Essay what is the scientific picture of the world. What my picture of the world consists of. List of used literature

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 does it,” I would like to propose my own version. First of all, you should clarify a little. We are not talking, as some thought, about some general theory, the creation of which is really impossible at the present time. It is about the model of the World, its integral image. I would like to emphasize that I am offering my own picture of the World. Those. it may coincide with the worldview of the readers, which will certainly delight me, but it may also be very different. In addition, this is not a scientific discovery, and therefore we are not talking about some of its uniqueness and originality, 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 publish it with the aim of showing that there is such an option, and, in my opinion, it is 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 the 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 developed by evolution itself, since it is an integral part of Nature. Of course, this was understandable for a long time and not only to me; it is enough to recall the thesis “freedom is a conscious need”. This means that if you obey 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, and you can call it objective laws of Nature. In my opinion, this is better, even in purely terminological terms. God's providence cannot be known for sure in advance. In addition, the postulates used by the Church do not have any evidence base. The Church claims without support that they are true. Let's admit it like that. But is there any justification for these postulates? Obviously not. In this case, why should everyone believe in what someone has dreamed or imagined. For example, would you 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 it by weight? Me not. The Lydian king Croesus somehow hoped for divine providence, for the insight of oracles and got into great trouble. It must be said that this is far from the only case. The prophets, however, then justify themselves that they were misunderstood. So it means you need to speak so that you understand correctly, if, 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 a right to exist, but then painstaking scientific work must go on to substantiate them. Many people dreamed about "perpetual motion machines", but science and practice put everything in its place.

The situation is quite 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 the 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 is about the "folding of space". In the texts you will find only this mysterious formulation and nothing else. And only Stephen Hawking not so long ago was able to more or less clearly 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 sages, feeling the elephant and presenting its image on the basis of their empirical data. As you know, it turned out to be an embarrassment with them. 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 turns out to be 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 common, as it were, a 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 basic interrelationships. Someone deals with the Cosmos, someone with the biosphere of the Earth, someone with its bowels, someone with social processes, i.e. all individually deal with their local problems, not very aware of the general interconnection. Someone even communicates with the "cosmic" mind, while not quite visibly realizing where this mind is. Standing on the position of materialism, for example, it is completely clear to me that there can be no reason, consciousness or information without a material carrier. In such a difficult situation, I believe that a certain image is extremely necessary that would allow all scientific areas to study objective reality as a single system without producing contradictions. I am convinced that there are no contradictions in the real material World, even though 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 the dialectical laws known to me. The key to understanding it lies in the fact that there are no two different evolutions of animate and inanimate nature. They arose due to the rather conditional division of scientific disciplines. But gradually it becomes clear that the evolution of the Universe, the Cosmos, which is mainly engaged in physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers and others, and the evolution of living Nature, which is engaged in biologists, anthropologists, botanists, paleontologists and other specialists are not two different evolutions, this is one single evolution of our One Peace. And Hawking was right when he argued that we shouldn't divide all problems into parts. Purely in practice, of course, it was convenient, but methodologically, most likely, it is not true. We have ceased to be aware of 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 to me, but to the readers. I want to start with the most famous and, it seems, everyone (except the church) accepted 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. Maybe even more incredible, because God spent several days, and now it's done. But it's not only that. The Big Bang theory does not give an answer to the question, and what came before it. “But there was nothing,” physicists say. But in Buddhism it is stated that there was an Absolute. Agree a very large 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 philosophize on this topic now, 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 before this event there could have been anything, including the Absolute, or if someone is more satisfied with God, and as far as I know, physicists themselves recognize this possibility. 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 can imagine the reaction to this statement of the orthodox materialists. I was reproached for idealism and for less significant reasons. But here is the paradox, firstly, modern orthodox materialists, remaining on the positions of the past and even the century before last, make the wrong distinction between idealism and materialism, and secondly, in this case, remaining on the position of “materialism,” so Instead of 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 of dialectical materialism - the existence of cause-and-effect 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 it mean naturally? This means according to the given algorithm, i.e. according to a pre-planned plan. Therefore, the hypothesis about the accidental appearance of life sounds rather strange. How accidental, 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 clearly 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 a modern manner, bifuracation points. In this case, this is a rather figurative or rather a conditional expression. This moment could last hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, when the forms of matter themselves and, accordingly, the laws of their existence change. I considered this issue in more detail in my article "Evolution of Consciousness" https: // www .. Here I will briefly repeat the main stages of the development of matter: elementary particles, atoms, inorganic molecules, organic compounds, plant cell, unicellular organism, man, society. Each of these forms of matter has its own laws of existence and develops from simple to complex. The atoms have grown from helium and hydrogen to lead and even heavier. Molecules have grown from oxygen and hydrogen to complex chemical compounds, hydrocarbons - from simple organic compounds to cyclic hydrocarbons and polymers, a simple plant cell has grown to baobabs and sequoias, and amoeba - to dinosaurs. Based on the empirical experience of evolution over hundreds of millions of years, it might have seemed 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 only through this maneuver it is possible to come to a being with a real creative mind, imagination, and other wonderful characteristics, namely to a person.

Moreover, the most, in my opinion, an important feature of a person is his ability to suppress animal instincts by willpower 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 type of living creatures that began to form the next form of matter - society, i.e. I began to structure myself.

In the presented dynamics of transformations, in my opinion, the main principle of all evolution is quite clearly manifested - the principle of "nonlinear fractality". 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 today considered in isolation from each other. The stages of development of the Universe are well known thanks to specialists in this field. 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 from the very beginning laid down in matter itself. Now I will not dwell on some uncertainty of the very term "matter". For a correct vision of the general picture, it is not important what to call this certain 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, but what appeared in the very first second after the Big Bang? Now we call it the Universe, but this is only a form. What is the content and what kind of program was laid down? In my opinion, the difficulties of the 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 even to imagine what it is, and even more so to 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 very decent to really appreciate this object, but rather a 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 an extremely natural way, then in the end the result was exactly the one that was programmed. Astrophysicists in search of an answer peer into the depths of the Cosmos. However, the answer, in my opinion, should not be sought in the depths of the Cosmos, since all 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 led to the emergence of human consciousness, i.e. creative mind. Even if only on Earth, but we understand that the mind is the ability of highly organized matter. So everything went to this, and it was conceived. Thus, the answer to the 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 a question, and whose rationality is the conversation about. Yes, everything in the Universe is arranged very intelligently - both atoms and molecules, and the stellar systems themselves. But look at the car or watch, they are also very intelligently arranged. Only is this the mind of the object itself? So I suppose you shouldn't fantasize too much about the intelligence of the universe. In addition, one should recall the hierarchy of laws and pay attention to which laws all objects of the Universe obey. Is it biological? Not only physical, i.e. the simplest (of course, relatively), initial, which are inherent in the so-called "inanimate" matter. It is clear that "lifeless" is rather arbitrary. There are no clear boundaries in Nature, neither between living and inanimate matter, nor between plants and animals, nor between rational beings and unreasonable ones. They can not be, because there is a single process of evolution of matter. It gradually changes its forms, acquires new properties and qualities. This alone gives us a reason to divide this single process into conditional stages: for a long period of "inanimate" matter, a much shorter period of "living", even shorter than "intelligent" matter and a very short "social". So it's all about the criteria that we set ourselves.

Thus, the image of a living Universe is being 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. Any of the modern scientists, if it were not already a fait accompli, could have assumed that for the emergence of the human mind, the creation of warm-blooded animals, and even mammals, is required. Here, indeed, a very sophisticated mind and the most complex development algorithm are needed. It seems that only the Absolute is capable of this.

For the past several thousand years, there has been a constant conversation in human society about Gods or about God. But who are we talking about if the supposed 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, the father can somehow communicate with the egg or embryo of his unborn child. Nor can he interfere with 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. And he will be able to influence his psyche only when the corresponding brain structures are formed. Thus, the degree of interaction with the Creator, if such is possible at all, strongly depends on the level of development of the person himself and Humanity as a whole. But it seems that while Humanity has not gone far from the level of a teenager of primary school age. This is certainly not an embryo without reason, but you should not expect a proper understanding of life from it. If anyone believes that Humanity is much smarter, then this is a big mistake. Psychologists have identified some age-related psychological characteristics of a person. So, modern Western civilization, including Russia, 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 adolescents is real. This means that a selfish teenager will appear before the Creator, concerned only with his own interests, and who does not give a damn about everyone. 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, what is most disgusting, he is ready to do anything for his own benefit. He, of course, is already able to come up with various crafts, but they bring harm rather than benefit to others, because this teenager is not yet able to think big and he has absolutely no conscience. Judge for yourself. Is an adult going to flaunt in torn trousers, pull on panties over his head, or even walk 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. All in all, disgusting type. So the Creator, presented to him with such an opportunity, hardly wanted 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 not by chance that I said above that it is not evolution on Earth that should be considered, but the evolution of the Earth itself. Even in the ancient world, the Earth was considered alive. The Living Earth is an element of the living Universe, only more organized and much more evolutionarily perfect. I will not develop this thought further, since I considered this issue in my article "On the Unity of the World, People, Gods and the Noosphere" believers communicate and who is the one who has a specific impact on them, if the Creator has nothing to do with it? This answer may not please believers, but what to do, as they say "the truth is more expensive." Moreover, Christ also called for its knowledge. This answer, like much of this article, is not my own invention. Its author can be considered V.I. Vernadsky, who proposed the concept of the Noosphere. Following this concept, human evolution is not just the evolution of living things 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 provides a clear understanding of such phenomena as telepathy, insight, and intuition, and many other phenomena that are 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 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, understanding and studying the noosphere will lead us to understand many phenomena that are inexplicable today, the ignorance of which leaves loopholes for mystical speculations.

Based on the configuration I proposed, it becomes clear and natural the relationship not only of all objects in the universe, but also of all people on Earth. It becomes clear that in this World there is no separate entity called God, neither on Olympus, nor in a cloud, nor in the seventh heaven. The people themselves turned out to be gods, or rather their constituent parts. 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 Mankind 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. There was a lot more to tell, but even so the article turned out to be quite large, in spite of the fact that I tried to be as short 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, on the whole quite similar to the picture that I described. But the majority of their authors, unfortunately, sought to refute science and even considered this to be their main achievement. In addition, some authors sinned by the fact that they themselves composed discoveries that science had not yet made, but which fit well into their scheme. Moreover, they did this without having any objective grounds for doing so. I tried to clear my concept of subjective speculation 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 know about the world order. In my mind, the method of work was very concretely imagined: the embodiment of the well-known "triad" thesis - antithesis - synthesis. There was a huge number of theses and antitheses around, there was clearly not enough synthesis.

The scheme I have proposed, naturally, 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 fields of knowledge that exist today, which I am not able to master for quite understandable reasons. However, I want to emphasize that my picture of the World as a whole does not contradict modern scientific data, since it is based 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 assertion of the unity of subject and object. On the contrary, it gives him a simple and understandable explanation. I can only hope that my hypothesis turned out to be sufficiently conclusive and internally consistent.

Introduction

Relevance. With a change in the level of knowledge of the world as science improves, ideas about its structure also change. These views differ from scientific theories in greater stability, clarity, accessibility. The whole set of such stable ideas, determined by the given level of development of social production, technology, science, culture and the system of social relations, forms a picture of the world. "Picture of the World" is an important philosophical category. In the history of human culture, the picture of the world has been constantly changing. In the early stages of the development of philosophy, when it was still largely dependent on religion and religious and mythological concepts, the picture of the world was religious and philosophical.

The religious picture of the world is the oldest and most dogmatic, unchanging. At one time, she met the needs of man in explaining the structure of the nature surrounding man, its origin and the appearance of man himself. The basis of the religious picture of the world is the belief in the Creator, who possesses the power sufficient to create the world.

The physical picture of the world is traditionally limited to the framework of inanimate nature. It changes with the development of scientific knowledge (mechanical picture of the world - electromagnetic - quantum-relativistic). On its basis, a more general scientific picture of the world is being built, which also includes knowledge about living nature and the inner world of man. Creation of a scientific picture of the world, showing the unity and integrity of man and the world around him. The scientific picture of the world is extremely important for the formation of a person's worldview. However, the scientific idea of ​​the structure of the world, or the natural-scientific picture of the world, corresponding to one or another level of development of science, is only a part, a fragment of a more general and fundamental philosophical category "picture of the world" that underlies the worldview of this era.

Purpose of the work: to give a general concept of the philosophical category "picture of the world" and briefly characterize the picture of the world as a result of the development of philosophy, science and religion.

The work consists of an introduction, main part, conclusion, list of used literature.

1. About the concept of "picture of the world"

Analysis of the "picture of the world" as a special component of scientific knowledge presupposes a preliminary clarification of the meanings of the initial terms - "world" and "picture of the world". The world is the Universe in all its totality of forms of matter in the terrestrial and outer space, i.e. everything that exists around us.

The expression "picture of the world" appeared relatively recently; it became popular only in the twentieth century. This expression means that a general view of the world is possible, that a person is trying to comprehend the world as a whole and draw in his mind a certain picture that reflects the world.

The picture of the world is called the set of ideas about the structure of reality, the ways of its functioning and change, formed at a specific stage of human development, formed on the basis of the initial worldview principles and integrating the knowledge and experience accumulated by humanity.

The picture of the world, like any cognitive image, simplifies and schematizes reality. The world as an infinitely complex, evolving reality is always much richer than the ideas about it that have developed at a certain stage of social and historical practice.

In modern philosophical and special-scientific literature, it is used, for example, to designate worldview structures that lie in the foundation of the culture of a particular historical era.

In our philosophical and methodological literature, the term "picture of the world" is used not only to denote a worldview, but also in a narrower sense - when it comes to scientific ontologies, that is, those ideas about the world that are a special type of scientific theoretical knowledge. In this sense, the scientific picture of the world acts as a specific form of systematization of scientific knowledge, which sets the vision of the world in accordance with a certain stage of its functioning and development.

Picture of the world is a holistic outlook that synthesizes knowledge based on a systematizing principle (scientific principle, idea, religious dogma, etc.), which determines a person's worldview, his value behavioral guidelines (Appendix). The picture of the world means, as it were, a visible portrait of the universe, a figurative-conceptual copy of the Universe, looking at which, you can understand and see the connections of reality and your place in it. It implies an understanding of how the world works, what laws it is governed by, what lies at its foundation and how it develops. Therefore, the concept of "picture of the world" occupies a special place in the structure of natural science.

Pictures of the world give a person a certain place in the Universe and help him navigate in life. They arise both in the framework of everyday life and in the course of the spiritual activities of human communities. There are several pictures of the world.

An ordinary picture of the world, arising from everyday life: here the person stands in the center, since everyday life is the world where he is the main figure. Scientific picture of the world, or a scientific view created by specialist scientists. The scientific picture of the world is built around objects understood as independent of human subjectivity, free from the influence of our desires and perceptions. Science wants to see the world “as it is”. Religious ideas about the universe, developed in the activities of religious groups. Here, the main attention is paid to the relationship between everyday experience and the otherworldly, divine. Esoteric concept of the universe- knowledge gained through insights and revelations, which appeared in a narrow circle of initiates and to this day is transmitted in personal experience, from teacher to student (esoteria is a body of knowledge and spiritual practices, closed from the uninitiated). Philosophical approach to man and space. Philosophical pictures of the world are diverse, but they are all built around the relationship between the world and the person.

Each picture of the world has its own semantic center, around which all the components that make up the integral image of the Universe are located.

2. Picture of the world as a result of the development of philosophy, science and religion

Simplified, you can imagine the following scheme for the formation of a general picture of the world (Fig. 1).

Figure 1 - Scheme of mutual influence of pictures of the world

Each of the pictures of the world gives its own version of what the world really is and what place a person occupies in it. Partly these pictures contradict each other, and partly they are complementary and are able to make up a whole.

The structure of the picture of the world can be divided into two main components: conceptual (conceptual) - represented by knowledge, concepts and categories, laws and principles, and sensual-figurative (everyday-practical) - a set of everyday knowledge, visual representations of the world, experience. Their fundamental differences are determined by two positions (Table 1):

1) the main problem solved by each of these pictures of the world;

2) the main ideas that offer a picture of the world to solve their problem.

Table 1 - Pictures of the world

Philosophical picture of the world arose in the middle of the first millennium BC along with the emergence of the philosophical teachings of the classical period. The world and man in philosophy were initially considered in connection with the idea of ​​Reason. In the philosophical picture of the world, a person is fundamentally different from everything that exists, in particular from other living beings, for he has a special active principle - LOGOS, reason. Thanks to the mind, a person is able to know the world and himself. Such comprehension is considered as the purpose of a person and the meaning of his being.

The philosophical picture of the world is a generalized, expressed by 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 main theme of philosophy is the relationship between man and the world, taken from all angles: ontological, theoretical-cognitive, value, activity. That is why the philosophical pictures of the world are multiple and not similar to one another. They are always united by intellectuality of consideration and eternal doubt in their own statements, constant criticality. This sharply distinguishes the philosophical view of the world from ordinary or religious views and makes philosophy akin to science.

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 knowledge, about a person. Within the framework of this picture of the world, two models of being were formed:

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

2) a 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. There is a doubling of the world, where faith is considered higher than the truths of reason.

Space and time in the philosophical picture of the world act as categories of order and, therefore, conditions for the intelligibility of the world. Space - as a way of ordering external perceptions, time - as a way of ordering internal experiences. A person in the philosophical picture of the world is, first of all, a rational being, fundamentally different from inanimate objects and living beings.

Created within the framework of ontology, the philosophical picture of the world determines the main content of the worldview of an individual, social group, society. Being a rational-theoretical way of knowing the world, the philosophical worldview is abstract and reflects the world in extremely general concepts and categories. Hence, philosophical picture of the world there is a set of generalized, systemically organized and theoretically grounded ideas about the world in its integral unity and the place of man in it. The worldview and methodological problems of science largely depend on the general scientific picture of the world at a particular moment in time, and the ideas and problems of the dominant philosophical picture of the world determine promising directions for the development of scientific knowledge. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the infinity and eternity of the Universe were recognized as obvious in all four dimensions of the space-time continuum. All phenomena of the Universe - planets, stars, life - arise, go through stages of their development and perish, and then arise in another place and so endlessly, the world is eternal. Questions about the “beginning”, about time, “when there was no time yet,” about worlds that did not belong to our Universe, were considered scholastic. But after LA Friedman created the theory of "erupting from the point of the Universe" and confirmed by E. Hubble by direct observations, the predicted recession of galaxies, the question of the meaning of space-time became defining in methodological discussions. Another example. Twenty years ago, one of the most pressing problems was the idea of ​​elementaryness. All attempts to isolate the "most elementary" particles ended in failure and the idea began to form about the discovery of a kind of "bottom" of the world, and, consequently, about the possibility of creating an "exhaustively complete" theory of physical phenomena. But the discovery of "super-elementary particles" - gluons and quarks again pushed back the possible "end of physics" as a fundamental science.

The idea of ​​"elementarity" was replaced by new problems - an unexpectedly close connection between the microworld and the megaworld, general characteristics and trends in the interactions of elementary particles and the global properties of the Universe. Each step of the developing philosophical picture of the world puts forward before science and philosophy the task of comprehending certain concepts, deepening, clarifying or fundamentally new definition of the content of fundamental philosophical categories, through which the philosophical picture of the world is built.

Philosophical pictures of the world are very diverse, but they are all built around the "world - man" or "man - world" relationship. In this difference, there are two leading lines in philosophical knowledge, which can be conditionally called objectivist and subjectivist.

Objectivist concepts, whether materialistic or idealistic, prioritize the world, believing that it is objective in one way or another. Subjectivism, in contrast to objectivism, replaces the world common for all living subjects with a multitude of worlds. I am my own universe, I see reality exclusively from my point of view, being in my situations. All other reality is refracted through my unique subjective "I", therefore it is very difficult to identify anything objective.

The huge difference between objectivity and subjectivity is precisely the basis of a philosophical search. The most important philosophical problem in this case is the question: what in the world is from us and what is from the world itself? What is from subjectivity and what is from objectivity? What depends on a person and what does not?

Religious picture of the world appears along with the birth of theological systems of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. If the philosophical picture of the world does not offer a personified author, then the religious "picture" assumes a creator in the literal sense. The world was created according to the plan of an unearthly creature. God in the religious picture of the world is always understood as a person (mind + will). He is transcendental. The philosophical understanding of God as a pure intellect, identical to the world, is inappropriate here.

The religious picture of the world does not exist as an integral system of knowledge, as there are tens 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. People have always wondered what the world is and what to expect from it? One of the earliest paintings in the world - biblical... In the first book of the Bible, Genesis, a picture is drawn of how the world (being) arises. According to this picture, the world was created by God, some kind of omnipotent being, who, however, thinks, speaks and acts like a man. God, according to the Bible, existed even before the emergence of the world. He created the world in 6 days. First, he created heaven and earth, then light, then land and water, then the plant and animal worlds. On the sixth day, he created man. This is how the creation of the world is schematically depicted. This biblical picture of the world has survived to this day.

The general provision for 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. The center of any religious picture of the world is the image of Gods or gods, the idea of ​​what the highest true reality is. God created the world, gave it laws. God can cancel them for a moment or forever. By interrupting the natural course of things, God works a miracle. As a supernatural being, He is capable of causing supernatural phenomena. Sometimes this is done in order to express your will - to give a sign to a person. If the myth lacks the concept of the supernatural, then in the religious relation to the world it is extremely important.

In the religious picture of the world, the religious experience of mankind is generalized and synthesized, which is based on the idea of ​​the dualism of being:

Absolute, supernatural, “in itself” being, identical to the being of God the Creator;

Created being, the existence of a variety of things and processes, including man.

The Creator creates the world "out of nothing", before the act of creation there was nothing but God (creationism). Absolute being cannot be cognized by a person in a rational way, because the Creator's plan cannot be accessible to creation.

In various religious confessions, religious views of the world differ in details, but they have in common the principle of providentialism, the divine predetermination of created being and its imperfection.

The central point of any religious picture of the world is the image of God or gods, the idea of ​​what the highest true reality is. The earthly and the heavenly, the realm of the human and the realm of the Divine - that is the meaning of religious meditation. Modern religions do not deny the achievements of natural science; theories related to the structure of matter and the practical application of science. But they always emphasize that the business of science is to study only the physical world, only the realm of the other world. Further extends the field of religion and, perhaps, philosophy.

Scientific picture of the world arises as an alternative to the religious. The world and man are considered here as objects of research. The scientific picture of the world was formed in modern times under the strong influence of the ideas of evolutionism and mathematical natural science. The scientific picture of the world is understood as an integral system of ideas about the general properties and laws of the world, 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 scientific picture of the world: scientific knowledge about nature, scientific knowledge about society, scientific knowledge about man and his thinking. It is based on data from astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and usually acts as the antithesis of an archaic (primarily religious) picture of the world. Methodologically, it is based on the Cartesian opposition of subject and object. Any phenomenon in the world should be explained by the direct action of external causes, and not by internal nature or purpose (as in Aristotle's metaphysics).

The world in science is considered as a set of simple (elementary) objects that interact with each other and obey certain laws. Mechanical, organic analogies help explain everything. The scientific picture of the world began to take shape most intensively in the 16-17th centuries, when heliocentrism came to replace geocentrism and classical mechanics appeared.

In the scientific picture of the world, one should distinguish between general scientific and special scientific pictures of the world. V general scientific picture of the world generalized and synthesized scientific knowledge accumulated by all sciences about nature, society, man and the results of his activities. Among private scientific pictures of the world are called physical, chemical, cosmological and cosmogonic, biological, ecological, informational, political, economic, etc. etc. pictures of the world. Accordingly, along with the concept of physical reality, the scientific picture of the world contains the concepts of biological, social, historical and even linguistic reality. Each of these realities is also a system of theoretical objects constructed by biological, sociological, historical and linguistic theories, respectively. The main feature of the scientific picture of the world is that it is built on the basis of fundamental principles that underlie the scientific theory and in the field of science that occupies a leading position in this era.

Throughout history, religious, scientific and philosophical views of the world have been in complex relationships. So, in the Middle Ages, disputes between theologians about the compatibility of philosophy and Christian doctrine did not subside. Opponents of philosophy considered it inseparable from pagan religious cults. The adherents Christianized the ancient teachings, proceeding from the principle of the priority of Scripture over Reason. One of the authors of the scientific picture of the world, Newton, warned his colleagues against being carried away by metaphysics. O. Comte was the first to try to compare all three pictures, creating a doctrine of the stages of human development. He identified three stages of the spirit through which every society must go: theological, metaphysical, scientific.

The enormous practical importance of science in the 20th century made it that area of ​​knowledge for which the mass consciousness has deep respect and reverence. The word of science is weighty, and that is why the picture of the world it draws is often mistaken for an accurate photograph of reality, for an image of the Universe as it really is, regardless of us. However, the familiar, rooted in the Age of Enlightenment trust in the conclusions of science is often forgotten that science is a developing and mobile system of knowledge.

In the second half of the 20th century, it became obvious that none of the pictures of the world can confirm its truth and the falsity of competitors. The problem is to admit the coexistence of all three pictures in a single universe of human knowledge. This should be facilitated by methodological and ideological pluralism based on the principles of linguistic complementarity and linguistic relativity.

Instead of a picture of the world, philosophers of the twentieth century introduced the concept of the life world, which opposes the "worlds" of objective sciences and the scientific interests that give rise to them. At the moment, many different pictures of the world coexist at the same time. In addition, conceptual problems arise - a large amount of information in images, we ascribe to them a certain meaning, sometimes different. Probably, new pictures of the world may appear in the near future.

Conclusion

The picture of the world is a set of ideas about the structure of reality, the ways of its functioning and change, formed at a specific stage of human development, formed on the basis of the initial worldview principles and integrating the knowledge and experience accumulated by humanity.

Over time, the picture of the world changes, supplemented by the ideas of everyday, religious, philosophical, aesthetic consciousness. For the believer, the world is the embodiment of divine harmony, for the scientist - a system of logically interconnected laws, for the philosopher - the primary. Based on this, they distinguish between religious, philosophical and scientific picture of the world. Each has a semantic center around which all the components that make up the integral image of the Universe are located. Their fundamental differences: the main problem solved by each of these pictures of the world; basic ideas that offer a picture of the world to solve their problem.

The religious picture of the world makes the relationship between everyday empiricism and the otherworldly the main subject of its attention. The earthly and the heavenly, the realm of the human and the realm of the Divine - that is the meaning of religious meditation. The extraneous and the transcendent are always complex and contradictory connected, but the religious, theological consciousness seeks to show this connection as understandable to the human mind, but it implies intuitive comprehension.

The scientific picture of the world is built around objects that do not depend on human subjectivity, free from the influence of our desires and peculiarities of perception. Science wants to see the world as it is, because its core is an inhuman reality. Exceptional - this is how one can characterize the influence of science on the worldview of a modern person.

The philosophical picture of the world is a set of generalized, systemically organized and theoretically grounded ideas about the world in its integral unity and the place of man in it. Unlike the religious picture of the world, the philosophical picture of the world always relies on the scientific picture of the world as a reliable foundation.

List of used literature

1. Andreychenko G.V. Philosophy / G.V. Andreychenko, V.D. Gracheva. - Stavropol: SSU Publishing House, 2001 .-- 245 p.

2. Arkhipkin V.G. Natural science picture of the world: Textbook / V.G. Arkhipkin, V.P. Timofeev. - Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State University, 2002 .-- 320 p.

3. Balashov L.E. Philosophy: Textbook. 3rd ed., With corrections and additions. - M., 2008 .-- p. 664.

4. Gorelov A.A. Concepts of modern natural science: A course of lectures / A.A. Gorelov. - M .: Center, 2002 .-- 208 p.

5. Karpenkov S.Kh. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook for universities / S.Kh. Karpenkov. - M .: Higher school, 2003 .-- 488 p.

6. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko, V.P. Ratnikova. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: UNITI-DANA, 2002 .-- 303 p.

7. Skopin A.Yu. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook / A.Yu. Skopin. - M .: TK Welby, 2003 .-- 392 p.

8. Stepin V.S. Scientific picture of the world in the culture of technogenic civilization / V.S. Stepin, L.F. Kuznetsova. - M .: Publishing house Prospect, 2004. - 274 p.

9. Starodubtsev VA Concepts of modern natural science: textbook - 4th ed. - Tomsk: TPU Publishing House, 2008 .-- 184 p.

10. Frolov I.T. Introduction to philosophy. Textbook / I.T. Frolov. - M .: Cultural revolution, 2007 .-- 623 p.

Application

Figure 1 - Picture of the universe

Stepin V.S. Scientific picture of the world in the culture of technogenic civilization / V.S. Stepin, L.F. Kuznetsova. - M .: Publishing house Prospect, 2004.- P.18.

In the same place. - p.22.

Frolov I.T. Introduction to philosophy. Textbook / I.T. Frolov. - M .: Cultural revolution, 2007. - P.26.

Arkhipkin V.G. Natural science picture of the world: Textbook / V.G. Arkhipkin, V.P. Timofeev. - Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State University, 2002. - pp. 112-113.

Andreychenko G.V. Philosophy / G.V. Andreychenko, V.D. Gracheva. - Stavropol: SSU Publishing House, 2001. - P.103-104.

My worldview

Worldview, in my understanding, is a system of views on life that determines the behavior and destiny 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 believe that I already have a fairly formed worldview. I was brought up in a family in which faith in God was instilled in me from childhood. I already knew as a little 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 into 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 simply 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 how it will turn out in life. I believe that the bad deeds you have done will then turn 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 that for all our deeds committed on Earth, we will be held accountable before God. And I would be ashamed if I lived my life without doing anything good. We must have time 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. We do not live much on earth, and we need to keep up with doing the right things in life.

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

I made a choice in my life, I became a teacher. It seems to me that a teacher is a very noble profession. The teacher is the one who is listened to, who is looked up to. I understand that if I am a teacher, then I should not do negative things: smoking, drinking, having incomprehensible sexual intercourse, swearing and much more.

In my opinion, life should be based on moral values, which a person should be guided by 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 basics are set forth in the Bible and have been repeated thousands of times in world literature. “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “honor your father and your 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 the 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 given birth, they must be raised by decent, spiritually enriched people.

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

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

worldview fate moral value

Tags: My worldview Essay Philosophy

Knowing our picture, we know our basic motivations. And this allows us to build our life so that everything we do corresponds to our basic views of the world. Then, whatever we undertake, it will have a better chance of success. After all when the head (consciousness) and heart (subconsciousness) work in unison, we are most effective. For example, if a person believes in karma and justifies all difficult circumstances by it, then he is forced to endure and bear his cross. Realizing this for himself, he can consciously choose a cross that will suit the innate nature of man. Then life will be more joyful, and perseverance in bearing the cross will eventually allow you to achieve great success in your chosen field. And if in the picture of the human world the basic value is development, then any difficult life situation can be a task for self-development.

The picture of the world does not determine the way of solving life problems, but it answers the question “Why?”. And the way is dictated by our nature, which should also be realized and taken into account. If we leave everything to chance, then we act chaotically and often destroy our harmony with the Universe. Therefore, the foundations of your perception of the universe should be formed consciously.

Awareness of the inner model of the world will not bring relief and will not fulfill desires, but will show your illusions and delusions. And gradually, as you develop, you will be able to clear your picture of the world, while maintaining the integrity of your personality. This will make life happier and more creative.

What happens when we are not aware of our picture of the world

Since childhood, I have loved to come up with projects for myself. And when he graduated from the institute, he began to try to create different businesses. One such project was the sale of Chinese tea in colorful cardboard packaging with fantasy pictures and Taoist quotes.

I found a print shop, made a box cutter, drew 6 different packages of quotes, ordered tea in China and put it all together. With a box of my already beautifully packaged teas in front of me in the room, it was time to sell them. I took a few packs and went to the nearest yoga studio to offer them my tea. I didn’t work, they didn’t need tea, and I became thoughtful. There was emptiness inside me. A week ago I was on fire with this project, with enthusiasm I came up with packaging, created a website and studied competitors. But after the product was ready, the project ceased to interest me. And this is not the first time this has happened!

Before tea, there were 13 other business projects in which I created a product with enthusiasm, but stopped after the turn of the routine came. Similar things happened in childhood, so I had my own answer to this ... I thought that I like working with information, exploring a new field of activity. And when I received knowledge that was interesting for me, then there was nothing left in the project that could captivate me. But after I realized my picture of the world, I understood what was the matter ... and after realizing my nature, I understood it even deeper.

In my picture of the world, the meaning of life is to comprehend your Primordial nature and at the end to completely merge with it, thus freeing yourself from the need to be reborn in this world. That is, my basic values ​​are freedom and knowledge. This is what I love at the beginning of my projects - learning new things and creating new things freely. And when I was faced with the fact that I need to start doing some routine things for me, the interest in the project fades away. My consciousness believed that self-development needed money, and my subconscious was sure that I needed freedom and knowledge. When I reached the stage in the project, after which new knowledge ended and lack of freedom began, my heart protested. I started to get lazy and felt empty, lack of energy to continue the project.

Now that I understand all this, I need to build my life so as not to deprive myself of the freedom of creativity, to manifest my nature, which strives for miracles, and not to limit my knowledge. That is, we need such projects and such methods (forms) of interaction with the world that will not generate a struggle between my consciousness and subconsciousness.

I must admit that I am still learning to organize my life according to my nature and picture of the world. This is very unusual and very different from the hackneyed truths that are promoted in books and society. Periodically, you need to overcome self-doubt, doubts and fears. I am still working on myself in this direction and so far I cannot be an example 🙂 But my mind and heart are still in greater harmony now than before.

Awareness of your death and overcoming fear

When we build our picture of the world, we are faced with a number of questions:

• Where did the universe come from?
• What happened before her appearance?
• What will happen after the disappearance of the universe?
• Was I in this Universe before I was born?
• What will happen after my death?

Basically, we start asking questions about the beginning of everything and the end of everything and our personal beginning and end. In the Taoist picture of the world, we and the Universe are one whole. Therefore, all these questions are about the same 🙂 The difficulty of self-knowledge is that we have a mortal part and a primordial one, this gives rise to duality. And the task of spiritual development is to restore unity within ourselves, and this, in turn, restores our unity with the Universe.

We are looking for something, and in the end, we are looking for God or something higher, primordial, omnipotent. What our picture of the world will be depends on our answer to questions about death. If a person does not want to answer these questions and drives away thoughts of death, then his picture of the world remains unfinished. Such a person is always looking for something, feels vague anxiety and inner incompleteness. He does not know why he lives and constantly doubts his decisions. And if a person removes God or something primordial from the picture of the world, then he deprives himself of the beginning and end, deprives himself of the foundation and motive. Then, as you grow older, the burdensomeness of life increases, an inner emptiness is felt. And passing through personal crises, we finish building or remake our model of the world in order to cope with thoughts of death. But it also happens that a person cannot cope with this and dies without finding his foundation (the foundation of the entire Universe).

And of course, comprehending the Universe and creating a picture of the world, we put our delusions into it. For example, many people believe that their raison d'être is development. As we develop, we supposedly help God to know himself. A beautiful theory, but if we take into account that God is a perfect absolute, then he simply has nowhere to develop and nothing to cognize ... Since any knowledge implies that we do not know something (and then God is no longer an absolute). When I first stumbled upon this idea, I walked around in confusion for several days, since my picture of the world was destroyed. The base was knocked out from under my feet and I did not know why I live 🙂

In the Taoist worldview, the Tao has no goals in relation to me. But there is a path along which we leave the wheel of rebirth and can either go to live in the spiritual immaterial worlds, or even transcend all worlds and merge with Tao. Well, when there is a path, it is curious to walk along it 🙂 Moreover, this is a very unusual and magical road!

How to understand your picture of the world

When a child comprehends the world by asking questions, a huge network of various concepts and connections between them is built in his mind. And, sooner or later, the child realizes that everyone is mortal. Questions arise about the beginning and end of life. During this period, the basis of the built tree of the world (concepts and connections) begins to form. At the bottom lies something that is the beginning and the end. Therefore, in order to understand your picture of the world, it is important to realize this very foundation, since everything else follows from it.

The model of the world is always based on 3 concepts: I, the World and the Source of everything. All human decisions depend on the relationship between these basic concepts! Therefore, to understand your picture of the world, you need to ask yourself the following questions:

• Who am I? Why did I choose this answer and how is it convenient for me?
• Where I am? And who created all this or how did it all appear?
• What is my relationship with the world and the source of everything? Am I part of the world or part of the source? Is there some original design for me? If so, what is it? If there is no plan, then do I have any obligations to the world or source, obligations of the world to the source and source to me and the world?

Answers should be born in the heart, that is, come to consciousness from emptiness, and not be generated through complex reflections! Our task at the first stage is to realize the picture of the world that already exists now. And then, we will deal with its restructuring and attunement with our nature. In the meantime, it is important not to come up with an answer, but simply to sincerely answer what arises in the mind. It is best to ask yourself the question out loud and write down the answer on paper so you don't forget anything.

Having received the answers, it is important to think about each of them ... why is this answer convenient for me? For example, if I consider myself an immortal soul, why is it convenient? Is there a conflict in my picture of the world? Or maybe my model of the world removes any conflicts from my life?

If the world was created, then what is the meaning of this creation? Is there some purpose for everything or some promises and obligations of the participants?

What is inherent in your picture of the world is reality! It is important to realize and accept. The relationships that exist in the model between you, the world and the source of everything are reflected in all your relationships with other living beings! Everything that in our life does not fit into our picture of the world will be considered rubbish. We value only what is considered valuable in our picture of the world. For example, if in the picture of the world our task is to help others, and we work in a company that spoils the environment, we will be unhappy, even if we receive a lot of money for our work! And for a long time such a person may not even understand what gnaws at him, why he feels dissatisfaction with life, despite all the generally accepted attributes of success.

You can understand a lot about yourself by reflecting on your picture of the world and why it is that way (that is, why it is convenient for you). After all, all the bricks of which it consists did not get there by chance! Each of the pieces was convenient for you at one time or another, explained life and promised hope, and therefore formed the basis of your understanding of the world. Having realized these nuances, you can see your illusions and fears, understand your basic motives and realize in what relationship you are now with yourself! Because our relationship with the source of everything and with the world is, in fact, our relationship with ourselves (since the world, we and Tao are one)!

Checking our understanding of the picture of the world

Since our values ​​flow from the picture of the world, we can use them to test our sincerity. Our ego constantly protects itself and we can lie to ourselves in order to appear better in our own eyes than we are. Therefore, it will not be superfluous if we check how accurately we formulated our model of the world.

To test, take the following values ​​and prioritize them (most valuable to least valuable):

• Love relationship between a man and a woman (sexual partners).
• Family and close friends.
• Money and material well-being.
• Pleasure and relaxation.
• Self-realization (for example, in a career or business).
• Personal self-development (more mundane, skills, languages, personal effectiveness, etc.).
• Spiritual self-development (aimed at virtuous qualities).
• Health and sports.
• Freedom and inner harmony.

If some values ​​are missing from the list, then add them. It is important that you get a clear sequence of those areas of life that are valuable to you.

After the values ​​are prioritized, look at the 3 values ​​that matter most to you. They have to be somehow reflected in your picture of the world! If this is not so, for example, in the picture of the world, the idea of ​​creating the world is for you to develop endlessly, and in your values ​​\ u200b \ u200bthe family, pleasure and relationships are in the first place, then somewhere you lied to yourself 🙂 And most likely, you distorted your picture of the world in order to seem more correct to ourselves.

When I first took an inventory of my values, I sincerely believed that in my picture of the world, the main goal of life is spiritual development. But I was very surprised that the most valuable for me were freedom, pleasure and self-realization. After such a reassessment, I was forced to admit that I was lying to myself about spiritual development. Yes, it is important to me, but it is not in the first place. And I have corrected my picture of the world, in which the realization of my nature has become more of the main goal of life, and spiritual development follows.

Theoretically, you can change your values ​​without touching the picture of the world ... But this, it seems to me, will give rise to an internal struggle with oneself. When I reach a new stage in my development, my picture of the world will automatically change and affect values. In the meantime, it is important not to lie to yourself in order to realize what is.

After the picture of the world has cleared up a little, it's time to start interpreting it. That is, to reflect on it and think about where it leads. How to change your life to fit your model of the world. This alignment will remove internal conflicts and bring harmony to your soul. But we will do this next time 🙂 In the meantime, I wish you success on the Path and health!

Move on

To have full access to the materials, go to the site!

Towards modern science. Scientific picture of the world

Worldview and natural science knowledge

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

Worldview and natural science

"It is incomprehensible that God exists, incomprehensible that he does not exist; that we have a soul, that it does not exist; that the world was 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 the attitude of people to the surrounding reality and to 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 a family, long before the beginning of his natural science education. Changes in this basis of the worldview happen rarely, and if they do, it is not under the yoke of "scientific evidence", but rather as a result of life upheavals.

In the same phenomena, people, depending on their worldview, can see different essences, as for the interpretation of scientific data, for example, attitudes towards scientific hypotheses. Differences in the solution of the main worldview issues (about God, the Universe as a whole, the planet Earth and life on it) within the framework of the two worldviews can be easily seen in the atheistic and theistic formulations of the anthropic principle, which is worth dwelling on in more detail.

Anthropic principle

We live on the third of the nine planets, rotating 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 closest star to the Sun, Alpha Centauri, is located 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 more nearby stars within a radius of ~ 17 light years. The Sun and other ~ 1011 stars form a Galaxy - the Milky Way. The edge of the observable universe is roughly 109 light years distant.

Such numbers boggle 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 chances work for us, then there is a certainty 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 accident and organized itself, or is based on the intelligent design of the Creator.

The ranges of science are enormous - cosmology, which operates with ultra-large distances and magnitudes, and the physics of elementary particles at the level of ultra-small masses and dimensions, reveal the amazing structure of the Universe. Science says that the world in which we live, what we see around us 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 macrocosms: 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 coupling constants, sometimes the term world constants is used. Theoretical physicists analyzed the possible consequences of changing the relationship between the coupling constants: it turned out that almost any change in the existing relationship 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 interior of stars and the Sun. If it is 2% weaker and there will be no stable bonds between neutrons and protons, i.e. there are no nuclei, no atoms, etc. If it is 0.3% stronger, then heavy metals will prevail instead of the light elements hydrogen and helium (the two main elements in the Universe).

The gravitational interaction determines the movement of the planets in the solar system, the structure and, as a consequence, 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 nuclei in atoms and the connection between atoms in molecules and crystals. The forces of friction and elasticity are of 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 cannot form.

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

Life on Earth is unthinkable without water, and it turns out that water, a compound of H2O, has a number of unique, including anomalous, properties due to the influence of hydrogen bonds, without which life on Earth would be impossible. From the point of view of chemistry, water is molecular oxygen hydride (an element of group VI of the periodic table). Hydrides of other elements of group VI sulfur, selenium and tellurium, Н2S, Н2Se, Н2Te, in contrast to water, are poisonous and their melting and boiling points lie in the region of negative temperatures, in the range from –10 to –100 ° С.

Water is one of the few substances that expands when freezing; as a result, the ice floats on the water, protecting the reservoirs from freezing from above in 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 huge heat capacity of water in reservoirs under the ice, that life is preserved.

It should not be forgotten 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 absorption in the earth's atmosphere of the return flow of the Earth's radiation (maximum in the infrared region). As a result, the temperature regime of the Earth differs significantly from the regime of other planets of the solar system with huge daily temperature fluctuations.

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

This list, which concerns literally all aspects of human life, can be continued and continued, but the main conclusion can be drawn from the data presented. Let us formulate it as follows: the harmony of the world and its fitness for human existence in it can be traced at all levels: from the characteristics of elementary particles, atomic nuclei and atoms to the speed of rotation of the Earth 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 like that, because otherwise life is impossible. And further, the formulations of the anthropic principle differ depending on the worldview, since from the anthropic principle follows either the reality of God and the uniqueness of our World, or the denial of God and the plurality of worlds; blind chance, suggesting a myriad of worlds, or the plan of the Creator 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 has defined the fundamental laws of physics so that human life is possible on Earth;

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

It is clear that the chasm separates these formulations of the anthropic principle, and it is inherent in the worldview. The answers to all the most important questions of mankind are also determined by its worldview. Likewise, the answers to the question: what lies behind the observed Universe will also be alternative.

The Christian worldview asserts: behind matter there is a creative Reason, God, which is not a component 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-organization and development, also not subordinate to any goal. The variety of nature and the world is the result of random processes of development of matter.

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

Christian worldview: the Universe, the solar system, the Earth were created in such a way in order to provide opportunities for life on Earth.

Atheistic worldview: matter itself arose as a result of the Big Bang and over time formed the solar system with a system of planets, on one of which, in an incomprehensible way (scientifically inexplicable and not reproducible) as a result of spontaneous generation, organic life appeared; 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 living nature has arisen.

Which system of answers to adhere to is a matter of the free choice of each person and it would not be worth talking about this so much if the atheistic worldview were not persistently imposed on us by the ideologies of communism and globalism. Unfortunately, the atheistic worldview views cited here are declared part of the scientific picture of the world, although the postulates underlying them constitute an object of faith, i.e. have little relation to science and should be taken out of its framework.

Scientific picture of the world

At all times, the awareness of the existence of laws in nature and the possibility of its rational cognition led scientists and philosophers to attempts to paint the scientific picture of the world. At the same time, to explain everything in the world, people have always had enough scientific knowledge available, which constitutes the core of the scientific picture of the world - a set of hypotheses and theories that are most stable in time, which are now the beginnings of thermodynamics, conservation laws, 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 meet fierce resistance, both from the scientific community and from near-scientific and far from science strata of society. For the latter, the dominant picture of the world manages 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 that are possible at a given time. The spontaneously scientific picture of the world extends to all conceivable reality. This has been the case at all times, and Newton was no exception, who created the first scientific picture of the world.

Newton, as a theologian and thinker of the largest scale, could not help but think about the problems related to the structure of the Universe. At the same time, he, following his rules, applied the method of induction by analyzing the consequences of the established laws. So, analyzing the consequences of the law of universal gravitation, as applied 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 should be infinite, since only in this case there could exist equal centers of gravity and many space objects in it. In a finite universe, all these objects would sooner or later merge into a single body (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 ​​an infinite space and an uncountable number of 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 the heavenly and earthly, 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 gravity was considered the most universal and main force in the Cosmos. The physical picture of the world was drawn in the categories 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 is already unfolding according to the natural laws of nature under the influence of gravitational forces.

Newton was also worried about the origin of the universe. He understood that, limiting himself only to mechanical forces, he could not explain not only the origin of the universe, but also the origin of the solar system. Therefore, in matters of origin, Newton resorted to a more powerful than gravity, organizing force, which he thought of God the Creator. The “divine hand” gave the planets the necessary initial impulse for their orbital motion, thanks to which they did not fall on the Sun. Then the movement of the planets was explained by a natural physical reason - the law of universal gravitation. However, there was no explanation for the stable nature of the planetary motion. Moreover, the mutual attraction of the planets should inevitably cause disturbances in their motion and as a result of deviations from strictly elliptical trajectories. These deviations could be of a secular nature, increasing with time, and Newton concluded that it was necessary from time to time to correct, through divine intervention, the mechanism of planetary motion, shaken by mutual perturbations, 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 a new, cosmophysical picture of the world, which for two centuries became a guiding and controlling factor in the development of natural science. But Newton's worldview ideas did not inspire in everything the eighteenth century coming after Newton's century - the century of enlightenment, the century of reborn 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 impetus" 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.

Newton's discovery of the fundamental laws of mechanics gave rise to an opinion about 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, in the opinion of 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 the fragments of the jet.

The classic of German philosophy Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) went even further, not confining himself to considering the solar system, but directing his thoughts into the vastness of the universe. Putting forward the ideas of the evolution of the universe, Kant worked out in detail the cosmogony of the solar system, including the origin of the sun, which was later called the "nebular hypothesis." The main drawback of Kant's cosmogony is the assumption of the possibility of the appearance of 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 motion of the planets could be considered the cause 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 - the Sun in its center - and, at the same time, to the exfoliation of rings in the equatorial plane, from which, in the end, the planets and their satellites were formed. Within a short time, Laplace's hypothesis became popular and seemed to prove the omnipotence of a rational approach to explaining nature. If Kant assigned God in his cosmogony the role of the creator of matter, then the atheist Laplace rejected God altogether. It is known that when Napoleon Bonaparte, who showed an interest in natural sciences and especially in mathematics, asked Laplace about the place of God in the system of the world, he arrogantly replied: "Sire, 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 the Laplace 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 large than Laplace, possessing a significantly greater 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 the Christian worldview was adhered to by Ampere, Becquerel, Volta, Gauss, Dalton, Joule, Kelvin, Coulomb, Charles, Mayer, Maxwell, Om, Planck, Faraday. Although Albert Einstein was not a Christian, he was not an atheist either.

Would it be correct to say that the Christian scientists were not convinced by Laplace's hypothesis due to a number of its significant fatal flaws, the most important of which is the discrepancy between the distribution of angular momentum between the Sun and the planets, the reverse rotation of Venus and Uranus? Unlikely. 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 that 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 more likely the fruit of a sophisticated mind, albeit equipped with the most modern mathematical sophistication, than a reflection of some new discoveries and laws of physics. It is not for nothing that Laplace's hypothesis, corrected and modified, for example by O.Yu. Schmidt, and is still in use, although its shortcomings are currently not only not eliminated, but have become even more obvious. The conclusion suggests itself - the basis of the scientific picture of the world is the worldview, which is not limited only to the data of science. That is why atheists and Christians, operating with the same amount of scientific knowledge, manage to draw fundamentally different scientific pictures of the world.

Bibliography

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