Loading...

資料庫

時代講場文章(至2017年2月14日)

剖析《挪亞方舟驚世啟示》的神學進路

者曾聽到一些電台的節目主持人表示,以前對福音沒有多少興趣,但最近的《挪亞方舟驚世啟示》(下稱《挪》),引起他們探索信仰的渴慕。無可否認,《挪》在香港整個城市是相當震撼的,福音的號角藉此已經響起來。但這件可喜的事,卻引發了一件可悲的事,就是信徒之間產生了嫌隙。在興旺福音時,信徒同心合意、保守聖靈的合一是頂重要的,失去同心足能使整個福音行動告吹。為此筆者常常省察自己,恐防自以為是踢爆騙局,其實是用腳踢刺,敵擋福音就以為是事奉神。

  像《挪》這一類福音性的製作,本應從福音佈道的角度來評估才算公允。然而《挪》所帶來的影響,已經不是局限於福音佈道的層面,而是擴展到神學思維上的爭執:低等批判與高等批判、歷史與神話、信仰與科學等等。所以筆者不打算以福音佈道的角度理解《挪》,反而以剖析它的神學進路,從而了解爭端的箇中原因。

  神學進路或方法(prolegomena),可以說是探討神學的大前提。近代神學家喜歡把神學進路分為兩個向度:由上而下、由下而上。由上而下的進路是以神為本,承認神的主體性,宣講天上的神如何啟示地上的人。相反地,由下而上的進路是以人為本,彷彿神只有客體性,描述地上的人如何尋找天上的神。這種分法是籠統的,沒有劃一的標準。

由下而上的歷史神學進路

  神學家潘能博(Wolfhart Pannenberg)在《系統神學》(第二冊,第九、第十章)指出,他的神學論述結合了由上而下、由下而上雙方的優點。可是神學界卻認為,他所發揚的神學主要是以歷史為基礎,簡稱為歷史神學,當中由下而上的向度佔了主導的地位。在著述基督論時,潘氏首先闡述拿撒勒人耶穌的歷史,包括:公開的職事、受審、復活。在此強調耶穌的歷史及其信息的連貫性,這歷史乃朝向耶穌復活的事件。接著,潘氏認為耶穌復活有一種向後回溯的力量,這力量能印證耶穌在復活前已經與神聯合。這樣的主張如他一向所認為,新約聖經對耶穌的了解是在默示性期望中形成,因此耶穌的權威性需要從一種末世性的角度來印證。這樣向後回溯,把歷史中的耶穌與信仰中的基督結合,從耶穌復活結合到基督的根源、從耶穌釘死結合到聖父與聖子的自我區別、從道成肉身結合到神人二性。

  與潘能博相似的,吳主光在《人造衞星發現方舟》(下稱《人》)也展現了倚重歷史的神學論述。吳氏首先引用許多科學和考古的證據,證明挪亞方舟的歷史真實性,然後在總結「挪亞進方舟的日子」時指出,「倘若挪亞方舟的故事是假的,不用說主再來和世界末日的事也是假的,但現今經已證實方舟的故事是真的,那麼主再來和世界末日之事會不會是真的呢?當然真實的可能性極高了。」(頁23-24)

  以潘氏和吳氏的兩本著作而言,二人的神學進路均是歷史神學的進路,其性質同是由下而上的。潘氏把歷史焦點放在耶穌復活的事件上,吳氏則把歷史焦點放在挪亞做方舟的事件上,兩位都認為所強調的歷史焦點不是神話。前者揉合了歷史中的耶穌與信仰中的基督,後者則結合歷史中的挪亞與信仰中的人子。潘氏的歷史力量是回溯的,由耶穌復活追溯到神子第一次來臨,以致於這位亙古者以前的事。吳氏的歷史力量是前進的,由挪亞做方舟邁向人子第二次來臨,以致於這位永存者以後的事。

歷史神學的不濟

  歷史神學存在不少的困難。雖然現在有無數關於耶穌的史料,可以讓人重構耶穌的歷史,即使是反對基督信仰的人也不得不承認,歷史上的確有拿撒勒人耶穌出現過,但是這種歷史重構往往只承認耶穌的人性,並不承認祂的神性,當然更不用提說祂的復活了。因此,採用歷史實證的方法,潘能博所選取的歷史定點,難度已經是非常高,但相比之下,吳主光所選取的歷史定點更是難上加難。創世記一至十一章是近乎史前時代,以重構歷史的方法證實史前時代的事,其成功機會幾乎是等於零。

  《人》以歷史神學為基礎,《挪》把《人》發揚光大,所以《挪》一點不差就是歷史神學的產物。《人》的神學進路既遭遇困難,《挪》就不能避免這些困難了。例如,西方人在山的低處發現方舟,東方人在山的高處又發現方舟。結果,美洲信徒根據低處的方舟,展開他們的佈道事工,亞洲信徒則以高處的方舟,在福音上大展拳腳。到底哪一隻是「方舟」,哪一隻是「謊舟」呢?雙方都是主的僕人,兩下都在做神的工,怎麼辦呢?大家不要爭吵!現在傳來一個理論可以幫到大家。方舟斷開了兩節,一半在高處,一半在低處,兩節都是真的!一人一半,人人有分,永不落空!可是這個理論存在不少疑點:兩節方舟能夠合併起來嗎?為甚麼兩節相距這麼遠呢?

  這個舊理論幫不到,現在有一個新理論或者可以幫到,大家看看以下的理論是否更為合理。從人類專家、鑑證專家、地質學家、冰河學家及其他專家學者所得的理據,我們有理由可以相信,挪亞出了方舟以後,他的兒子們因為親眼目睹洪水曾掩蓋大地,恐怕這種災難再次發生,所以按照他們父親所做之方舟的樣式,在不同的地區復製了幾隻方舟,以備不時之需。無論人造衞星或實地考察,都有足夠證據顯示,這幾隻方舟是真的,全部都是在挪亞時代所做的,洪水掩蓋大地亦都是真確的。這個革命性的理論,是筆者效法考古學家創作的!倘若把這個空前絕後的理論放在網絡上,加上一點學術包裝,或者可以成為廿一世紀考古學界驚天動地的里程碑!……歷史神學就是如此不濟。

啟示與信心

  相對由下而上,由上而下的進路可以稱為啟示的進路。啟示是神主動的行動,是神所賜予的,在此人只能領受,人的角色是被動的。聖父將聖子啟示出來,聖子將聖父啟示出來,聖父、聖子藉著聖靈啟示出來。人子降臨的「顯現」,希臘文apokalupsis,直譯作「啟示」。人子顯現是神由上而下的啟示,然而,尋找方舟只是人由下而上的嘗試。

  神將奧祕的事向自以為聰明通達、不信的人就藏起來,向謙卑像嬰孩、信的人就啟示出來。如此,神的啟示與人的信心是互相緊扣的。甚麼是信心?信心就是還沒有看見的事的明證(來十一:1)。「明證」,希臘文 elegchos,帶有裁判之意,由此引申到責備、就近光明的意思。眼見只能判斷所看見的事,信心卻能判斷還沒有看見的事,並為這些事提供確據、明證。「挪亞因著信,既蒙神指示他未見的事……」(來十一:7)挪亞領受啟示的信心,就是一種相信還沒有看見之事的信心。

  信的人行事為人憑信心不憑眼見,是因為眼所能見的非常有限。眼見受時間和空間限制,所以只能助人明白日光之下的事。信心卻不然。藉著信心所知道的,是從過去的永遠,到將來的永遠;包括日光之下的事,也包括日光之上的事。不但物質的世界,連屬靈的世界,因著信,信的人都能知曉。信心突破了時間和空間的限制,超越一切所見的。基督徒之所以接受基督,乃是由於信心;他們愛這位沒有見過的基督,也是由於信心。他們雖然不得看見基督,卻因信心,就有說不出來、滿有榮光的大喜樂。

  要見過才信的,其信心是小的;毋須看見就信的,其信心是大的。要有神蹟才信的,其信心是軟弱的;毋須神蹟就信的,其信心是堅固的。要有證據才信的,這人證實是缺乏信心的人;毋須證據就信的,這人據悉是充滿信心的人。小信的人所得的大啟示,大極也相當小;所得的驚世啟示,最驚的就是啟示愈來愈細。

Donationcall

舊回應41則


張國棟 / 2005-04-17 00:21:30

to liberal


1. 如果你要談這些宗哲問題,你可以寫篇文,大家可以發表意見。


2. 如果你說你是基督徒,請你先問你自己你信甚麼樣的神。你何不將你的高見公諸於世,為何要如此動不墽彈一兩條問題來?我不明白你不斷問同一類問題,問到你好像不是相信有神似的,有甚麼用意。再重申,這是求真的活動,問和答是很合理的,只是,你既自稱基督徒,別人也就有權反問你。請你不要迴避不答,卻一味要求別人回應。


3. 顯然地,你根本沒有看過任何像樣的宗教哲學書,有關problem of evil,請看Howard-Snyder, Evidential Argument from Evil (Indiana University Press, 1996)。這本書今天沒有人會不談的。那個existence of evil is inconsistent with the traditional idea of God 是被推翻了的講法。


4. 我已多次請求你想清楚你以為很smart的那個arbitrary choice原則是甚麼,但你一而再再而三地迴避不答,但卻仍要用那個原則來質問別人,我不覺得你有甚麼談話的誠意。令人失望。


 

Liberal / 2005-04-17 00:06:55

God Loves You: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/GOD.6.html Arguments for and against the Existence of God


God Loves You:


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Annotations/GOD.6.html


 


Arguments for and against the Existence of God:


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html


 


This one illustrates that both sides have equally stong arguments.  So to choose to believe in the existence of God or not is an Arbitrary Choice.  Both are equally good choices.


Don't forget that the traditional Christian attributes of God are incoherent with the reality of evil.

Liberal / 2005-04-16 23:56:01

God


God:


 


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GOD.html


 


 


The traditional Christian attributes of God are incompatible with the reality of evil.

佚名Anonymous / 2005-04-15 10:31:21

To 張國棟

Totally agree. I am criticizing other people's way of believing.  At my present layman level of philosophical knowledge and skills, I hold that what I said in "The Demand of The Principle of Minimisation of Arbitrary Choices is Simple" are valid. I urge readers to judge for themselves what I have said there are reasonable or not and to reflect on their "faiths." That said, I agree with you that I need further philosophical training and consider those questions seriously, and refine or refute what I have said.

kam / 2005-04-15 02:02:02

to作者:好野!


坦白講,我對大家有關這電影長久以來的爭論,本來已分不清誰是誰非,對於我這個沒有深奧神學認識的人,大家的論點實令我很混亂,我最後只想問一句:究竟應否看這電影和推介給朋友?


多謝作者這篇文章,令我很多的疑惑都解開...結果是:一定要睇!


睇完結果是:要介紹更多人睇!


從未睇過咁直接傳福音既電影...


再次謝謝作者令我沒有錯過這部電影...和參與了神的事工! 還有,你的觀點給了我很多的提醒:我們應憑信心回應神,因最驚的啟示是啟示越來越少!


如果可早點睇到這文章,就少了好多煩惱!!再次衷心感謝和敬佩你的勇氣/謙卑!

張國棟 / 2005-04-15 01:42:32

to liberal

I'm afraid you don't know much about what you are saying, not with respect to religion but with respect to philosophy. What is it to know something? What's the difference between deduction and induction? What is the difference between justification and truth? What do they have to do with knowing? These are more basic questions. I'm not saying that therefore you should not criticize other people's way of believing. I'm simply saying that you, who claims to be a seeker of truth, should face those questions.

Liberal / 2005-04-15 00:57:35

The demand of The Principle of Minimisation of Arbitrary Choices is simple

The demand of The Principle of Minimisation of Arbitrary Choices is simple: to say "I don't know" to the things you don't know.  The advice of The Principle of Minimisation of Arbitrary Choices is to make fewer Arbitrary Choices by "faith."  When you don't know, just say you don't know.  When you don't know whether there are parallel universes, just say you don't know and continue to calculate, observe, and do experiments.  It’s so simple.  What's wrong with it?  When you don't know whether there is God, just say you don't know and continue to observe and consult various philosophies and religions.  It’s so simple.  What's wrong with it?  When you don't know whether there is revelation from God, just say you don't know and continue to search.  It’s so simple.  What's wrong with it?

Liberal / 2005-04-14 23:23:22

The necessity of Principle of Minimisation of Arbitrary Choices


//So both choices are Arbitrary Choices, because both are equally good, they are not stronger or weaker than each other.//
我相信THEISM較ATHEISM能夠更cohere well with the totality of experience.  這一點許多非基督徒都同意。


and many think that atheism 較 theism 能夠更cohere well with the totality of experience too


the following may be more obvious:
the christian attributes of god do not cohere well with the reality of evil



//i do not think a biology book which starts with "we believe biblical narratives are true" is a good biology book//
...那根本就不對題吧。這不是faith statement與否的問題。


不對題, exactly! i sound absurd, right? i'm afraid some christians in the states are really demanding inclusion of biblical narratives in biology courses! so the Principle of Minimisation of Arbitrary Choices (Faith Statements) is not a luxury, it is necessary because it helps to prevent such an absurd thing from happening



//張國楝曾指出要對faith statement作出更清楚的定義才能夠好好討論。我認為根本很難分辨那些是faith statement,那些不是。因〔此〕要limit faith statement有難度。或許你仍然有傾向使用實證論或其他提出的檢證原則去判斷甚麼是faith statement,但那正是我想指出的問題。我們可以提出一些近乎荒謬的過時信念來作faith statement的例子,例如堅持地球是平坦的。不過這種只是用來「講」的例子,在真實的研究過程中,我們不是面對一些已由許多線索否定了的信念,而是類似「RNA world是否真實存在的一個生命份子形成的過程?」,「是否有多重平衡的宇宙?」等等。你如何決定這些屬於甚麼?Faith statement or not.  「同性戀傾向是生物性地決定(biologically determined),不能改變,勉強改變有危險」這又是否faith statement?//


good point, the critical problem of Arbitrary Choice is the definition of faith statements, this issue needs further exploration


“god exists” is definitely a faith statement
“earth is flat” is definitely not a faith statement
between these ends, the cut-off point must lie somewhere, but where? That is the problem


i think the important point is the method we use:
the wrong method is to accept or reject parallel universes by “faith”
the correct method is not to accept or reject, say “I don’t know,” and continue to calculate and observe and experiement


we should not accept 「同性戀傾向是生物性地決定(biologically determined),不能改變,勉強改變有危險」by faith either
the correct method is to consult professional opinion and review research results, and maybe to do more research


so what The Principle of Minimisation of Arbitrary Choices teaches is to continue to observe, experiment, and calculate; and not to suffocate the process by premature assertions such as “god exists,” “revelation exists,” “there must be parallel universes,” etc

陳國偉 / 2005-04-14 18:53:38

多謝你們的意見


其實我對影音的宣傳手法, 早前已經表達過:


http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/Feedback/ShowPage.jsp?Fid=1&parent=28127&Pid=6&Version=0&Charset=big5_hkscs&Cid=150&Nid=28127&page=5








時代講場















如果那不是方舟──拒絕「差不多」的佈道話題

回應文章: 給使團的一點獻議 回應者: 古斌 
        


如果使團有同工看這貼,我可以有點話分享。



我個人基本上是支持影音使團的事工的,所以我對你們過往的電影是肯定的,這一點大家可以找一找我怎樣看天作之盒,怎樣看生命因愛動聽,然後再比較其他人的批評。



面對宣傳中出現失實和誤導的成份,我覺得使團是可以回應的。我不認為只怨人家不明自己佈道心是負責任的做法。宣傳福音,仍要用誠實的手段,我知道過往華人佈道,愛用上不少有誤導的技巧,這使我們跟XX寛頻、YY固網的宣傳變得無異。宣傳是要誠信的,福音是誠實的。福音工作者必須誠實無偽,這不是我講的,是保羅講的。



我覺得使團可以做的是,自己修改宣傳標語,把重點重新放在海尼夫所講的,是一種信仰探索,不是考古,不是講科學。影音可以印製新的單張,或更改海報的標語,或在給教牧的信中澄清。我覺得表現承擔可能的誤導帶來的不安,這樣做,使團可以予人負責任的感覺,想一想星展的危機管理,或者以前維他奶的危機管理,那裡有很多智慧。












回應文章: Agree with 古斌 回應者: 陳國偉 
        
This work is not able to claim as scientific work yet.


==============


在此不再重複. 至於其他方面, 讓我再思索思索.


Liberal, nice to meet you. Keep in contact in this website.


 


 

海尼夫 / 2005-04-14 18:29:26

回自由派


多謝回覆。


//So both choices are Arbitrary Choices, because both are equally good, they are not stronger or weaker than each other.//


我相信THEISM較ATHEISM能夠更cohere well with the totality of experience.  這一點許多非基督徒都同意。張國楝所提的那些基督徒哲學家當然更同意。


//i do not think a biology book which starts with "we believe biblical narratives are true" is a good biology book//


你把生物學與聖經研究放在同一領域,所以才產生了你提的那些問題。就如我不會說一本生物學的書,若劈頭第一句說,「本人支持台獨」或「支持獨栽及奴隸制」,那根本就不對題吧。這不是faith statement與否的問題。


//the key to approaching reality is to dialogue with it, not by limiting faith statements//
both are needed, while limiting faith statments, we can, as a separate exercise, still scrutinize each faith statment by letting it to dialogue with reality//


張國楝曾指出要對faith statement作出更清楚的定義才能夠好好討論。我認為根本很難分辨那些是faith statement,那些不是。因為要limit faith statement有難度。或許你仍然有傾向使用實證論或其他提出的檢證原則去判斷甚麼是faith statement,但那正是我想指出的問題。我們可以提出一些近乎荒謬的過時信念來作faith statement的例子,例如堅持地球是平坦的。不過這種只是用來「講」的例子,在真實的研究過程中,我們不是面對一些已由許多線索否定了的信念,而是類似「RNA world是否真實存在的一個生命份子形成的過程?」,「是否有多重平衡的宇宙?」等等。你如何決定這些屬於甚麼?Faith statement or not.  「同性戀傾向是生物性地決定(biologically determined),不能改變,勉強改變有危險」這又是否faith statement?[按:提這個例子,因為見你曾寫過話同性戀是先天決定的]


這方面的討論都差不多了,這一週因為忙於其他事,不再回覆了(包括作者陳國偉的觀點),日後再談吧。


 

佚名Anonymous / 2005-04-14 16:41:46

To 海尼夫: Arbitrary Choice is not positivistic


thank you for your good opinions


 


//I still detect trace of "foundationist" inclination in your thought (which I maybe wrong).  You seem to belief that the less fatih statements being involved, the more secure a theory to be.// 


yes, a theory built upon a faith statement "I believe the earth is flat" is insecure.
i do not think a biology book which starts with "we believe biblical narratives are true" is a good biology book.
i do not think public theology based on "illumination by holy spirit" is good public theology, as u have rightly pointed out.
i don't know whether that is foundationalistic or anti-fundationalistic.


 



//the key to approaching reality is to dialogue with it//
sure, that's what science has been doing


//the key to approaching reality is to dialogue with it, not by limiting faith statements//
both are needed, while limiting faith statments, we can, as a separate exercise, still scrutinize each faith statment by letting it to dialogue with reality


//It is true that a statement like "God exists" is not easily verified.  So you may put it into a faith statement list.  But if you say you will not bother yourself with "vague" faith statement, then you may be still adhere to the positivist tradtion.//


i must make clear: "not bother" = put aside = not building further upon it (an unreliable foundation), but not = reject it


my position is not positivistic:
if i say "God exists" is meaningless because it is non-verifiable, then i am positivistic.
now i say "God exists" is meaningful but an Arbitrary Choice because "God does not exist" is equally meaningful and probable.


//I will not object to "God exist" statement simply due to its difficulty in verification.//
neither will i, i just point out the choices "God exists" and "God does not exist" are Arbitrary Choices of equal strength



//Any statement, faith or not, should be put into dialogue with the reality.   Congruence and consilience is two important affrimation of a theory.  ...a statement like "God exists" ...If this belief coheres well with other beliefs (faith or not) or theories, and it produces good consilience, then the belief is on good ground.//  


The choice "God exists" coheres well with other beliefs and theories, and it produces good consilience.


The choice "God does not exist" coheres well with other beliefs and theories, and it produces good consilience.


So both choices are Arbitrary Choices, because both are equally good, they are not stronger or weaker than each other.

Liberal / 2005-04-14 14:06:47

《基督教信念的知識地位》

Is that the Chinese traslation of Warranted Christianity?

Liberal / 2005-04-14 09:28:12

To 張國棟


Thank you for your very helpful input and recommendations.


I will think about them.


May respond later.

張國棟 / 2005-04-14 01:53:42

To liberal


I sincerely hope that you answer seriously the questions I raised, which would be beneficial to your pursuit of truth, and of God ultimately.


In case you won't reply sooner and this thread be removed to archive, let me suggest some articles and books for you to read.


Alvin Plantinga is the best scholar to read on this topic. Here are two simple articles, one by him, one by me introducing him.


http://occr.christiantimes.org.hk/art_0006.htm


http://occr.christiantimes.org.hk/art_0010.htm


Then you may read his student's book,


Kelly James Clark, Return to Reason


中譯:重返理性,北大出版社


If you get really serious, read Plantinga's own writing,


"Reason and Belief in God" in Plantinga and Wolterstorff eds., Faith and Rationality (University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).


One of Plantinga's most important works has been translated into Chinese, by some scholars and me:


《基督教信念的知識地位》北京大學出版社,2004


I do not agree with him on some other issues but his account on this topic is the best so far, particularly insightful to people who care about other branches of knowledge like natural sciences, not just theology alone.


If you think it's too biased merely because all are about one person (though I don't think so), you may also read Richard Swinburne, Revelation (Clarendon Press). Also his The Existence of God (Clarendon Press). These are part of his 'series' (he doesn't call that a series) that offers a highly rational case for Christian theism. But mind that all of the books in that series are very difficult. He has spent almost 20 years to complete that series. I doubt if a layman could finish half of a book.


The reason why I suggest something so difficult to you is not to brag about my ability, but that I believe you probably are fed up with some simple and naive answers from traditional Christianity. So, here is my challenge. If you think that traditional (as opposed to liberal but not referring to fundamentalist) Christianity sucks in many aspects, read those books and see if your position, whatever it is, is still so great as you think now. If you don't think you yourself have a strong opinion, then simply take this as a way to pursue truth, as you say you want to do so.


 


 

祥文 / 2005-04-14 00:21:50

to author

I understand you try to serve our God. U have self-confidence and faith to God indeed. But I do agree to Daniel Cheung. Sometimes one's confidence and faith make he ignore some important points.

海尼夫 / 2005-04-14 00:06:34

To作者:我同意張國楝


張國楝不同意你為自己把吳主光與潘靈博的比較所作的答覆,至少有我支持。張兄對閣下的用意之猜測也許不準確,但你把曾在神學院教過書作為理由就太兒戲了。有話直說,對不起。


我沒有在這些地方回應你,不是同意你,只是既然你嘗試從神學方法來看這問題,因此便不離題。閣下不用誤會只張國楝才不同意。按你從聖靈光照的方式回答Liberal,你是徹底做單邊神學獨白,抱守封閉的神學路線。這也的確是一條路,不過如此便把神學封鎖在自己的園子裡。潘靈博至少肯定要go public,正視科學及其他學問。

Liberal / 2005-04-13 21:57:56

to author



























1.

i understand your position

remind you that your belief in revelation is an Arbitrary Choice

i respect your choice and your choice may be right 


2. 張兄

//...沒有跡象顯示其他網友有你的感覺...//

i'm afraid i have the same 感覺 as 張兄 (regarding the hidden points in your article that 張兄 said)

 

 




關閉視窗

陳國偉(作者) / 2005-04-13 18:56:50

一點回應


1. Liberal

 

我定義特殊啟示(special revelation)為耶穌基督和聖經. 耶穌基督是成了肉身的話語(incarnate Word), 聖經是明文的話語(written Word). 嚴格來說, 我不是建立(establish)神有向人啟示, 我不會作這樣的事. 我乃宣講(proclaim)神所已經啟示的. 至於別人能否得到啟示, 乃在乎神. 人信主是聖靈的工作, 我只是與神同工, 在聖靈裏宣講神的啟示. 

 

當然此刻你不會同意, 你認為原因是你還未得到證據, 但我對此的解釋是:你還未蒙聖靈光照.

 

一隻又黑又白的牛, 吃了綠色的草, 生產白色的牛奶, 給我這個黃皮膚的人喝了, 結果長出黑色的頭髮. 對於這個關係, 老實說, 直到如今我仍未研究過. 但我喝了, 事情就是這樣發生. 有時做人簡單一點未必是一件壞事.

 

2. 張兄

 

很欣賞你能將我的一句話化成幾段文字, 但因為沒有跡象顯示其他網友有你的感覺, 所以我只能將你的意見記錄在案, 留待他日處理.  

張國棟 / 2005-04-13 02:31:58

to liberal: questions for questions


In "Arbitrary Choice", I'm afraid you conflate the idea of justifiedly believing that p with p being true. Not having enough evidence or justification for a belief does not mean that that belief is not telling you something which may be true. There may be a belief which is accepted with strong justification but false. There may also be a belief which is true but lack justification (with regard to one particular person or with regard to the human race).


So, first you need to ask yourself what you count as justified (or proved). Then, why is that so important in your pursuit of truth? You need to ask yourself whether your standard could explain all kind of knowledge, not just religious knowledge. For example, will some kind of truth be precluded by the way you count some beliefs as justified? Then, you may ask what we may make of when a belief does not receive full justification. This point was made by 海尼夫 that it may be too weak to call it Arbitrary Choice.


Also, please define "faith statement".


I would not recommend you to think about postmodern epistemology when you don't have better ideas to the above questions.

海尼夫 / 2005-04-13 01:10:51

a little clarification


//the faith that the earth is flat, the faith that the sun evolve around the earth, etc; historically, such faith statements have hampered science for centuries and executed many scientists//


Historically, I think those beliefs were not regarded "faith" statements.  There were as "scientific" as round earth and heliocentrism, as seen with the eyes of those who were in the debate.   For any incomplete scientific theory, there are always some discrepancy observations. Sometimes we need ad hoc hypothesis to save the theory.  Only when too muct ad hoc hypotheses has been made would call into question the validity of the general theory.   So it is not that easy to tell which one is a faith statement and which is not.  Only by the benefit of hide sight could we out run our forerunners. 


I still detect trace of "foundationist" inclination in your thought (which I maybe wrong).  You seem to belief that the less fatih statements being involved, the more secure a theory to be.  Critical realism of course will not object to triming off unnecessary faith statements, but the key to approaching reality is to dialogue with it, not by limiting faith statements.  Any statement, faith or not, should be put into dialogue with the reality.   Congruence and consilience is two important affrimation of a theory.   It is true that a statement like "God exists" is not easily verified.  So you may put it into a faith statement list.  But if you say you will not bother yourself with "vague" faith statement, then you may be still adhere to the positivist tradtion.  I will not object to "God exist" statement  simply due to its difficulty in verification.  If this belief coheres well with other beliefs (faith or not) or theories, and it produces good consilience, then the whole package of that nexus of theories is on good ground.