, needs and interests, one or another understanding of the meaning of life. Thus, a person has a need to create a complete picture of the external world, making this world understandable and explicable. At the same time, in mature societies, it was built on the basis of philosophical, natural-science and religious knowledge and ideas about the world around it, and was fixed in various kinds of theories.

This or that picture of the world is one of the elements of the worldview, contributes to the development of a more or less holistic understanding of the world and people themselves.

Let's highlight the most important elements in the structure of the worldview.

The concept of "picture of the world" means, as it were, a visible portrait of the universe, a figurative-conceptual copy of the Universe. In the public consciousness, different pictures of the world historically develop and gradually change, which more or less fully explain reality, contain a different ratio of subjective and objective.

A person, building this or that picture of the world, relies, first of all, on everyday practical, as well as theoretical knowledge.

The everyday-practical picture of the world has its own characteristics.

Secondly, knowledge, which forms the basis of the life-practical picture of the world, is distinguished by an insignificant depth of reflection of people's everyday life, the lack of consistency. They are heterogeneous in terms of the nature of knowledge, the level of awareness, inclusion in the culture of the subject, and the reflection of national, religious and other types of social relations. Knowledge at this level is quite contradictory in terms of accuracy, spheres of life, orientation, relevance, in relation to beliefs. They contain folk wisdom and knowledge of everyday traditions, norms that have universal, ethnic or group significance. Progressive and conservative elements can simultaneously find a place in it: philistine judgments, ignorant opinions, prejudices, etc.

Fifth, the everyday picture of the world has fewer typical features that are characteristic of many people. It is more individualized, its own for each person or social group.

We can only talk about some common features that are characteristic of the everyday vision of the world by each of us.

The theoretical picture of the world also has features that distinguish it from the ordinary-practical picture of the world.

2. This knowledge is abstract-logical in nature, it is systemic and conceptual in nature.

4. The construction of a theoretical picture in the mind and worldview of a subject necessarily presupposes that he has special training (education).

There are philosophical, natural science and religious pictures of the world. Consider their features.

The following types of knowledge can be distinguished as the main structural elements of the philosophical picture of the world: about nature, about society, about cognition, about man.

Gradually, issues of public life of people, economic, political, legal and other relations entered the sphere of philosophy and became a constant subject of its interest. The answers to them are reflected in the titles of many works (for example: Plato - "On the State", "Laws"; Aristotle - "Politics"; T. Hobbes - "On the Citizen", "Leviathan"; J. Locke - "Two Treatises on public administration "; C. Montesquieu - "On the Spirit of Laws"; G. Hegel - "Philosophy of Law"; F. Engels - "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", etc.). Like natural philosophers, forerunners of modern natural science, socio-philosophical thought paved the way for specific socio-political knowledge and disciplines (civil history, jurisprudence, and others).

It should be noted that the subject of philosophical development was the person himself, as well as morality, law, religion, art and other manifestations of human abilities and relationships. In philosophical thought, this issue was reflected in a number of philosophical works (for example: Aristotle - "On the Soul", "Ethics", "Rhetoric"; Avicenna - "The Book of Knowledge"; R. Descartes "Rules for the Guidance of the Mind", "Discourse on method "; B. Spinoza - "Treatise on the improvement of the mind", "Ethics"; T. Hobbes - "On Man"; J. Locke - "Experiment on the Human Mind"; K. Helvetius - "On the Mind", "On Man "; G. Hegel - "Philosophy of Religion", "Philosophy of Morals", etc.).

Within the framework of the philosophical vision of the world, two models of being were formed:

a) a non-religious philosophical picture of the world, formed on the basis of generalization of the data of natural and social sciences, understanding of secular life;

It is necessary to single out a number of provisions that indicate the unity of these pictures of the world.

1. These pictures of the world claim to be an adequate theoretical reflection of the world with the help of fundamental philosophical concepts such as being, matter, spirit, consciousness and others.

2. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world forms the basis of the worldview of the corresponding type (non-religious-philosophical and philosophical-religious).

3. The knowledge that forms the basis of these pictures of the world is largely pluralistic. They are ambiguous in their content and can be developed in a variety of directions.

Fourthly, the philosophical picture of the world is also characterized by the fact that, with all the variety of different philosophical directions and schools, the world around a person is considered as a holistic world of complex relationships and interdependencies, contradictions, qualitative changes and development, which ultimately corresponds to the content and spirit of scientific research. knowledge.

The main elements of the general scientific picture of the world: scientific knowledge about nature; scientific knowledge about society; scientific knowledge about man and his thinking.

The history of the development of natural sciences testifies that in its knowledge of nature, mankind has passed through three main stages and is entering the fourth.

The main features of the modern natural-science picture of the world:

Noting the role of this picture of the world in the worldview, you should pay attention to the following:

For many people, the religious worldview acts as a kind of alternative to the non-religious philosophical and natural-science pictures of the world. At the same time, from the point of view of faith, it can be difficult to separate the religious worldview and the religious picture of the world.

We can name some features of the generalized modern religious picture of the world in relation to the main world religions: Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.

In the religious pictures of the world, God is an eternal and non-developing absolute of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. He rules over the whole world. However, in different religions, this power can be both unlimited and limited by something. Gods in Christianity and Islam possess absolute omnipotence and immortality. In Buddhism, the Buddha is not only not the creator of the world, but also not the ruler. He preaches divine truth (faith). By the multitude of gods, Buddhism represents paganism.

2. In the doctrine of the world as the second after the god of reality, an important place in various religions is occupied by the question of its creation and structure. Proponents of religion believe that the material is created by God, and the world exists both this-worldly empirical, in which a person temporarily lives, and the other world, where the souls of people live forever. The other world is divided in some religions into three levels of existence: the world of the gods, the world of paradise and the world of hell.

Part of the sacral (sacred) space is also present in the earthly world. This is the space of temples, which becomes especially close to God during divine services.

3. An important place in the religious pictures of the world is occupied by ideas about time, which are interpreted ambiguously in different faiths.

Many religions have "fateful" days and hours, which are expressed in religious holidays that reproduce sacred events. Believers act, in this case, as it is considered, personally involved in a great and beautiful event, to God himself.

4. All denominations consider the existence of a person turned to God, but define it differently. Buddhism sees human existence as an extremely tragic fate, filled with suffering. Christianity in the first place puts the sinfulness of man and the importance of its redemption before God. Islam requires unquestioning obedience to the will of Allah already during earthly life. Man in religious explanations belongs to the lower levels of the world created by God. It is subject to the law of karma - the relationship of causes and effects (Buddhism), divine predestination (Christianity), the will of Allah (Islam). At the moment of death, the human form disintegrates into body and soul. The body dies, but by the nature of its earthly life it will determine the place and role of the soul in the afterlife. Since in Buddhism earthly life is suffering, the highest goal for a person is to “stop the wheel of samsara”, stop the chain of suffering and rebirth. Buddhism orients a person towards getting rid of passions, if one follows the "middle" eightfold path. It means the transition from life in the midst of suffering to the state of nirvana - eternal inner peace, abstracted from earthly life. Christianity considers the earthly existence of man, created by God in his image and likeness, as sinful due to non-observance of divine commandments. A precious gift of God - life - a person uses all the time for other purposes: to satisfy carnal desires, a thirst for power, self-affirmation. Therefore, a terrible judgment for sins awaits all people ahead. God will determine the fate of everyone: some will find eternal bliss, others - eternal torment. Anyone who wants to receive immortality in paradise must strictly follow all the moral teachings of the Christian church, firmly believe in the basic provisions of Christianity, pray to Christ, lead a righteous and virtuous lifestyle, not succumbing to the temptations of the flesh and pride.

Significant differences between these worldviews include:

List of sources used

1. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy / Spirkin A.G. 2nd ed. - M.: Gardariki, 2006. - 736 p.

2. Kaverin B.I., Demidov I.V. Philosophy: Textbook. / Under. ed. d.ph.s., prof. B.I. Kaverina - M.: Jurisprudence, 2001. - 272 p.

3. Alekseev P.V. Philosophy / Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. 3rd ed., revised. and additional – M.: TK Velby, Prospekt, 2005. – 608 p.

4. Demidov, A.B. Philosophy and methodology of science: a course of lectures / A.B. Demidov., 2009 - 102 p.

My worldview

Worldview, in my understanding, is a system of views on life that determines the behavior and fate of each person. It is the worldview that creates a certain picture of the world, the prism through which a person looks at this life, communicates with people, and builds his future.

I think that I have a fairly well-formed worldview. I was brought up in a family in which I was instilled with faith in God since childhood. When I was little, I already knew what icons look like and what people do in church. Currently, I consider myself a believer, a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ, that it was he who created the whole world. It seems to me that if a person was brought to faith by his parents from childhood, then he has no right to change his views, he should not doubt his faith. I have a friend who went to private churches, explaining that she was just interested. I believe that if a person even just plunged into another faith, then this is a search for something new, which means that he has not fully understood his faith.

Before committing any act, I think about how it will turn out in life. I believe that the bad deeds you have done will then turn back to you. Faith helps a person to live, helps to hope for the best.

I consider myself an idealist. I believe that every person has a soul. This is what God sees in us. I also think about the fact that for all our deeds done on Earth, we will be held accountable before God. And I will be ashamed if I lived my life without doing anything good. We must be able to do good deeds. Analyzing my life, I concluded that the main thing in life is communication with people close to me and taking care of them. There are not many of us on earth, and we need to have time to do the right things in life.

In your life you need to choose the right guidelines, to be equal to positive people Moreover, be an example for other people.

I made a choice in my life, I became a teacher. I think that teaching is a very noble profession. The teacher is the one to whom they listen, to whom they equal. I understand that if I am a teacher, then I should not do negative things: smoke, drink, have incomprehensible sexual relations, swear and much more.

In my opinion, moral values should be at the heart of life, by which a person should be guided in any life situations. These values are instilled in us in the family and in society, they are extremely simple and, at the same time, eternal. Their foundations are set forth in the Bible and repeated thousands of times in world literature. “Do not kill”, “do not steal”, “honor your father and mother”, “love your neighbor as yourself” - this, in my opinion, is the basis of the worldview of any normal person.

If you try to observe these principles, then peace of mind and inner peace will be ensured. And this, it seems to me, is a guarantee that in life a person will achieve everything he wants.

Each of us will leave this world. Therefore, you need to think about what I will leave behind. It seems to me that you should not get hung up on something material, you need to leave the one in whom a piece of your soul will remain. And these are children. But children cannot simply be born, they must be brought up as decent, spiritually enriched people.

I am very grateful to my parents that they led me to faith, invested in me, all the best that is in them, gave me an education and, of course, the meaning of life.

Thus, I believe that a person needs simple things - a favorite thing that will bring moral and material satisfaction, a strong loving family with children, in the opportunity every day to enjoy the world in which he lives.

outlook fate moral value

Tags: My worldview Essay Philosophy

In my previous article, I kind of outlined the task - the creation of a certain philosophical model of the World. Guided by the well-known army rule - "whoever proposes - he fulfills", I want to offer my own version. First of all, let's clarify a little. This is not, as some have thought, some kind of general theory, the creation of which is currently really impossible. We are talking about the model of the World, its integral image. I want to emphasize that I offer my own picture of the World. Those. it can coincide with the worldview of readers, which will certainly please me, but it can also be very different. In addition, this is not a scientific discovery, and therefore we are not talking about some of its uniqueness and uniqueness, rather, on the contrary, almost everything is known. In case of strong discrepancies, I ask readers to keep in mind that this is my personal vision and, as they say, it does not have to coincide with their worldview. I am publishing it precisely with the aim of showing that there is such an option, and, in my opinion, quite logical.

I did not immediately come to this ontological model. Being engaged first in political economy, and then in social philosophy, I was simply forced to turn to the origins of those processes that take place in society, for their logical justification. I needed some kind of ontological basis in order to understand the very vector of evolution. It is quite obvious that for its normal development, Mankind must strictly observe the laws worked out by evolution itself, since it is an integral part of Nature. Of course, this was clear for a long time and not only to me, it is enough to recall the thesis “freedom is a conscious necessity”. This means that if you follow the laws, then you have no problems - complete freedom. But in order to comply, you need to know them. The Church calls these laws God's providence, but you can call it the objective laws of Nature. In my opinion, this is better, even purely terminologically. God's providence cannot be known for sure in advance. In addition, the postulates operated by the Church do not have any evidence base. The Church unfoundedly claims that they are true. Let's say it is. But is there any justification for these postulates? Obviously not. In this case, why should everyone believe in what someone dreamed or imagined. Would you, for example, buy a black box with unknown contents from someone for a lot of money, just because its seller claims that there is a valuable thing there, but at the same time does not allow you to look inside, or even try on weight? Me not. The Lydian king Croesus somehow relied on God's providence, on the insight of the oracles, and got into great trouble. Needless to say, this is not the only case. True, the prophets then justify themselves that they were misunderstood. So it means you need to speak in such a way that they understand correctly, unless of course you know what to say. So let's leave aside such methods of cognition as religious revelation, prophecy, insight, meditation, exits to the astral plane, contacts with some kind of mind. All of them, of course, have the right to exist, but then painstaking scientific work on their justification. A lot of people dreamed of "perpetual motion machines", but science and practice put everything in its place.

The situation is completely different if we are talking about the laws of Nature and their scientific knowledge, they are knowable and their consequences are quite predictable. In this regard, I recall one formulation, the meaning of which was obviously completely incomprehensible to all those who recorded it in sacred written sources: in the Upanishads, in the Bible, in the Koran. I draw this conclusion because for three thousand years no one could somehow sensibly explain the essence of the phrase. It's about the "folding of space". In the texts you will find only this enigmatic formulation and nothing else. And only Stephen Hawking not so long ago was able to more or less intelligibly explain what its meaning is. So the advantages of the scientific method of cognition are undeniable.

More than once I have cited as an example the parable of the three blind wise men feeling the elephant and presenting its image on the basis of their empirical data. As you know, they got into trouble. And if we imagine that there are many thousands of such “wise men” and they are examining not an elephant, but the whole World, then the picture is quite variegated. I see the main drawback of the sages not in the fact that they are blind, but in the fact that they did not want to find a general, as it were, synthetic solution. I do not want to say that there is no interaction at all between modern scientists, there is, but it is clearly not enough. The main thing is that they do not have a general picture of the World, there is no single image of it, which would reflect its entire structure, hierarchy and main relationships. Someone deals with the Cosmos, someone deals with the biosphere of the Earth, someone deals with its bowels, someone deals with social processes, i.e. everyone separately deals with their local problems, not very aware of the universal interconnection. Someone even communicates with the "cosmic" mind, while not quite clearly aware of where this mind is located. Standing on the positions of materialism, for example, it is completely clear to me that there can be no mind, consciousness or information without a material carrier. In such a difficult situation, I believe that a certain image is urgently needed, which would allow all scientific directions to study objective reality as single system without giving rise to controversy. I am convinced that there are no contradictions in the real material World, even despite the fact that some orthodox materialist philosophers claim the opposite.

I want to offer my hypothesis of the world order. I believe that it is fully scientific and materialistic, because I use only the available scientific data. These are not my own discoveries, I just thought them over and put them together in some structure, like a “puzzle”, using dialectical laws known to me. The key to its understanding lies in the fact that there are no two different evolutions of animate and inanimate nature. They arose due to a rather conditional division of scientific disciplines. But it gradually becomes clear that the evolution of the Universe, the Cosmos, which is mainly dealt with by physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, and others, and the evolution of living Nature, which is dealt with by biologists, anthropologists, botanists, paleontologists, and other specialists, are not two different evolutions, it is one single evolution of our One Peace. And the same Hawking was right when he argued that we are in vain dividing all the problems into parts. Purely in practice, of course, it was convenient, but methodologically it is most likely not true. We have ceased to realize the Unity of the World.

Recognizing the priority of the scientific method of cognition, since all other methods have big problems with verification, I tried to somehow substantiate all my conclusions with existing scientific data, or at least logical constructions. How convincing they are to judge not for me, but for readers. I want to start with the most famous and seemingly universal (except the church) recognized theory of the Big Bang. I want to note that for an ordinary person the Big Bang is no less mysterious phenomenon than the creation of the World by God in a few days. It could be even more incredible, since God spent several days, and then it's done. But it's not only that. The Big Bang theory does not answer the question, what happened before it. “But there was nothing,” say physicists. But in Buddhism it is argued that there was an Absolute. Agree a very big gap from Nothing to the Absolute, although how to look at the problem. If in the sense of unknowability, then it seems like the same thing. I will not now philosophize on this topic, especially since this has already been done. I just want to designate this event as the origin of coordinates - the point from which our World appeared. But it follows from this that anything could have happened before this event, including the Absolute, or if someone is more comfortable with God, and as far as I know, this possibility is recognized by the physicists themselves. Thus, Nothing or the Absolute to a certain extent can be considered the Creator of our Universe. Personally, I tend to the term Absolute, as more scientific. I imagine the reaction to this statement of orthodox materialists. I have been reproached for idealism and for less essential reasons. But here, after all, here is the paradox, firstly, modern orthodox materialists, while remaining on the positions of the past and even the century before last, make an incorrect distinction between idealism and materialism, and secondly, in this case, remaining on the positions of, as it were, “materialism”, .e consistently denying the Creator or, in other words, the cause of the Big Bang, they thereby fall into the most extreme idealism, since they deny the fundamental principle dialectical materialism- the presence of causal relationships. This certainly does not concern physicists, but philosophers have something to think about.

The further development of the Universe, as proved by physicists, turned out to be quite natural. But what does regular mean? This means according to a given algorithm, i.e. according to a predetermined plan. Therefore, the hypothesis of the random appearance of life sounds rather strange. How coincidental, if absolutely all processes in the Universe occur naturally and, in principle, are calculated, which is confirmed by the Big Bang theory itself and Darwin's theory of evolution. I know that some people completely deny Darwin's theory, but the science of anthropology obviously confirms it. If we trace the entire chain of transformation of the forms of matter, then the moments of transition from one form to another become noticeable. Moments of transition or, in the modern manner, bifurcation points. In this case, this is a rather figurative or rather conditional expression. This moment could last hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, when the very forms of matter and, accordingly, the laws of their existence are replaced. I examined this issue in more detail in my article “The Evolution of Consciousness” https://www. Each of these forms of matter has its own laws of existence and develops from simple to complex. Atoms grew from helium and hydrogen to lead and even heavier. Molecules have grown from oxygen and hydrogen to complex chemical compounds, hydrocarbons have grown from simple organic compounds to cyclic hydrocarbons and polymers, a simple plant cell has grown to baobabs and sequoias, and amoebas to dinosaurs. Based on the empirical experience of evolution over hundreds of millions of years, it might seem to someone from the outside that the main goal of evolution is the maximum size of a living being. And then it would be quite possible to recognize the dinosaurs as the crown of evolution. But it turned out that evolution did not end there, warm-blooded mammals appear. What a whim of evolution, why? But it turns out that only through this maneuver can one come to a being with a real creative mind, imagination, and other remarkable characteristics, namely, a person.

Moreover, in my opinion, the most important feature of a person is his ability to suppress animal instincts in himself by force of will or reason. It turns out that a person is only one who is able to correct his behavior, is capable of self-restraint, has a conscience, a sense of proportion and empathy. Over time, there were more and more people on Earth, and their brains grew more and more. And it was this kind of living beings that began to form the next form of matter - society, i.e. began to structure itself.

In the presented dynamics of transformations, in my opinion, the main principle of all evolution, the principle of “nonlinear fractality”, is quite clearly manifested. It is quite obvious that there is a cyclical repetition of dynamic processes, but each time a slightly different algorithm is observed at a new level. Unfortunately, the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of the Earth are now considered in isolation from each other. The stages of the development of the Universe thanks to specialists in this field are well known. And thanks to the efforts of biologists, paleontologists and anthropologists, the dynamics of the development of life on Earth has been built. True, looking ahead, it would be more correct to say the evolution of the Earth itself. Scientists themselves recognize the regularity of the development of the surrounding World, which means that the development program was incorporated into matter itself from the very beginning. I will not now dwell on some of the vagueness of the term "matter" itself. For a correct vision of the overall picture, it does not matter how to call this some initial substance: energy, ether, vacuum, dark matter, or some other Nothing. Now we are talking about the very construction of the World. Those. a certain structure was born with a program already embedded in it, therefore, you need to understand what appeared in the very first second after the Big Bang? Now we call it the Universe, but it is only a form. And what is the content and what kind of program was laid down? In my opinion, the difficulties of a situation are obvious when there is a seed of an unknown plant or an embryo of an unknown creature, but we do not know anything about it, when it is impossible to even guess what it is, let alone know what will come of it. But since it grows by itself, obviously the correct method to use is to just wait and see what grows out of it.

I guess we've waited long enough today. From the Big Bang to the present time, according to physicists, about 14 billion years have passed. The term is quite decent in order to really evaluate this object, but rather the subject, since it shows obvious signs of life, at least it is constantly growing. In my opinion, it is quite logical to assume that, since everything happened in a highly regular way, then in the end exactly the result was obtained, which was programmed. Astrophysicists peer into the depths of the Cosmos in search of an answer. However, the answer, in my opinion, should not be sought in the depths of the Cosmos, since the same physical processes are going on there that were going on billions of years ago. Today it is obvious to everyone that the evolutionary process has led to the emergence of human consciousness, i.e. creative mind. Let only on Earth, but we understand that the mind is the ability of highly organized matter. So that's how it all went, and that's how it was intended. Thus, the answer to question asked, in my opinion, is obvious. As a result of the Big Bang, a new mind was born. Naturally, at the initial stage of development of the mind itself, as such, there was not yet. Indeed, what kind of human mind, for example, can we talk about in relation to a fertilized egg or a week-old embryo? When someone starts talking about the rationality of the Universe, I immediately want to ask the question, but whose rationality are we talking about. Yes, everything in the Universe is arranged very reasonably - both atoms and molecules, and the star systems themselves. But, look at a car or a watch, they are also very intelligently arranged. But is it the mind of the object itself? So, I think, one should not fantasize too much about the reasonableness of the universe. In addition, one should remember the hierarchy of laws and pay attention to what laws all objects of the Universe obey. Is it biological? Not only physical, i.e. the simplest (relatively, of course), initial, which are inherent in the so-called "non-living" matter. It is clear that "inanimate" is very conditional. There are no clear boundaries in Nature, neither between living and non-living matter, nor between plants and animals, nor between rational beings and unreasonable ones. They cannot be, because there is a single process of evolution of matter. It gradually changes its forms, acquires new properties and qualities. Only this gives us reason to divide this single process into conditional stages: into a long period of "non-living" matter, a much shorter period of "living", even shorter than "intelligent" matter, and a very short "social" one. So it's all about the criteria that we ourselves set.

Thus, an image of the living Universe is formed, where the Cosmos itself is the initial and most primitive stage in the evolution of consciousness (mind). Then planets, complex substances appear, chemical laws are fully formed, further evolution leads to the emergence of biological objects that form their own biological laws of being, first of the plant and then of the animal World. The evolution of the animal world naturally led to the emergence of intelligent life. Some of the modern scientists, if it were not already a fait accompli, could suggest that the emergence of the human mind requires the creation of warm-blooded animals, and even mammals. Here, indeed, a very sophisticated mind and a complex development algorithm are needed. It seems that only the Absolute is capable of this.

For the last few thousand years, there has been constant talk in human society about Gods or about God. But who are we talking about if the alleged Creator (Absolute) never interfered in the course of the development of the Universe and Man, and the Universe itself, as it turned out, does not have its own mind? Moreover, communication with the Absolute is, in principle, very problematic. Judge for yourself how, relatively speaking, a father can somehow communicate with the egg or embryo of his unborn child. Nor can he interfere in the internal processes taking place in the body of his son, especially at the stage of intrauterine development. Even after his birth and the appearance of the rudiments of reason at last, it is almost impossible to do this. This is another independent organism. Yes, and he can influence his psyche only when the corresponding brain structures are formed. Thus, the degree of interaction with the Creator, if it is possible at all, strongly depends on the level of development of the person himself and Humanity as a whole. But it seems that so far Mankind has not gone far from the level of a teenager of primary school age. Of course, this is not an embryo without a mind, but one should not expect a proper understanding of life from it. If anyone believes that Mankind is much smarter, then this is a big delusion. Psychologists have identified some age psychological features person. So, modern western civilization, including Russia, it is a terrible mixture of two or even three ages, three psychological stages, and, unfortunately, all of them are in the interval from 3 to 12 years. That is, the civilization of teenagers is real. This means that a selfish teenager will appear before the Creator, preoccupied only with his own interests, and who does not give a damn about anyone. This “subject” is not averse to fighting and quarreling with neighbors, loves to break and dirty everything around for his own pleasure, is able to lie from three boxes and, most disgustingly, he is ready for anything for his own benefit. He, of course, is already able to come up with various crafts, but they bring harm to others rather than benefit, because this teenager is not yet able to think big and he has absolutely no conscience. Judge for yourself. Is it possible for an adult to flaunt in torn pants, pull underpants over his head, or even go without pants in public transport. But these are flowers. Worst of all, for the sake of money, he is ready to lie, and humiliate himself, and even kill. He turned out to be so stupid that he poisons himself and trades in his own organs. In general, disgusting type. So the Creator, given such an opportunity, would hardly want to deal with him. At least for now.

So what kind of Lord God and his will can we talk about. After all, people really experience someone's influence, a manifestation of some kind of force. It was no accident that I said above that one should consider not evolution on the Earth, but the evolution of the Earth itself. Also in ancient world The earth was considered alive. Living Earth is an element of the living Universe, only more organized and much more perfect evolutionarily. I will not develop this idea further, since I considered this issue in my article “On the Unity of the World, People, Gods and the Noosphere” https://www. believers communicate and who is the one who has a specific impact on them, if the Creator has nothing to do with it? Believers may not like this answer, but what to do, as the saying goes, "truth is more precious." Moreover, Christ also called for its knowledge. This answer, like much of this article, is not my own invention. V.I.Vernadsky, who proposed the concept of the Noosphere, can be considered its author. Following this concept, human evolution is not just the evolution of living beings on Earth, it is the evolution of the Earth itself, and at the same time the evolution of the Universe itself. The concept of the noosphere gives a clear understanding of such phenomena as telepathy, insights, and intuition, and many other phenomena not yet fully understood. The time has come for a scientific explanation of those phenomena that "vulgar materialism" simply denied, and the church attributed to divine power. Exactly, as in the case of lightning. As a result of the scientific knowledge of the World, people from the divine cause of this phenomenon came to an adequate scientific explanation of it. In the same way, the understanding and study of the noosphere will lead us to an understanding of many phenomena that are inexplicable today, the ignorance of which leaves loopholes for mystical speculation.

Based on the configuration I proposed, the interconnection of not only all objects in the universe, but also all people on Earth becomes clear and natural. It becomes clear that in this World there is no separate entity called God, neither on Olympus, nor on a cloud, nor in the seventh heaven. The gods, or rather their constituent parts, turned out to be the people themselves. But it is precisely this circumstance that not only does not relieve them of responsibility for everything that happens on the planet, but, on the contrary, imposes on them a special responsibility for everything that they do on Earth. Hence the special role of man in protecting the ecology of the Earth - one of the most important problems of all Humanity today. This concept also provides the basis for very important conclusions in the field of social philosophy and political economy, as well as the correct guidelines for the harmonization of social organization. It was possible to tell a lot more, but even so the article turned out to be quite large, despite the fact that I tried to be as brief as possible. So it's time to stop.

In conclusion, I want to say once again that my picture of the World is not absolutely unique. Over the past quarter of a century, I have become acquainted with a fairly large number of different cosmogonic theories, both scientific and not very, in general, quite similar to the picture that I described. But most of their authors, unfortunately, sought to refute science and even considered this their main achievement. In addition, some authors sinned that they themselves composed discoveries that science had not yet made, but which fit well into their scheme. And they did it without any objective reasons. I tried to clear my concept from subjective conjectures as much as possible. I was faced with a fundamentally different task, not to refute, but, if possible, to include in my scheme all the information I knew about the world order. In my mind, the method of work was very concretely presented: the embodiment of the well-known "triad" thesis - antithesis - synthesis. There was a huge number of theses and antitheses around, there was clearly a lack of synthesis.

The scheme I proposed, of course, does not give a detailed description of the entire objective reality, nevertheless, it gives a general idea of the configuration and hierarchy of the universe. A detailed description of its individual elements is contained in the entire volume of scientific literature on all areas of knowledge that exist today, which I am not able to master for quite understandable reasons. However, I want to emphasize that the picture of the World that I have proposed as a whole does not contradict modern scientific data, since it is based precisely on them. For example, it does not contradict the main scientific theories about the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of living Nature. It even agrees with Hegel's seemingly incredible statement about the unity of subject and object. On the contrary, she gives him a simple and understandable explanation. I can only hope that my hypothesis turned out to be sufficiently conclusive and internally consistent.