( Bilingual English – Chinese ; 双语，中英文 )
CHAPTER 2
REAL FAITH ISN’T BLIND
Faith is not a leap in the dark; it's the exact opposite. It's a commitment based on evidence. . . . It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. —JOHN LENNOX¹
Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith; as Anselm* put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding. —WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, REASONABLE FAITH²
[*Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century. He is best known for the celebrated "ontological argument" for the existence of God in the Proslogion , but his contributions to philosophical theology (and indeed to philosophy more generally) go well beyond the ..Anselm was an Italian Benedictine monk who became abbot of Bec in Normandy and subsequently archbishop of Canterbury. He was also an important philosopher and widely respected theologian, who wrote many influential treatises, including two meditations on the nature of God, the Monologion (Monologue) and the Proslogion (Discourse), as well as Cur Deus Homo ...]
IT’S SAFE TO SAY THAT THE MOST UNUSUAL CONFERENCE I've ever attended was the 2012 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia, promoted as “A Celebration of Reason." More than 3,500 delegates came to hear speakers such as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. Very few if any Christians appeared to be in attendance.
My goal in attending was simply to listen. I thought that atheists were gathering from around the world, then something earth-shaking would be said that I would want to hear firsthand—maybe some new discovery in science that demonstrated (in their minds) that God does not exist. Instead of the intellectual onslaught I was bracing for, the opening-night speakers were four professional comedians. Their profanity-laced rants were perhaps an attempt to demonstrate their disdain for any hint of morality that might be lingering from their admitted religious upbringings.
The next day, rather than offer scientific or philosophical reasons for nonexistence of God, speaker after speaker railed against religion and continued tone set by the comedians on opening night. Again, mockery and ridicule were the primary themes. Ironically, there was very little "reason" present at their Celebration of Reason. The emotionalism they claim religion relies on permeated every presentation.
I left the conference convinced that the primary strategy of these new atheists is to lay claim the word reason, as a business owner might try to secure a domain name before the competition gets it. By doing this they can label anyone who opposes them “anti-reason" or irrational. With the zeal of a political party, their hope is that science would eliminate any faith or religion as well as philosophy. This was stated clearly by Dawkins in a discussion with John Lennox Oxford University, sponsored by the Fixed Point Foundation:
What worries me is if you don't have, if you don't allow in a rational basis for what you believe then it is possible for people to say, I'm sorry I just believe that Allah told to go kill all those people. And it's no good arguing with me because arguing is not what it's about. Faith is what it is about, and that is the danger.³
John Lennox, an Oxford mathematician who has debated Dawkins on several occasions, responded to this remark in one of their encounters:
I understand from my own perception of the New Testament that that not what the Christian faith is, that's dangerous, that blind faith. But all faith is not blind faith and just as you say you have faith the scientific method and so have I, I have faith in God and believe that it is evidence based.⁴
A legitimate concern is when people believe without a rational basis. This allows them to carry out horrible, unreasonable acts, such as the 9/11 terrorist acts, in name of their faith. The One who aid, "Love your enemies,” is the extreme opposite of someone commanding his followers to "kill the infidel."
Reason serves as type immune system helping us sort out helpful beliefs from harmful ones. When humans look at any set of events, we use our reason to draw conclusions about what has happened. Whether it is an incident that just took place before our eyes or one that happened thousands of years ago, reason processes the events and decides whether the explanation being offered is plausible. Irrationality is not a religious thing; it’s a human thing. Ever heard of a mad scientist? Making the point that real faith isn't blind includes not blindly believing everything said the name of “science.” The evidence that God exists is all around us and inside of us. You have been given the ability to observe the phenomena around you and reason whether it is the product of blind forces or an intelligent Creator.
The twenty-first century is the most astounding time in history to be alive; every day we learn more about the stellar universe and subatomic particles. Consider the discovery of the Higgs boson particle at the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, in July 2012. This particle, nicknamed by nonscientists the “God Particle,” is unlocking physicists' understanding of the mysterious subatomic world and producing the belief that humanity may soon understand the smallest detail of how the universe works. However, just because we know how a mechanism works doesn’t eliminate the existence the architect and builder the mechanism. The way these facts are interpreted comes down to the beliefs you hold the lens through which you look.
Atheists believe a fantastic story that the universe just happened, by chance, and that all of this life and complexity came from nothing. “The universe just is,” asserts the naturalist. Yet is that really true? Is that the only option a rational person has to consider? The late Christopher Hitchens, one of the most outspoken atheists of this generation and considered their most eloquent voice, seemed quite taken aback when he encountered Christians in his debates who actually had reasons for their faith. He thought that all we had was our appeal to our subjective experience.
Reason demands that we examine claims made in the name of faith or science in the same way we would examine the ingredients on a pill bottle or food item on a store shelf. Not all claims are equal. Many skeptics assert that the only reliable tests for truth reside in the realm of science. As will be shown, science points to God. Inductive methods exist to test the reasonableness and credibility not just for belief in God, generally, but Christianity, specifically.
I hope to demonstrate that faith and reason are vital partners and complementary components for the discovery of truth. Tim Keller, a best selling author and pastor New York City, made this challenge to skeptics: "I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined blind faith' on which skepticism is based, and to how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do share them. I also urge believers to wrestle with their personal and culture's objections to the faith."⁵
第2章
真正的信仰不是盲目的
信仰不是在黑暗中跳跃； 事实恰恰相反。 这是基于证据的承诺。 。 。 。 将所有的信仰都归结为盲目信仰，然后加以嘲笑，这是不合理的。 ——约翰·伦诺克斯¹
理性是帮助我们更好地理解和捍卫信仰的工具； 正如安瑟姆*所说，我们的信仰寻求理解。 ——威廉·莱恩·克雷格，合理的信仰²
[*坎特伯雷的圣安瑟姆（1033-1109）是十一世纪杰出的基督教哲学家和神学家。 他最著名的是《序言》中关于上帝存在的著名“本体论论证”，但他对哲学神学（实际上是更广泛的哲学）的贡献远远超出了……安瑟姆是一位意大利本笃会修道士，后来成为修道院院长。 贝克在诺曼底，后来担任坎特伯雷大主教。 他也是一位重要的哲学家和广受尊敬的神学家，撰写了许多有影响力的论文，包括两篇关于上帝本质的沉思、独白（Monologion）和序言（Discourse），以及《Cur Deus Homo》……]
可以肯定地说，我参加过的最不寻常的会议是 2012 年在澳大利亚墨尔本举行的全球无神论者大会，该大会被宣传为“理性的庆典”。超过 3,500 名代表前来聆听进化生物学家理查德·道金斯 (Richard Dawkins)、丹尼尔 (Daniel) 等演讲者的演讲。 丹尼特和萨姆·哈里斯。出席的基督徒很少（如果有的话）。
我参加的目的只是为了倾听。 我以为无神论者从世界各地聚集在一起，然后我会想亲耳听到一些惊天动地的事情——也许是科学上的一些新发现，证明（在他们看来）上帝不存在。 开幕之夜的演讲者不是我所期待的知识分子冲击，而是四位专业喜剧演员。 他们充满脏话的咆哮也许是为了表达他们对任何可能在他们承认的宗教成长中残留的道德暗示的蔑视。
第二天，演讲者并没有提出上帝不存在的科学或哲学理由，而是一个接一个地谴责宗教，并延续了喜剧演员在开幕之夜定下的基调。 嘲讽和嘲笑再次成为主要主题。 讽刺的是，他们的理性庆典上几乎没有什么“理性”。 他们声称宗教所依赖的情感主义渗透到每一次演讲中。
离开会议时，我确信这些新无神论者的主要策略是声称“理由”一词，就像企业主可能会试图在竞争对手获得域名之前获得域名一样。 通过这样做，他们可以给任何反对他们的人贴上“反理性”或非理性的标签。带着政党的热情，他们希望科学能够消除任何信仰或宗教以及哲学。这一点道金斯在 与约翰·伦诺克斯牛津大学的讨论，由定点基金会赞助：
让我担心的是，如果你没有，如果你不允许你的信仰有合理的基础，那么人们可能会说，对不起，我只是相信安拉告诉你去杀死所有那些人 。 和我争论是没有好处的，因为争论不是争论的目的。 信仰就是它的意义所在，这就是危险。³
曾多次与道金斯辩论的牛津数学家约翰·伦诺克斯在一次会面中回应了这一言论：
我从自己对新约的理解中了解到，这不是基督教信仰，那是危险的，盲目的信仰。 但所有的信仰都不是盲目的信仰，就像你说你相信科学方法一样，我也相信，我相信上帝并相信它是基于证据的。⁴
当人们没有理性基础地相信时，一个合理的担忧是合理的。 这使得他们能够以信仰的名义实施可怕的、不合理的行为，例如9/11恐怖行为。 那些帮助“爱你的敌人”的人与命令他的追随者“杀死异教徒”的人截然相反。
理性充当类型免疫系统，帮助我们区分有益的信念和有害的信念。 当人类观察任何一组事件时，我们都会利用理性对所发生的事情得出结论。 无论是刚刚发生在我们眼前的事件还是数千年前发生的事件，理性都会处理事件并决定所提供的解释是否合理。 非理性不是宗教的事情，而是宗教的事情。 这是人的事。 听说过疯狂科学家吗？ 指出真正的信仰不是盲目的，包括不盲目相信一切所谓的“科学”。 上帝存在的证据就在我们周围和我们的内心。 你被赋予了观察周围现象的能力，并推理它是盲目力量的产物还是智慧造物主的产物。
GOD OR SCIENCE?
Time magazine's November 13, 2006, cover story was titled "God vs. Science." The title alone suggested that one must choose between the two. The tagline to the online edition of the article stated, "We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for miracles and for MRI's. But are the worldviews compatible? Time convenes a debate." The debate was between Francis Collins, a geneticist and a Christian who wrote about the fantastic evidence intelligence found DNA in th book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and Richard Dawkins, a biologist and an atheist. Collins breaks the stereotype of a closed-minded religious person that Dawkins characterizes as people of faith. In fact, Time noted before it presented the debate between two men that a growing number of scientists were becoming more vocal their support of an alternative to the harsh battle lines Dawkins and his horts were drawing: "And balance formidable standard bearers [of atheism] like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony-that, indeed, science is of God."?
The article went on to mention scientists like Collins who find no conflict between science and faith and are pointing the common ground that allows for constructive dialogue. Similarly, physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne has referred to the vital connection between faith and science "binocular vision." He explained, "Seeing the world with two eyes-having binocular vision-enables me understand more than I could with either eye on its own." Remember, the notion being sold to the public is that science deals fact and religion deals in faith. Yet science has its own tenets of faith, and real faith is based on facts.
上帝还是科学？
《时代》杂志 2006 年 11 月 13 日的封面故事标题为“上帝与科学”。 仅标题就表明人们必须在两者之间做出选择。 该文章网络版的标语是：“我们崇尚信仰和科学进步，渴望奇迹和核磁共振成像。但世界观是否兼容？时间会引发一场辩论。” 争论的焦点是弗朗西斯·柯林斯（Francis Collins）和理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）。弗朗西斯·柯林斯是一位遗传学家，也是一名基督徒，他在《上帝的语言：一位科学家提出信仰的证据》一书中写到了DNA中智力发现的奇妙证据，而理查德·道金斯是一位生物学家和无神论者。 柯林斯打破了道金斯所描述的思想封闭的宗教人士的刻板印象，即有信仰的人。 事实上，《时代》杂志在报道两人之间的辩论之前指出，越来越多的科学家越来越明确地支持道金斯和他的家伙们所绘制的严酷战线的替代方案：“并平衡[无神论]的强大旗手。 像道金斯一样，我们寻找那些拥有宗教信仰和科学成就的人来可信地论证科学与上帝和谐相处的普遍希望——事实上，科学是上帝的。”
文章接着提到了像柯林斯这样的科学家，他们发现科学与信仰之间没有冲突，并指出了允许建设性对话的共同点。 同样，物理学家兼英国圣公会牧师约翰·波尔金霍恩（John Polkinghorne）提到了信仰与科学之间的重要联系“双眼视觉”。 他解释说：“用两只眼睛看世界——双目视觉——让我比用任何一只眼睛都能理解更多的东西。” 请记住，向公众兜售的观念是科学处理事实，而宗教处理信仰。 然而科学有它自己的信仰原则，而真正的信仰是基于事实的。
SCIENCE AND FAITH
Science is indeed "of God" as Time stated. Because the Christian worldview pointed to the fact that the universe was designed, it could be rationally understood. As C. S. Lewis put it, "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." Albert Einstein would concur, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." ¹⁰ They believed the universe was crafted by a purposeful God who created humanity in His image, creatures who could (to borrow Johannes Kepler's famous phrase) "think God's thoughts after Him." To Kepler, "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be discover rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us the language of mathematics."¹¹
When atheists reference the church's brutal treatment of Galileo as result of his scientific discoveries, they are overstating the real story. It is not typical for faith to so oppose science. First, Galileo, as well as most scientists of that time, were people of faith. Second, he challenged not only the religious views of his day but the scientific and philosophical ones as well. In the end Galileo's observation that the earth was indeed rotating around the sun had bearing on any tenet of faith but merely on an interpretation of Scripture that would eventually change. Some interpretations of scientific data seemed, at first, to contradict Scripture but later had be adjusted and ended confirming Scripture (such as universe having a beginning), so the door swings both ways.
科学与信仰
正如《时代》杂志所说，科学确实是“上帝的”。 因为基督教的世界观指出了宇宙是被设计的这一事实，所以它可以被理性地理解。 正如C.S.刘易斯所说，“人们之所以变得科学，是因为他们期待自然法则，而他们期待自然法则，因为他们相信立法者。” 阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦（Albert Einstein）也表示同意：“宇宙最难以理解的事情就是它是可以理解的。” 他们相信宇宙是由一位有目的的上帝创造的，他按照自己的形象创造了人类，这些生物能够（借用约翰内斯·开普勒的名言）“跟随上帝思考上帝的想法”。 对开普勒来说，“对外部世界的所有研究的主要目的应该是发现上帝强加给它的理性秩序，并且他向我们揭示了数学语言。”
当无神论者提到教会因伽利略的科学发现而对其进行残酷对待时，他们夸大了真实的故事。 信仰如此反对科学的情况并不常见。 首先，伽利略以及当时的大多数科学家都是有信仰的人。 其次，他不仅挑战了当时的宗教观点，还挑战了科学和哲学观点。 最终，伽利略关于地球确实绕着太阳旋转的观察结果对任何信仰原则都有影响，但仅仅对最终会改变的圣经解释有影响。 对科学数据的一些解释起初似乎与圣经相矛盾，但后来经过调整并最终证实了圣经（例如宇宙有一个开始），所以门是双向的。
INSULTS AREN’T ARGUMENTS
The tactic of insulting the opposition has never worked in this debate. Ridicule and mockery are, in fact, evidence that there is a reluctance to engage theism on rational and theological grounds. Just a few months before the 2012 Global Atheist Convention Melbourne was the United States' gathering in Washington, DC. Keynote speaker Richard Dawkins called for this bitter tone and tactic from all present. "Mock them, ridicule them in public, don't fall for the convention that we're far too polite talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. "¹²
He isn't alone in his emotional grandstanding. The legions of the unbelieving have learned to cry "reason" while they consistently hit below the belt with one emotional appeal after another. Any mistake made by someone with religious faith gathered and collected as evidence that because of the mistakes of those who are believers, God isn't there. It's a little like saying that because my children make mistakes, I don't exist.
Peter Hitchens, the brother of Christopher Hitchens, one of the most outspoken atheists of our times, witnessed this firsthand and wrote about this tendency is his book The Rage Against God:
The difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid. But what if that is not the problem? Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree, leads them into many snares.
I tend sympathize with them. I too have been angry with opponents who required me to re-examine opinions I had embraced more through passion than through reason.¹³
In a New York Times review of atheist Lawrence Krauss's book A Universe from Nothing, David Albert identified the unreasonable anger that is exhibited against religion.
. . it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, with all that in the back of one's head, to think that all that gets offered to us now, by guys like [Krauss], in books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don't know, dumb ¹⁴
侮辱不是争论
侮辱反对派的策略在这场辩论中从未奏效。 事实上，嘲笑和嘲笑证明人们不愿意在理性和神学的基础上讨论有神论。 就在 2012 年墨尔本全球无神论者大会召开前几个月，美国在华盛顿特区召开了会议。 主讲人理查德·道金斯呼吁所有在场的人都采取这种苦涩的语气和策略。 “嘲笑他们，在公共场合嘲笑他们，不要相信我们在谈论宗教时过于礼貌的惯例。宗教不是不可能的。宗教不是禁区。“¹²
他并不是唯一一个在情感上哗众取宠的人。 大批不信者已经学会了大喊“理性”，同时他们不断地用一种又一种的情感诉求击中腰带。 任何有宗教信仰的人所犯的错误都会被收集起来作为证据，证明由于信徒的错误，上帝并不存在。 这有点像说因为我的孩子犯了错误，所以我就不存在了。
克里斯托弗·希钦斯 (Christopher Hitchens) 的兄弟彼得·希钦斯 (Peter Hitchens) 是我们这个时代最直言不讳的无神论者之一，他亲眼目睹了这一趋势，并在他的著作《对上帝的愤怒》中描述了这种趋势：
当反有神论者试图与任何不同意他们观点的人打交道时，他们的困难就开始了，而他们的反应往往是沮丧的愤怒，因为我们其他人是如此愚蠢。 但如果这不是问题怎么办？ 他们拒绝接受其他人可能和他们一样聪明，但又不同意，这导致他们陷入许多陷阱。
我倾向于同情他们。 我也对反对者感到愤怒，他们要求我重新审视我更多地通过激情而非理性所接受的观点。¹³
在《纽约时报》对无神论者劳伦斯·克劳斯的书《无中生有的宇宙》的评论中，大卫·艾伯特指出了人们对宗教表现出的无理愤怒。
。 。 想到现在由像[克劳斯]这样的人在这样的书中向我们提供的所有内容，这似乎是一种遗憾，而且不仅仅是遗憾，而且比遗憾更糟糕，所有这些都在一个人的脑海中 是对宗教的苍白、渺小、愚蠢、书呆子般的指责，我不知道，愚蠢的 ¹⁴
FAITH AND REASON AREN’T ENEMIES
Somehow the perception is that believers are afraid to deal with the hard questions that faith can give rise to. The picture is painted that believers must be sheltered from any opposing view and just “quit asking questions."
Joe Marlin, an MD and PhD student at NYU as well as an atheist, had read The God Delusion by Dawkins and many other works that attempted to dispel faith in God. He told me in an interview that at times he was “militant” in his atheism. “Especially when someone would 'thank God' for something. I felt they were giving God the credit for something a person had actually done.” He described the process of beginning to doubt his doubts about his atheism and meeting consistently with a person of faith and openly, objectively dealing with his questions. He said, “Reason actually led me to God not away from Him.”¹⁵
When something happens that we don't understand, suggesting the occurrence is simply “God's mysterious ways” is not abandoning reason and blindly accepting everything in the name of faith. If a drunk driver kills an innocent family, we ask, why did this happen? The reasonable answer is that it happened because someone was careless and illegally drove a car while impaired, and the death of an innocent family was the result. But the real question is, why did God let that happen? Couldn't He have stopped it?
We hear of stories of divine intervention, so why didn't it happen in this case? When we appeal to mystery, we are simply acknowledging that there are many things we don't know. That certainly doesn't mean we live our lives with a fatalistic resignation. We should continue to seek for answers to these great questions. Many times the real mystery is in grasping the motivations of people who do the things they do. the next chapter, we will talk in more detail about evil and suffering and attempt to address the perplexing question of why bad things happen in our world.
信仰和理性不是敌人
不知何故，人们认为信徒害怕处理信仰可能引起的难题。 这幅画描绘的是信徒必须免受任何反对意见的影响，并且“停止提问”。
乔·马林 (Joe Marlin) 是纽约大学的医学博士和博士生，也是一名无神论者，他读过道金斯的《上帝错觉》以及许多其他试图消除对上帝信仰的著作。 他在一次采访中告诉我，有时他的无神论是“激进的”。 “尤其是当有人为某事‘感谢上帝’时。 我觉得他们把一个人实际所做的事情归功于上帝。” 他描述了开始怀疑自己对无神论的怀疑，并始终如一地与有信仰的人会面并公开、客观地处理他的问题的过程。 他说：“理性实际上引导我走向上帝，而不是远离他。”
当发生我们不理解的事情时，暗示该事件只是“上帝的神秘方式”，并不是放弃理性并以信仰的名义盲目接受一切。 如果醉酒司机杀害了无辜家庭，我们会问，为什么会发生这种情况？ 合理的答案是，有人不小心，酒驾违法驾驶，导致无辜家庭死亡。 但真正的问题是，为什么上帝让这种事发生？ 难道他就不能阻止吗？
我们听说过神圣干预的故事，那么为什么在这种情况下没有发生呢？ 当我们诉诸神秘时，我们只是承认有很多事情我们不知道。 这当然并不意味着我们只能听天由命地生活。 我们应该继续寻找这些重大问题的答案。 很多时候，真正的谜团在于掌握人们做事的动机。 下一章，我们将更详细地讨论邪恶和痛苦，并试图解决为什么世界上会发生不好的事情这一令人困惑的问题。
FAITH IS THE PRODUCT OF THINKING
Faith involves reasoning, remembering, and researching or study. Faith is hard work. We have to do our part to understand what God is promising, grasp the conditions of those promises, review the evidence of His faithfulness in the past, and hold on to our convictions about this regardless of our mercurial feelings, as C. S. Lewis suggestsed:
When I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods “where they get off”, you can never either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. ¹⁵
Lewis was saying that faith is actually holding on to what your reason has led you to conclude despite your changing moods. This is almost completely opposite of how it is represented by skeptics. We are called to love God with all our hearts and minds. It is when we apply ourselves to understand, seek wisdom, examine everything, and hold fast to what is true that we discern the right path and make the wise decisions about our lives and our world.
信仰是思考的产物
信仰涉及推理、记忆和研究。 信仰是艰苦的工作。 我们必须尽自己的一份力量来理解上帝的应许，掌握这些应许的条件，回顾他过去信实的证据，并坚持我们对此的信念，无论我们的情绪如何变化，正如C.S.刘易斯所建议的：
当我还是一个无神论者时，我的心情是基督教看起来非常有可能。 无论如何，你的情绪对真实自我的反抗将会到来。 这就是为什么信仰是一种必要的美德：除非你教导你的情绪“从哪里开始”，否则你永远不可能成为一个健全的基督徒，甚至不可能成为一个健全的无神论者，而只是一个来回摇摆的生物，其信仰实际上取决于 天气及其消化状况。 ¹⁵
FAITH INVOLVES THREE KEY INGREDIENTS
Faith is the basis of all our relationships with one another and with God. In a marriage, we pledge faithfulness-our fidelity-to one person. Committing adultery is therefore called infidelity. Business is based on trust. Two parties make an agreement and pledge through a contract to each meet various obligations. In cases of both marriage and business, there are three key ingredients to faith:
1. Knowledge: the specific details of the agreement God chose to communicate with us through words. “In the beginning was the Word,” begins the gospel of John. The knowledge of the Lord is the information He allowed to come into the earth. That knowledge the bedrock of our faith. When my father told me he had purchased me a car after I graduated from university, I believed him without seeing the car. The basis of my faith was his promise. This knowledge is found not only in the Scriptures (see chapter 8) but also throughout nature:
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Psalm 19:1–4)
God wants you to have knowledge of Him. This knowledge comes not only through Scripture but also through the evidence exhibited in the world He created. That which is known about God is evident through that which has been made (Romans 1:20).
2. Assent: willingness to enter into a contract.
This assent is the product of reason. Having considered the promises and
weighed the reality of the evidence to substantiate the specific claim, then we are to agree as a result of thinking and considering a matter. The aspect of assent is critical in that God has given man the right to choose freely, therefore this choice must be sincere and uncoerced. God doesn't want you to do something against your will. You, therefore, must desire to know Him and have a relationship with Him. “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).
3. Trust: belief that both parties will do what they say they’ll do This trust is not blind. It is based on knowledge and evidence that demonstrate the person making the promise is trustworthy.
How important is this to God? It is the ultimate sign of real faith in Him. Jesus said, “Do not let your hearts troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me” (John 14:1 ). The Scripture is filled with praises to God for His faithfulness and trustworthiness. “Those who know your name will trust in you, / for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you” (Psalm 9:10). Trust is possibly the most important ingredient in building a relationship. This is true not only between people but in a relationship with God as well.
神希望你认识他。 这种知识不仅来自圣经，还来自他所创造的世界中所展示的证据。 关于神的事情，人所能知道的，都是借着所造之物显而易见的（罗马书1:20）。
2. 同意：愿意签订合同。
这种同意是理性的产物。 考虑了承诺并
权衡证据的真实性来证实特定的主张，然后我们通过思考和考虑某件事而达成一致。 同意这一点至关重要，因为上帝赋予了人自由选择的权利，因此这种选择必须是真诚的、非强迫的。 上帝不希望你做违背自己意愿的事情。 因此，你必须渴望认识他并与他建立关系。 “今天我呼天唤地为你们作证，我已将生与死、祝福与咒诅摆在你们面前。 现在选择生命，使你和你的子孙都可以存活”（申命记 30:19）。
3. 信任：相信双方都会言出必行这种信任不是盲目的。 它基于证明做出承诺的人是值得信赖的知识和证据。
这对神有多重要？ 这是真正相信他的最终标志。 耶稣说：“你们心里不要忧愁。 相信上帝; 你们也当信我”（约翰福音 14:1）。 圣经充满了对神的信实和信实的赞美。 “认识你名的人必信赖你，因为耶和华啊，你从未离弃寻求你的人”（诗篇 9:10）。 信任可能是建立关系的最重要因素。 不仅人与人之间如此，与神的关系也是如此。
UNBELIEF IS THE PRODUCT OF NOT THINKING
The Scripture explains the tendency of the human heart to gravitate toward unbelief by suppressing the evidence for God. Like a lawyer who doesn't want any evidence to come forth in a trial that could discredit his client, the skeptic is threatened by the believer who makes a case for God based on reason. Paul wrote, "The wrath God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:18–19).
This is why there is such frustration and anger on the part of atheists when God is mentioned. All their hard work of suppressing the truth gets sabotaged. The tendency of the human mind is to suppress or ignore intentionally something it doesn't want to hear. Fear operates in a similar way. It is when we stop thinking and reasoning soundly that fear comes barging into our lives. For instance, I know that flying is much safer than driving and have flown several million miles in my travels over the last thirty years of ministry. Even though I know flying is safe, there are times when turbulence can cause me to needlessly worry about crashing. By using reason, I can calm my fears and restore my confidence that the turbulence isn't going to cause the plane to crash any more than a bumpy dirt road would cause my car to crash. Sound reasoning can restore my faith in flying.
Unbelief can result from failing to remember. Jesus performed many miracles, such as feeding thousands of people from a handful of bread loaves and a few fish. Time and time again, although His disciples had experienced miracle after miracle, they would forget Jesus’ power as soon as they faced another challenge. The unbelief of the disciples was the result of not thinking clearly and not remembering. Sound reasoning can restore your faith in God.
不信是不思考的结果
圣经解释了人心因压制上帝的证据而倾向于不信的倾向。 就像律师不希望在审判中出现任何可能损害其委托人名誉的证据一样，怀疑论者也会受到基于理性为上帝辩护的信徒的威胁。 保罗写道：“神的愤怒从天上显明在世人一切的不敬虔和不义上，就是那些行不义压制真理的人；因为神的事情，人所能知道的，原显明在他们心里，因为神已经给他们显明了”（罗马书1： 18-19）。
这就是为什么当提到上帝时，无神论者会感到如此沮丧和愤怒。 他们压制真相的所有努力都被破坏了。 人类思维的倾向是故意压制或忽略它不想听到的东西。 恐惧也以类似的方式运作。 当我们停止健全的思考和推理时，恐惧就会闯入我们的生活。 例如，我知道飞行比开车安全得多，并且在过去三十年的事工中，我已经飞行了数百万英里。 尽管我知道飞行是安全的，但有时湍流会让我不必要地担心坠机。 通过运用理性，我可以平息我的恐惧并恢复我的信心，即湍流不会导致飞机坠毁，就像崎岖不平的土路不会导致我的汽车坠毁一样。 合理的推理可以恢复我对飞行的信心。
不信可能是由于不记得而导致的。 耶稣创造了许多奇迹，例如用一把面包和几条鱼喂饱了数千人。 一次又一次，虽然他的门徒经历了一个又一个的奇迹，但当他们面临另一个挑战时，他们就会忘记耶稣的力量。 门徒的不信是因为没有清晰地思考和不记得的结果。 合理的推理可以恢复你对神的信心。
IS SCIENCE THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING?
While reason is obviously vital for our existence, it must not be applied in an unreasonable fashion. This tendency is seen when reason used in a reductionist fashion and attempts to limit truth to only that which is scientifically and empirically verifiable, even eliminating logical and philosophical means of attaining knowledge. Atheists tend to do this when they portray science as the savior of humanity. This philosophy is called scientism and the belief that science is the only source of knowledge; not even philosophy or theology may weigh in on the ultimate questions that face our world. “Indeed, it is the ideology of a great part of the scientific world. Its adherents see science as having a mission that goes beyond the mere investigation of nature or the discovery of physical laws. That mission is to free mankind from superstition in all its forms, and especially in the form of religious belief. "¹⁷
Scientism is a philosophical position that all of life's challenges and riddles can and should be handled scientifically. Science is certainly important, but it is not able to answer the ultimate questions. In a review of Daniel Dennett's book Breaking the Spell in the New York Times, literary critic Leon Wieseltier wrote, "Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not insult to science to say so.”¹⁸ Linguist Noam Chomsky, by no means an advocate for religion, nonetheless pointed out the limits of science:
Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can't deal with them. But it's a complicated matter: Science studies what's at the edge of understanding, and what's at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated.¹⁹
Therefore, we must look for something beyond science to guide through this complexity with justice, fairness, and mercy. Yet finding such a source of ethics that originates in humanity is not easy.
科学是一切问题的答案吗？
虽然理性对于我们的存在显然至关重要，但它不能以不合理的方式应用。 当理性以还原论的方式使用，并试图将真理限制为仅可通过科学和经验验证的真理，甚至消除获取知识的逻辑和哲学手段时，就会出现这种趋势。 当无神论者将科学描绘成人类的救世主时，他们往往会这样做。 这种哲学被称为科学主义，相信科学是知识的唯一来源； 即使是哲学或神学也无法对我们世界面临的终极问题发表意见。 “事实上，这是科学界很大一部分人的意识形态。 它的追随者认为科学的使命不仅仅是研究自然或发现物理定律。 这一使命是将人类从一切形式的迷信中解放出来，特别是宗教信仰形式的迷信。 “¹⁷
科学主义是一种哲学立场，认为所有生活的挑战和谜题都可以而且应该以科学的方式处理。 科学固然重要，但它无法回答终极问题。 在《纽约时报》对丹尼尔·丹尼特的书《打破魔咒》的评论中，文学评论家利昂·维塞尔蒂尔写道：“科学主义，认为科学可以解释所有人类状况和表达，无论是精神上的还是身体上的，是一种迷信，是 我们这个时代占主导地位的迷信；这么说并不是对科学的侮辱。”¹⁸
语言学家诺姆·乔姆斯基绝不是宗教的拥护者，但他指出了科学的局限性：
科学谈论非常简单的事情，并提出有关它们的难题。 一旦事情变得太复杂，科学就无法应对。 但这是一个复杂的问题：科学研究的是处于理解边缘的东西，而处于理解边缘的东西通常相当简单。 而且它很少触及人事。 人世间的事情太复杂了。
因此，我们必须寻找科学之外的东西，以正义、公平和仁慈来指导解决这一复杂问题。 然而，找到这种源自人类的道德源泉并不容易。
LIMITS OF SCIENCE
Science is certainly important. It explains how the physical world works. It is the process that is used to investigate how to grow crops, cure disease, and develop inventions that make our world safer and more interconnected through technology. But science cannot explain some of the most important elements of human existence. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, in a debate with atheist Peter Atkins, pointed out these things that demonstrate the limits of science. In a rather humorous exchange, Atkins shockingly asserted that "science is omnipotent,"²⁰ which Craig retorted quickly that there were several things not provable by the scientific method. These include the following.
科学的局限性
科学当然很重要。 它解释了物理世界是如何运作的。 这个过程用于研究如何种植农作物、治疗疾病和开发发明，通过技术使我们的世界更加安全和更加互联。 但科学无法解释人类存在的一些最重要的要素。 基督教哲学家威廉·莱恩·克雷格在与无神论者彼得·阿特金斯的辩论中指出了这些证明科学局限性的事情。 在一次相当幽默的交流中，阿特金斯令人震惊地断言“科学是万能的”，克雷格很快反驳说，有几件事无法用科学方法证明。 其中包括以下内容。
ETHICS AND MORALITY
Science can't tell us how we should live our lives-what is right and wrong, good and evil. Scientists can certainly be ethical and moral people, but they didn't derive character from scientific experimentation. In other words, a scientist didn't hold an experiment and conclude scientifically that murder was wrong. Science can't answer the deepest ethical issues of our day. Science doesn't determine ethics; ethics should be a guide to science.
It can explain what happens, but it can never determine how one ought to live. For instance, scientists can study the consequences of certain actions, such as charity abuse. However, they can never justify why one action is morally superior to another.
伦理道德
科学无法告诉我们应该如何生活——什么是对、什么是错、什么是善、什么是恶。 科学家当然可以是有道德的人，但他们的品格并不是从科学实验中获得的。 换句话说，科学家没有进行实验并科学地得出谋杀是错误的结论。 科学无法回答当今最深刻的伦理问题。 科学并不决定道德；科学决定道德。 道德应该成为科学的指南。
它可以解释发生的事情，但它永远无法决定一个人应该如何生活。 例如，科学家可以研究某些行为的后果，例如慈善滥用。 然而，他们永远无法证明为什么一种行为在道德上优于另一种行为。
MATHEMATICS
The mathematical order in the universe was discovered, not invented. Even more basic than the order are the numbers themselves; they must be accepted as simply true. It's because of this mathematical order that we can explore the world around us with such confidence. Mathematics allows us to send probes into outer space as well as into our own bodies. “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research,"²¹
Mathematics is an abstract creation of rules and relationships by the human mind. Why should it explain so elegantly the mechanics of our universe with relatively few equations? Most significantly, mathematics is the language and foundation of science, so science can never justify its existence. In other words, if math is the basis of science, then science can't be math's source of verification. It would be like a house holding up a foundation rather than a foundation holding up a house. This is a glimpse of how difficult it is to have science be the ultimate judge of whether God exists, since God is the Creator and ground of all being.
数学
宇宙中的数学秩序是被发现的，而不是发明的。 比顺序更基本的是数字本身； 它们必须被视为完全正确。 正是由于这种数学顺序，我们才能充满信心地探索周围的世界。 数学使我们能够将探测器发射到外太空以及我们自己的身体中。 “数学语言对于物理定律的表述的适用性是一个奇迹，这是我们既不理解也不配得的奇妙礼物。 我们应该对此表示感谢，并希望它在未来的研究中仍然有效。”
数学是人类思维对规则和关系的抽象创造。 为什么它要用相对较少的方程如此优雅地解释我们宇宙的力学？ 最重要的是，数学是科学的语言和基础，因此科学永远无法证明其存在的合理性。 换句话说，如果数学是科学的基础，那么科学就不能成为数学验证的来源。 这就好比是房子支撑着地基，而不是地基支撑着房子。 这让我们看到，要让科学来最终判断上帝是否存在是多么困难，因为上帝是万物的创造者和基础。
REASON
Reason is like the central processing unit in a computer hard drive. When you buy a computer like the one I'm working on, the creator of the computer has placed within it a processor that is able to run the programs and the software that are loaded on the hard drive. Similarly God has created us to be rational creatures. We can think abstractly, learn languages at an amazing speed, and know the difference between right and wrong. In contrast, natural selection would only have developed in us the basic abilities to survive: acquire food, avoid danger, and find a mate. Nature would not have generated the capacity for higher reason. “The notion that the only rational beliefs are those that can be confirmed by scientific observation, experiment and measurement is yet another self-refuting proposition, since it is a statement that itself cannot be confirmed by scientific observation, experiment and measurement."²²
God must necessarily exist in order for atheists not to believe in Him. There is no other explanation for the capacity to reason (even poorly).
Atheism and naturalism can't account for reason. To say that reason came into being for no reason is unreasonable. The logical processes of reason and deduction in the scientific method must be assumed in order for scientific inquiry to take place; therefore, science can't verify itself in the strict sense.
原因
原因 (Reason) 就像计算机硬盘中的中央处理器。 当您购买像我正在使用的计算机一样的计算机时，计算机的创建者已在其中放置了一个处理器，该处理器能够运行硬盘驱动器上加载的程序和软件。 同样，上帝将我们创造为理性的生物。 我们可以抽象地思考，以惊人的速度学习语言，并知道正确与错误的区别。 相比之下，自然选择只会在我们身上培养基本的生存能力：获取食物、避免危险和寻找伴侣。 大自然不会因为更高的原因而产生这种能力。 “唯一合理的信念是那些可以通过科学观察、实验和测量证实的信念，这是另一个自我反驳的命题，因为它本身是无法通过科学观察、实验和测量证实的。”²²
上帝必须存在，无神论者才不会相信他。 对于推理能力（即使很差）没有其他解释。
无神论和自然主义无法解释理性。 说理性无缘无故地产生，是没有道理的。 为了进行科学探究，必须假定科学方法中的推理和演绎的逻辑过程； 因此，严格意义上的科学无法自我验证。
WHY?
The biggest limitation of science is that it can't tell us why we are here. Why was the universe made? Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? Dawkins now bristles at the why question and calls it silly, possibly because he knows that science will never really answer it. " 'Why? is a silly . . . 'Why?' is a silly question. 'Why?’ is a silly question. You can ask, 'What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?' That's a sensible question. But 'What is the purpose of the universe?' is a silly question. It has no meaning.” ²³
Curiously, just a couple of years earlier in a debate with John Lennox in Birmingham, Alabama, Dawkins's opening statement said that his motivation for getting into science was the why question. “My interest in Biology started with the fundamental questions of our existence. Why we are all here."²⁴ The question of why we're here is far from silly; it is fundamental to our existence, ground zero for our identity as humans, and part of our future.
为什么？
科学最大的局限性是它无法告诉我们为什么会在这里。 宇宙为何被创造？ 我们为什么在这里？ 为什么有东西而不是没有？ 道金斯现在对“为什么”的问题感到愤怒，并称其愚蠢，可能是因为他知道科学永远无法真正回答这个问题。 “‘为什么？是个愚蠢的......‘为什么？’ 是一个愚蠢的问题。“为什么？”是一个愚蠢的问题。你可以问，“导致某物存在的因素是什么？” 这是一个明智的问题。但是“宇宙的目的是什么？” 这是一个愚蠢的问题。它没有任何意义。” ²³
奇怪的是，就在几年前，在阿拉巴马州伯明翰与约翰·伦诺克斯的一场辩论中，道金斯的开场白说，他进入科学的动机是“为什么”问题。 “我对生物学的兴趣始于我们存在的基本问题。 为什么我们都在这里。”²⁴ 我们为什么在这里的问题一点也不愚蠢；它是我们存在的基础，是我们作为人类身份的归零地，也是我们未来的一部分。
RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE ANSWERING DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard spoke about faith and science being "non-overlapping magisteria."²⁵ This means they are two distinct, equally valid spheres of existence. While his work and contributions are celebrated by most skeptics, many skeptics are critical of Gould for not dismissing religion and faith as delusional and for conceding the contributions that people of faith have made to the world. "Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, [John] Polkinghorne argues. In fact, both are necessary to our understanding of the world. 'Science asks how things happen. But there are questions of meaning and value and purpose which science does not address. Religion asks why. And it is my belief that we can and should ask both questions about the same event.' "²⁶
Science basically tells us how things work. Religion and faith tell us why things are here and how we should live ethically and morally. Neither of these questions can be answered by science.
"Science tells us that burning gas heats the water and makes the kettle boil,” [Polkinghorne] says. But science doesn't explain the “why” question. “The kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea; would you like some? don't have to choose between the answers to those questions," declares Polkinghorne. “In fact, in order to understand the mysterious event of the boiling kettle, I need both those kinds of answers to tell me what's going on. So I need the insights of science and the insights of religion if I'm understand the rich and many-layered world in which we live.”²⁷
There is no real conflict between science and God, but there is a conflict between naturalism and faith. Naturalism is the belief that all that exists is nature. This excludes by definition anything supernatural or beyond nature. In a 1941 lecture called “Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium,” prepared for a conference at the Jewish Theological Institute in New York, Albert Einstein gave insight into his view that both realms of religion and science are valid:
Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.²⁸
While Einstein did not believe in a traditional understanding of God, he did express the understanding of many scientists then and today that science is as much dependent on faith as any major religion.
宗教和科学正在回答不同的问题
已故的哈佛大学教授史蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德谈到信仰和科学是“不重叠的权威”。这意味着它们是两个不同的、同样有效的存在领域。 虽然他的工作和贡献受到大多数怀疑论者的赞扬，但许多怀疑论者批评古尔德没有将宗教和信仰视为妄想，并承认有信仰的人对世界做出的贡献。 “科学和宗教并不是相互排斥的，[约翰]波尔金霍恩认为。事实上，两者对于我们理解世界都是必要的。“科学询问事物是如何发生的。但是存在科学无法解决的意义、价值和目的问题 “宗教问为什么。我相信我们可以而且应该就同一事件提出两个问题。 ”²⁶
科学基本上告诉我们事物是如何运作的。 宗教和信仰告诉我们事物为何存在，以及我们应该如何合乎伦理和道德地生活。 这些问题都无法用科学来回答。
“科学告诉我们，燃烧的气体会加热水并使水壶沸腾，”[Polkinghorne] 说。但科学并没有解释“为什么”问题。“水壶沸腾是因为我想泡一杯茶； “你喜欢一些吗？不必在这些问题的答案之间做出选择，”Polkinghorne 说道。 “事实上，为了了解水壶沸腾的神秘事件，我需要这两种答案来告诉我到底发生了什么。 因此，如果我要了解我们所生活的丰富且多层次的世界，我需要科学的见解和宗教的见解。”²⁷
科学与上帝之间并没有真正的冲突，但自然主义与信仰之间存在冲突。 自然主义相信一切存在都是自然。 根据定义，这排除了任何超自然或超越自然的事物。 1941 年，阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦为纽约犹太神学院的一次会议准备了一场题为“科学、哲学和宗教：研讨会”的演讲，深入阐述了他的观点，即宗教和科学领域都是有效的：
科学只能由那些完全充满对真理和理解的渴望的人创造。 然而，这种感觉的源泉来自于领域宗教。 与此相关的还有这样一种信念，即对存在世界有效的规则是理性的，即可以为理性所理解的规则。 如果没有这种坚定的信念，我无法想象一个真正的科学家。 这种情况可以用一个形象来表达：没有宗教的科学是蹩脚的，没有科学的宗教是盲目的。²⁸
虽然爱因斯坦不相信对上帝的传统理解，但他确实表达了当时和今天许多科学家的理解，即科学与任何主要宗教一样依赖于信仰。
SUMMARY
Real faith is not blind. It is evidence-based and requires all our efforts in pursuit of the truth. God requires that we not bury our heads in the sand but open our eyes to behold the evidence of Him all around us. He calls us to use our reason and intellect (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 22:37) as we develop a faith that is credible. The challenge for skeptics is to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of preconceived ideas, not closing their eyes to the obvious when it contradicts their worldview. Ironically, it is the nature of skeptics to be unaware that they are blind to the truths evidencing a supernatural Creator. In this case their reasoning can become darkened and unreliable (Romans 1:21).
All faith should contain reason just as reason itself contains faith. I have heard it said that no one has absolute certainty except God and certain madmen. Tragically, when skeptics try to assert the nonexistence of God, they lose touch with reality and sound reason and unwittingly head down the long, dark road to insanity.
概括
真正的信仰不是盲目的。 它是有证据的，需要我们尽一切努力去追求真相。 神要求我们不要把头埋在沙子里，而要睁开眼睛，看到他在我们周围的证据。 他呼吁我们运用理性和智力（以赛亚书 1：18；马太福音 22：37）来培养可信的信仰。 怀疑论者面临的挑战是无论证据如何，都要追随证据，无论其先入为主的想法如何，当证据与他们的世界观相矛盾时，不要对显而易见的事实视而不见。 讽刺的是，怀疑论者的本质是不知道他们对证明超自然造物主的真理视而不见。 在这种情况下，他们的推理就会变得黑暗和不可靠（罗马书1:21）。
所有的信仰都应该包含理性，正如理性本身包含信仰一样。 我听人说过，除了上帝和某些疯子之外，没有人有绝对的确定性。 可悲的是，当怀疑论者试图断言上帝不存在时，他们就失去了与现实和合理理性的联系，不知不觉地走上了漫长而黑暗的疯狂之路。
Here《Chapter 1 . Chapter 3 》click here
No comments:
Post a Comment