| Sažetak | Istraživanje u doktorskoj disertaciji vodilo se metodom kritičke analize prema kojoj se
pristupilo fenomenu epistemološkog vrednovanja religioznog iskustva u viđenju
postsekularizma Bertranda Russella. Disertacija je podijeljena u pet poglavlja u kojem
zadnje, peto poglavlje predstavlja sintezu cjelokupnog kritičko-problemskog metodičkog
pristupa ovom istraživanju. U skladu s time, ovo istraživanje sadrži dva problema u
nedovoljnoj mjeri aktualiziranima u domaćim filozofskim krugovima: epistemološkom
vrednovanju religioznog iskustva u Russella i drugi, postsekularizam. Stoga se u ovom
izlaganju ističe različitost i doticanje filozofskog i fenomenološkog aspekta religioznog
iskustva. Dok u filozofsko-religijskom području religiozno iskustvo može biti promotreno u
širem kontekstu, fenomenološki vid se ograničava na empirijske karakteristike religioznog
iskustva koja ga odvajaju od ostalih oblika doživljaja.
Religiozno iskustvo je bitan segement teoretiziranja postsekularizma kao koncepta koji
sjedinjuje različite analize suvremenog stanja religije Taylora, Gellnera ili Habermasa, pri
čemu je potrebno približiti ovu problematiku putem uvida u Russellovu kritiku religije.
Kritika religije u Bertranda Russella podjednako se oslanja na stare, prosvjetiteljske
prigovore, kao i opaske o neznanstvenom tumačenju kauzaliteta, slobodne volje i evolucije.
Njegov filozofski pristup donekle je i povijesno-filozofska refleksija na prisutnost religioznih
koncepata u antičkoj filozofiji odakle crpi svoje spoznaje o misticizmu.
Stoga ovo pitanje upućuje na tri točke epistemološkog vrednovanja religioznog doživljaja:
kritika misticizma antičkih filozofa, odnos analitičke metode i religiozne spoznaje, te na
kraju, specifičnost Russellove religioznosti. Njegova agnostička duhovnost podudara se sa
suvremenim okruženjem u kojem se susreću i sukobljavaju različita vjerovanja i svjetonazori,
iako ga u najvećoj mjeri obilježava napor oko dijaloškog razumijavanja religije i znanosti.
Postsekularno vrijeme obilježeno je unakrsnim pritiscima, prosvjetiteljskim common
senseom kao i racionalnim fundamentalizmom. Prema tome, autor je nastojao konstruirati
postsekularnu kritiku Russellovog vrednovanja religioznog iskustva u svijetlu ovih promjena.
Stoga se iz ovog istraživanja može zaključiti da je epistemološko vrednovanje religioznog
iskustva iz aspekta Russellove filozofije relevantno za istraživanje suvremenih fenomena s
područja religije, imajući u vidu kako je i sam postsekularizam kao teorijska konstrukcija još
u „povojima“ i zahtijeva ozbiljan znanstveno-metodološki pristup i pomni istraživački rad. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | In this research author was using the method of critical analysis with which he
approached toward phenomenon of epistemic valuation in Bertrand Russell's vision of
postsecularism. This exposition has been organized in five chapters and among them fifth
chapter presents a synthesis of critical and analytical studying of this question. This study
opens two problems considering the fact that epistemic valuation in Russell’s philosophy and
phenomenon of postsecularism are not fully presented in our mainstream philosophical
circles. Merely because of possible anachronistic interpretation of Russell’s views in actual
postsecular circumstances that was needed to be avoid, the central thesis of this critical
analysis has been demonstrated with several methods: description, analysis and critical
synthesis.
First chapter is dedicated to description of two kinds of phenomena: religious experience
and postsecularism. The phenomenon of religious experience presents a special feature of
experience as epistemic data – object of this experience is transcendence, Absolute Being,
God or sanctum. In that context, it is not isolated phenomenon in which human being as
religious being has some experience of something that he cannot explain or describe. It is
difficult to define this kind of experience because it is rooted in heritage and interpretation of
different religions with their uniqueness. In strict sense, some religious experience is mystical
if it contains empirical characteristics of specific psychosomatic state. Other forms are not
mystical, but they are also referring on object experienced, God or transcendent, for example,
numinous or areligious. Some forms of emotions can also be or they are, interpreted as
religious experience.
This classification is relevant for epistemic valuation of Russell’s view on religious
experience in postsecularism. The author considers one aspect of epistemic valuation, namely
an aspect of relation between reason and faith. Although relation between reason and faith is
crucial and continuing problem in philosophy of religion, this relation is also important as
aspect of epistemic valuation of Russell’s view. Bertrand Russell as philosopher considers the
gap between science and theology, scientific rationality and religious belief. This gap is
widely present in his philosophical, that is, epistemological works. Because of these aspects,
Russell’s views are also views of realism, proper for epistemic valuation but different from
realism of reason and experience in christian theism. In these frames of understanding,
secularisation, and consequently, postsecularism are phenomena forced by emancipation of 3
ratio, during long period starting with revaluation of scientific method in Francis Bacon’s
philosophy. Theoreticians of postsecularism namely Gellner, Habermas, Betz and Taylor are
considering this problem of idea of self-sufficient reason as postsecular, naturally in different
philosophical aspects, but in necessary reference to experience of reality. Further on, to
answer a question why religious experience is important in theoretical thinking about
postsecularism as concept which combines different analysis of modern status quo of religion
in works of Taylor, Gellner or Habermas.
A second chapter presents an analysis of Russell’s critique of religion with certain accents
on fundamental ideas like opposition between idealism and realism, science and religion,
mystical and empiric. His critique is equally based on old thesis of Enlightenment and
interpretations of causality, free will and theory of evolution. Among other questions Russell
considers definitions of God in theology with accent on theirs incomparability toward modern
logic. Problems with his critical position about religions and arguments for existence of God
are clarified in presentation of discussion with Frederick Copleston. From this point of view,
his critique is not a strict critique of religious belief, but religions as socially constructed
institutions on the basis of power and emotions of fear. Because his critique is against social
influence of religion and implicit against theological thought, his analytical method in logic
has limitations when is applied in area of religious experience – analytical method is is
limited on area of empirical and consequently, on the content of proposition which describes
experienced reality, and possibly that described as transcendental or ineffable.
Third chapter presents the Russell’s philosophical approach toward religious experience. In
some segments it is a historic-philosophical reflection on presence of religious concepts in
traditional philosophy from which he emphasises his knowledge of mysticism. There for,
third chapter refers on three points of epistemic valuation of religious experience in Russell’s
philosophy: the critique of mysticism in Ancient philosophy, a relation between analytical
method and religious knowledge, and in the end, the ambiguity of personal view of faith. In
that context, Russell’s views about ancient philosophers present some sort of his personal
devotions toward mathematics, some sort of personal logical mysticism which he recognizes
in works of Plato and Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language. The analysis of essays about
epistemic questions on knowledge, belief, consciousness and justification represents the
theory that Russell was in general open to idea of religious experience although in his unique
form. It proves his ambiguity, sort of dichotomy between strict logical thinking and quasimystical intrinsic disposition towards religion. 4
This sort of ambiguity is incorporated in Russell’s humanistic thought about science,
politics, economy and religion, especially in predictions on further impact of science on
society, including modern tendencies in globalism and corporate capitalism. In fourth
chapter, author analyses concept of scientific society as close description to actual,
postsecular arrangement, very similar to Russell’s predications about effects of further
scientific development on human living, beliefs and worldviews. Although this concept
seems to be rather negative utopia, his main purpose is not to alert on possible changes with
arriving of more and more effective and perfected technologies in biochemistry,
communication and traffic. Scientific society is possible social reality based on cruel
manipulation of human desires and hopes. It can be far more hostile than Nazi or Bolshevik
regime because it nourishes human needs for security, global connectivity and political
stabilization.
So in last chapter, author tried to compare Russell’s contradictions present in his vision of
postsecularism with those theories of Gellner, Taylor and Habermas. Among them, Habermas
is most eminent - yet he is deeply involved in actual debates concerning modern European
society in struggle with heritage of secularism and changes due to influences of different
mentalities and religious cultures, mainly Islamic, on today composition of western societies.
Tragic event of 9/11 is significant in sense of crisis of postsecular secularisation as social and
scientific process. In similar way, in Russell predictions involvement of scientific technique
in global politics, as factor of postsecular secularisation can have unexpected and unwilling
consequences, close, on first sight to Orwell’s and Huxley’s utopias.
In that kind of disintegration of traditional institutions, families, national, ethnical or
cultural identities, described in analysis of Russell’s scientific society, person is forced to
justify his beliefs, often provoked in situations as Taylor calls it, cross pressures. So the
second point in critical analysis presented in last chapter is referring on Alston and
Wolterstorff views about rationality of Christian faith in now day’s discussions. Postsecular
ambient is constructed by the strong influence of ideas emerged from postmodern “dogma„
about ratio free from all metaphysical concepts and theories. In other words, modern believer
must consider the fact that he is faced with certain conditions, not only those embodied in
social environment with strong accented secular worldview, but also intrinsic in religions that
are sharing same public sphere with agnostic or atheistic convictions and value standards.
That is, he is confronted with religiousness formed in inner world of individual, only space
which provides religious experience. 5
Because of these conditions, justified religious beliefs are not rational exclusively by
parameters of scientific rationality; just opposite, justified beliefs about God’s acting in
Christian theism are rational in different conditions, specific for autonomous formation of
religious belief. So in critical synthesis, presented in last chapter, author tries to argue why is
a postsecularism valid criticism of Russell’s epistemic valuation of religious experience. In
the context of postsecular analysis of modern phenomena, Russell’s quasi-mysticism fit to
new age mentality and syncretism although this similarity is not the only recognizable
connection between his views about religion and modern spirituality. Therefore, his form of
spirituality, sort of a logical mysticism in modern conditions may be acceptable as agnostic
belief. Nevertheless, postsecular criticism will revalue this credo in order to provide
anchorage tie between reason and faith, only perspective on reality in which human being can
have experience of something that is transcending him in every aspect of thinking and living. |
