從神學探討智慧設計論的護教之可行性

麥劍鋒

(指導老師郭鴻標 博士)

回到 華人神學園地主頁

回到 倫理和職場倫理 專題分類

 回到 麥劍鋒神學網站

1          引言

本文目的是從基督教神學入手,探討智慧設計論的護教之可行性。所以本文將分為四部份,首先簡介智慧設計論的背景和內容,其次是一些反對智慧設計論的觀點,他們從科學和世界的現象討論這個世界是不是智慧設計者所創造,筆者將會簡述他們的理據。第三部份是從基督教的神學角度回應反對智慧設計論者的討論,反思基督教與智慧設計論的相異之處。第四部份就是探討神學與智慧設計論的問題和前路,究竟智慧設計論可以給基督教帶來神學之意義,以及不足之處。最後是基督教的立場如何回應智慧設計論。因為第一和第二部份都有學者曾經討論,所以筆者會比較集中第三部份的神學討論和分析,以及第四部份智慧設計論在基督教神學的前路如何。

 

2          智慧設計論的起源和簡介

首先筆者簡介智慧設計論的起源和內容。在十八世紀英國傳道人培里(William Paley)在《自然神學》一書中,提出了一個鐘錶與鐘錶比喻他問有人看見地上有一個鐘錶,不是會認為這經過設計才得的結果嗎?並且承認必定有一位設計鐘錶的人。同樣地我們看見世上生物的結構和功能,我們不是會認為生物是經過設計而產生嗎?因此,我們不是也要承認有一位「設計者」?[1] 所以培里認為憑著生物設計的複雜性、多種性和互動,最後這位設計「大自然的神」就是大能、全知、永恆、自存、神性的上帝了。[2] 這開拓了智慧設計論的討論。直到1999年鄧勃斯基(William Dembski)再次提出智慧設計論,用現代的科學引證智慧設計論,並出版成書,喻為科學與神學之橋。

至於智慧設計論的內容,主要是世界具有一個「設計」的sign可解作「徵兆」,不過筆者認為「記號」會比較貼切智慧設計論。人類可以從這個世界的「設計記號」中,得知有位智慧者的存在。正如鄧勃斯基在《智慧設計論》中說道「世界含有自然原因所不能說明的事件、物件和結構,須訴諸智慧原因才能完滿說明。這絕非出於無知的託辭。正因為我們明白自然原因及其局限,今日之科學有能力嚴謹地探討智慧原因了。」又說「如果一種影響是複雜和具體指明有規格的,背後定有智慧原因。」[3] 因此「智慧設計論」是從科學的方法論(生物學)論證世界是有位「智慧者」在設計,[4] 尤其是在生物基因工程上。[5] 而人類可以在世界或宇宙的精密設計中,憑藉這「設計記號」知曉「智慧者」的存在。

 

3          反智慧設計論的觀點

3.1        智慧設計論不是科學

智慧設計論第一點被人批評這並非是一門科學,亦被視為「空隙中的神的謬誤」(god-of-the-gaps fallacy),即是自然科學中不能解釋的,就引用「神」來填補,這是謬誤的做法。[6] 所以有人評論智慧設計論是不能經科學驗證,首先目前科學沒有答案的問題,需要用「神」的工作來解釋,即是「訴諸無知」(an argument from ignorance),這「訴諸無知」的辯證是沒有任何說服力的。[7] 換言之今天的科學解釋不到的地方,就用「神」來填這個空隙。故此科學家一直反對智慧設計論,就是它看來是一種自暴自棄的想法。[8] 其次是科學必須按定義就是自然主義說明,而智慧設計論絕對是超自然主義的說明,[9] 這樣科學根本不用証明超自然的事情,智慧設計論只是自圓其說。

3.2        這個世界不是智慧設計

上文提及智慧設計論運用生物上的精密設計,推斷有位「設計者」的存在例如貝希(Michael Behe)在《達爾文的黑匣子》一書中,透過不可被還原的複雜性,[10] 而斷言智慧設計論憑著不可被還原的複雜性,而打開智慧設計論的概念。[11] 不過有學者卻質疑這個世界的生物之複雜性其實是差勁的設計,如無用器官論(Dysteleology)[12] 再者在整個自然世界中,充滿了無效率和殘忍的情況,因此假如世界是由設計者所設計,甚至推論至「神」的領域,何以一位慈愛、公義、全能的上帝會有這糟糕的設計?反達爾文的天擇論,以及適者生存的道理更配合這自然世界的真實情況。[13] 故此,從世界或生物的狀況看來,這世界根本不是一個智慧設計的世界。這是第二方面批判智慧設計論之可靠性。

3.3        智慧設計論無法驗證

智慧設計論成為一門科學是建基於「解釋篩選程式」和統計學之上,[14] 因此智慧設計論探討事件、物件或結構的必然性、機遇或是設計,都會用「解釋篩選程式」(Explanatory Filter)測試它是偶發、複雜和規格模式來衡量它是否一種設計,抑或是巧合隨機發生。[15] 因此統計學和或然率的運算成為重要的角色,這成為決定事物是隨機還是設計的關鍵。不過反對智慧設計論的人卻質疑,他們認為「隨機性」或「偶然事件」並不是科學概念。[16] 何況高的「隨機性」也不能推論到「設計」的層面上,儘管智慧設計論者認為高的「隨機性」使智慧設計論可以健全,[17] 但在科學角度仍然難以排除其極其微小的機會性,[18] 而且這麼多的巧合也可被看作「人擇原理」(anthropic principle)[19] 這又如何將討論跳至「設計」的結論之上。此外,智慧設計論者大談「特定複雜性出現的隨機率如何之低」根本是文不對題,因為涉及自然選擇,這不是隨機的。所以反對智慧設計論的人對鄧勃斯基之批評是他忽視了生態基因變異與自然選擇所展現出來的巨大力量。[20] 綜合反對智慧設計論者的見解,他們一致認為智慧設計論的前設本身已有問題,而且無法用科學來驗證。

3.4        智慧設計論的文化缺環

潘柏滔對智慧設計論的弱點分析中,提及智慧設計論在文化上有其缺環。他指出在考古學上發現人類歷史可分為古石器時代和新石器時代,這明顯表示人類文化是不斷進步。[21] 可是智慧設計論的假設是人類是智慧設計者的創造之一,所以在最開始的時候,應該已經有高度文化水平。這與考古學上的發現有呈相反的現象,成為第四被評論之處。

 

4          從神學角度回應反智慧設計論的觀點

這部份是從基督教神學回應反智慧設計論的觀點,然而基督教的神學主要是建基於聖經之上,所以會用一些經文來討論。

4.1        隱藏的上帝

在基督教神學上,上帝含有彰顯和隱藏的吊性,同時聖經也有這種寫作手法和神學。[22] 然而在智慧設計論中,只能從微乎其微的或然率上反映這世界是有「設計者」,正如雲天(Van Till)所說「在真實的可能性裡純粹的意外是沒有可能發生我們地球有今日的結果不能瞎眼地認為是偶然發生,而是智慧設計。」[23] 他認為提倡智慧設計論者長遠要從「工作的手」之角色上,轉移到「工作的智慧」上,因為智慧設計論之下是隱藏著一位智者(mind)[24] 所以根據雲天對智慧設計的評論,世界沒有純粹的偶然,故此在這純粹的偶然之背後是隱藏著一位智者。因此智慧設計論最多只能描述一位「隱藏的上帝」,與基督教的上帝觀完全不同,不單只是上帝有隱藏與彰顯兩面,就算在神學上上帝的隱藏也有分別,正如巴特認為上帝的隱藏在自己的名中,[25] 艾歷臣綜合巴特的思想指出「上帝與人之間存在著無限之本質上的差異是隱藏的那一位,我們無法藉著自己的努力發現,也不能由自己的理性來驗證。」[26] 故此智慧設計提出的「隱藏的上帝」是憑理性驗證,這不是基督教所說的上帝

筆者用了一段篇幅討論智慧設計論的「隱藏的上帝」與基督教的上帝之分別,主要是釐訂科學方法尋找到的上帝,不一定是基督教的上帝,這可分為兩點一、人是無法絕對在世界完全知曉上帝,唯有上帝的啟示(聖經),這下文再作討論。二、上帝與人存在著本質的差異,以致理性根本不能認知。這目的是去除了泛神論和自然神論的後路,同時防止將人化身成神。之不過話說回頭,面對反智慧設計論的觀點,基督教神學的前設是有一位上帝存在,所以在這世界裡留下「設計記號」也無可厚非。正如保羅在羅馬書也說「自從造天地以來,神的永能和神性是明明可知的,雖是眼不能見,但藉著所造之物就可以曉得,叫人無可推諉。」[27] 在歷史上基督教神學也發展出「自然神學」(Natural Theology),這前設是上帝的確在自然世界顯明了自己。[28] 故此根據自然神學,回應反智慧設計論者訴諸於世界仍有隨機性和巧合性,人不可從世界中發現的記號之論據。筆者認為這對上帝的記號之真實性未免太強詞奪理地蔑視它的存在。

4.2        從智慧找尋智慧

反對智慧設計論者都認為智慧設計論不是一門科學而是偽科學,因為智慧設計論在科學上不合標準。[29] 不過在神學上,我們相信有上帝,然而聖經啟示上帝是一位智慧者,例如在詩篇136篇中「稱謝那用智慧造天的,因他的慈愛永遠長存。」有學者認為聖經斷言上帝創造和設計這個自然世界,這包括宇宙和時間都是上帝最初創造的工作,所以在這個上帝創造的物質宇宙裡被清楚看見的能力和智慧之道路。[30] 所以筆者認為智慧設計論者一方面要著重科學上的例證,可歸納為讓人「看見」(see) 這智慧設計,這點稍後再作討論。另一方面也要強化哲學基礎,即是「閱讀」(read)使人明白這智慧設計。尤其是從人的智慧找尋上帝的智慧。正如鄧勃斯基自己也聲稱「智慧設計論是一個智慧揣摩另一個智慧的作為。這裡沒甚麼神秘的東西。」,[31] 這是前設性的條件,文認為先相信有上帝才相信有設計,相反看見設計也可以沒有上帝。[32] 他指出宗教人士對智慧設計論的評價,就是先存的上帝未能使人看見設計,並非在設計裡看見上帝。始終在神學的角度,上帝的存在性是必須的,人們才確信這世界有智慧設計。故此,因為上帝的先存和創造這世界,所以在世界中留下的記號給人。這樣人的智慧能夠看見(see)後,才可閱讀(read)或許用鄧勃斯基的用詞「解釋」上帝的信息。[33]

因此,讓人「看見」(see) 這智慧設計在大自然中所顯示的信息或者是記號的時候,反對智慧設計論的科學家認為訴諸偶發性,當然今天的智慧設計論者已經提出了大量科學論據(可參考Y-Origins網址)[34] 不過人們只從「看見」這些現象壓根兒沒有意義,因為根本只停留在「看見」信息的層面,而沒有「閱讀」這信息。也許這是科學的基本理倫,根據自然現象之推論,這只有「看見」的層面。只不過在《智慧設計》中,鄧勃斯基已經陳明這些複雜和有畫的信息之存在,只是人如何用智慧「閱讀」,並指出巧合與法則交替不能產生信息,[35] 所以他聲稱「信息是自成一格的。只有信息能產生信息。」[36] 如威廉克格雷(William Craig)回應鄧勃斯基的智慧設計論之推論,儘管世界對人顯示一些獨立的圖案(pattern ),但仍舊可能是偶然的機會。如果起初世界的條件確立為設計,設計者才被保證。[37] 換言之人不能憑「看見」的世界現象來討論智慧設計論,還需要「閱讀」這設計的能力。下文將再討論如何「閱讀」這信息。總括而論,筆者認為智慧尋找智慧,需要加強「質和量」方面的科學理據,更重要是肯定上帝的先存性,人才可憑科學理據背後的設計,知曉這位智慧設計者。

筆者明白科學不接受智慧設計的前設「上帝的先存性」是可以理解的,因為這超自然的前設本身是不能驗證。誠然在神學上這前設是必需的,並且從人的角度撫心自問,從今天眾多的科學理據都指向世界存在著一些秩序,以及人類本身表現的創造、思考和藝術等能力,的確難以否定「智慧找尋智慧」或者「智慧反映智慧」的存在。[38]

另一方面批評智慧設計論的學者認為進化論的物競天擇才是這世界的本相,而且「天擇論」不會是智慧設計的象徵。不過筆者會從自然世界中的愛回應他們的看法。以筆者有限的生物知識,其實大自然的殘酷可能反映出大自然的愛,例如挪威的雌性三文魚為了牠們的下一代,拼命回逆流以上,返回們母親產卵的地方,產卵繁殖下一代,之後就給黑熊和北極狼作為食物。這種父母的愛在大自然比比佳是,中國人也有句成語虎毒不吃兒」,甚至是人也有捨身救兒的情況。所以這種父母犧牲的愛,在人類和自然世界都有一種模式(pattern )存在,筆者認為這模式正是上帝愛人的模式,所以自然世界不是單有「天擇論」,同時亦陳述「愛」。然而這愛更能反映上帝救贖世人的愛,這正是智慧設計論的立足點。

4.3        聖經和大自然的啟示

面對科學家對智慧設計論批評為「不可知論」的時候,筆者認為應該返回到神學裡討論,研究自然世界是否留下上帝的記號,假如留下記號會再進一步討論這是否上帝的啟示?在基督教歷史裡,公元4世紀已經探討這個問題,教父屈梭多模(John Chrysostom)正式提出「兩本書」:自然之書及聖言之書的比喻,來說明人能從自然及聖經啟示認識上帝。[39] 之後在改革宗神學裡,神學家都認同大自然和聖經都是知曉上帝的「兩本書」,並且是互相補充。[40] 因此基督教的神學傳統都傾向聖經與大自然都是神所啟示,並且是互相補足。

之不過聖經和大自然都是上帝留下的記號的時候,但是大自然是需要解碼的程序,相反聖經是上帝直接的啟示。這原因是聖經透過上帝與人的相遇,在人或民族身上工作,才成為對人的啟示。這是一種事件(event)中知道上帝的啟示。最佳的例子就是上帝帶領以色列人出埃及成為上帝揀選的子民,首先在出埃及記中摩西根本不知道耶和華是誰,是上帝對摩西說是你父親的神、是亞伯拉罕的神、以撒的神、雅各的神。又對摩西說、我是自有永有的。[41] 後來上帝帶領以色列人出埃及過紅海,進入南地建立以色列國,這都是上帝參與人類歷史的工作。正如巴特指出聖經就是記載上帝的工作,而人從聖經的事件中知曉上帝的存在。[42] 所以聖經是上帝直接的啟示,尤甚是表明給人類知道是三位一體的創造主。相反儘管大自然留下上帝的記號或者是指紋,但是人根本不能在科學上可以有一個正確的解碼,以致有能力知道自然世界背後的上帝。至於未有聖經啟示的人,對大自然的理解的確可以再深入討論,但是本文主要是針對智慧設計論,所以暫時不作討論。可是筆者的取向是未有聖經啟示的人,他們未能有能力從大自然當中完全獲知上帝的啟示。話說回頭,即使鄧勃斯基認為這兩本書(大自然與聖經)都是印證了共同的作者是上帝,這兩本書不僅彼此吻合,而且一本可幫助人類理解另一本。[43] 筆者認同他的思想,因為在神學界認為先要有聖經的啟示,才能「閱讀」大自然的啟示。這點上文已經提及過,不在這裡重複。所以筆者的結論是聖經甚至是神學,都是幫助人對大自然的啟示解碼,而並非兩本書可以彼此理解或互相解碼。杜倫斯對大自然和自然神學有以下的表述

 

當我們說自然界會「回答」我們的問題,並非其內在能悟性向我們「揭示」自己,這不過是一種比喻,因為自然界其實是無言的,它是不懂說話的。當我們努力聆聽大自然,我們的任務正是將大自然無聲的信號轉成言語,並以理論和定律的方式,將其內在模式和結構表達出來。由於我們的通病是強迫自然界說我們想說的,我們會設置一些機制,防止這種陋習。[44]

 

自然神學不能再被視作一門可抽離於對永活上帝的實際知識的先驗概念系統,也不可作為一種先於實證神學(positive theology),可抽離於物質內容而對理性形式進行獨立研究的學問。相反,「自然」神學必須連同實神學一併研究,在我們探索和理解上帝的作業中擔當一個不可或缺的任務。[45]

 

      所以就算肯定上帝在自然世界的啟示,不過面對默言的自然世界,人仍需要有上帝的特殊啟示即是聖經作為藍本和解讀,才不會偏離上帝在自然世界的啟示。正如一位不認識中文的外國人,如何可以「閱讀」中文書,唯有認識中文的人才能真正「閱讀」中文的書本。所以筆者認為智慧設計論證者需要修正的地方,先以基督教聖經和神學作為底本,才能正確地解碼,這也是潘寧博(Wolfhart Pannenberg)對神學與自然關係的評價。[46] 同時也能回應科學家對智慧設計論的批評為「不可知論」,因為只有先了解這三位一體的上帝,才不致於智慧設計論變成不可知論。正如加爾文所言「沒有上帝的知識,我們沒有真正知道自己,沒有知道自己,我們無法知道上帝。」[47] 因此筆者將加爾文對「真正知道自己」看為「閱讀」之層面,因為一位真正知道自己的人,才有能力真正閱讀世界。

 

5          從神學角度評論智慧設計論的前路

5.1          清神學與智慧設計論之間的鴻溝

上文已經討論過反對智慧設計論的觀點,以及從神學回應這些評論之後,現在進入另一個部份,就是神學評論智慧設計論的前路。然而在最後的總結中,筆者才綜合從神學探討智慧設計論的護教之可行性。

筆者認為在回應反對智慧設計論的觀點上,神學與科學之間潛在著一個無限的鴻溝。首先自然世界中上帝的存在是不能從科學上驗證,因為科學的方法論是憑經驗、客觀和合理的分析,從收集數據和資料在沒有前提之下加以組織,最後歸納得出原理。[48] 儘管鄧勃斯基在另一本書(The Design Inference)指出,這微乎其微的或然率在統計學上被看為「排除偶然機會」(eliminates chance)[49] 只是智慧設計論想從科學的方法論上,用數學的或然率推論出「神」的存在是不可能的。儘管講求客觀的分析中,但要尋求一個超自然而不能被驗證的「神」,這已經違反了科學法則。

其次智慧設計論背後反映著一位設計者,這指向「隱藏的上帝」。不過上文已經提及,智慧設計的「隱藏的上帝」與基督教的隱藏的上帝是有差別,首先基督教的上帝是隱藏同時是彰顯,也是內和超越。相反智慧設計的「隱藏的上帝」只能提及隱藏的部份,永遠不能在自然世界彰顯,否則就是神(科學家又相信超自然定律的神)再者,基督教的隱藏的上帝是先驗(a priori)的上帝,相反智慧設計論陳列的是後驗(a posteriori)的上帝,因為這需要經驗、歸案和推論後,才可知的上帝觀。此外智慧設計的「隱藏的上帝」是不知名的上帝,在前文培里提出了一個鐘錶與鐘錶比喻,人可憑藉鐘錶就可知道有鐘錶存在。之不過鐘錶沒有著名是誰製造,我們只能知曉有鐘錶而已,不能有更進一進的探索,除非鐘錶親自表明身份。所以智慧設計論的一個重要的盲點,就是人根本無法得知「隱藏的上帝」是誰?又如何可以推斷智慧設計論的「隱藏的上帝」就是基督教的上帝呢?所以基於以上的缺環和隙縫,造成智慧設計論與基督教神學的一大鴻溝。

最後一點就是基督教的上帝是有位格的上帝。前文提及智慧設計論的問題就是不知道誰是設計者,這可能是基督教的上帝,也可能是回教的真主,亦可能是希臘神話的宙斯。所以智慧設計論最多只能推斷出有一位「設計者」,不能推斷一位有位格的上帝。當然有人認同而提出智慧就是上帝的屬性之一,並且聖經提及「耶和華以智慧立地,以聰明定天」;[50] 「耶和華啊,你所造的何其多!都是你用智慧造成的;遍地滿了你的豐富」。[51] 所以當人看見創造的智慧就能知曉是上帝的奇妙作為,如約翰波金霍爾(John Polkinghorne)提升智慧為一種理性的表現,人與世界的深層理性呈現,以致推斷有一位理性的創造者,[52] 而這與猶太教、基督教從上帝的自由意志概念,推論理性為創造主之重要元素。[53] 再者,如威廉克格雷認為受造物有真正的自由意志,就暗示有一位具體的客體存在。[54] 因此翰波金霍爾等人假設是將智慧看成為理性,再從理性中的自由意志探討這位基督教的上帝。只是在神學上智慧、甚至是理性並非是上帝的位格,也不能從智慧設計推論出基督教的上帝,如戴維斯所指出宇宙最多訴諸一個「神秘」(mystery)而已。[55] 再者返回第一個問題,一位有理性和自由意志的神,也不知道是誰。因此筆者認為基督教神學與智慧設計論之間的鴻溝就是從科學方面是無法論證基督教的上帝。

5.2        智慧設計指向榮耀神學

儘管基督教神學與智慧設計論之間存在著鴻溝,只是基督教如何看智慧設計論?可否為基督教面對科學主義下成為護教之可能?故此筆者嘗試用另一個向導探討神學與智慧設計論之間的共通點,以及雙方溝通之可能。假如智慧設計論是正確的話,即是上帝透過世界留下的記號,人如何理解?面對這問題,筆者反問宇宙萬物都是由這位智慧者所設計,其背後的目的是什麼?若果知道這目的,對我們了解智慧設計論有沒有幫助?筆者認為智慧設計論其背後目的就是要人從智慧中榮耀上帝,因為上帝創造世界要人享受,而且不單只是享受世界,更是要榮耀自己。

有人對於科學與神學之間基本的衝突是科學講求事實(fact),而神學是講求信心(faith)[56] 之不過在榮耀上帝裡,科學呈現世界存在一個模式(pattern ),在這模式中不是討論設計者的存在,而應該從設計裡看見上帝的榮耀。正如今天科學家霍金(Stephen Hawking)提倡宇宙大爆炸理論和一統理論(即是宇宙存在一套不變的規則),而他背後想論證這些理論呈現出宇宙有一個模式運作。[57] 面對宇宙的設計,以前的學者都認為宇宙論是一個好的原因論證一位有人格的創造者(Personal Creator)[58] 只是筆者傾向科學中宇宙規則不但呈現智慧設計者,並且背後是表揚上帝的榮耀和美學。

但是為何人看不見上帝的榮美?因為人犯罪使人不能完全看見和認同上帝的榮耀,如羅馬書三章23 因為世人都犯了罪、虧缺了神的榮耀。」故此,上帝的榮耀是存在於世界的,可惜人因著罪不能完全看見的榮耀。正如加爾文認為人不能看見創造主的榮耀全因是人有罪,也沒有正確的知識認識上帝,只懂看的工作,而忽略了創造的榮耀。[59] 當然在科學的立場是難以討論罪影響人對世界甚至是上帝的認識,或許加爾文說得對,人從科學裡只能討論上帝的工作。相對智慧設計論卻能帶出智慧之後的榮耀,使人敬拜上帝。雖然加爾文的榮耀神學立論在神學上,而智慧設計論卻在科學上,不過筆者認為大家都共同地在榮耀上帝之上找到一點對話的接口。

另一方面,之前提出約翰波金霍爾從理性的設計提出創造主是上帝,[60] 而基督教透過明白耶穌的證實記號,在自然世界裡反映上帝的「神性」(divine)[61] 所以根頓認為約翰波金霍爾持守著「科學是創世教義的可能性之來源,和對現實世界的真相採取開放性態度。」[62] 不過筆者認為從理性或開放性未必完全可以確知這創造主是基督教的上帝,相反其他宗教也有理性的創造主的時候,我們應該如何決定?所以筆者認為上帝的「神性」在自然世界裡可以確立,這全是上帝的愛之關係,[63] 並藉著耶穌基督的道成肉身之彰顯。因此自然世界裡的「神性」必須牽連到聖子基督之上。就如史賓(Swinburne)總結尼西亞信經認為除耶穌是神之外,沒有其他的神性位格了[64]

在第二部份裡提及「三文魚事件」,這反映出自然世界中犧牲的愛,甚至是人類世界同樣有這犧牲的愛,然而在這個類比的模式(pattern )中智慧設計呈現是上帝不但愛人,而且有系統地創造了世界,更重要「救贖」人和世界。因此在這點上,基督的救贖成為創造主的智慧救贖之彰顯,約翰福音三章16「神愛世人,甚至將他的獨生子賜給他們,叫一切信他的,不至滅亡,反得永生。」所以假若智慧設計論可以談論到「愛」,由「愛」再談論「救贖」,智慧設計論就可以跨進一步,與神學有討論的空間,因為上帝的概念就是愛 (On the idea of God as Love)[65]再者從愛和救贖的層面上,就可以知道這位智慧設計者就是基督教所稱為有位格的「上帝」,因為這種愛的施與是上帝最高的彰顯,這就是創造和秩序的起因。[66] 加爾文認為透過耶誕基督的位格,以及的死和復活,人才可從創造秩序知道這位創造主,也是救贖主[67] 故此,當智慧設計談論到創造秩序與上帝的愛和救贖之關係上,就可以吻合基督教的上帝觀,因為唯獨基督教的上帝才有愛和救贖的特徵,並且是有位格的上帝。所以智慧設計將重點由創造論轉移至救贖論之上,就可以與基督教的神學有更大的討論空間。根頓也指出今天世人的著眼點在創造論而忽略了救贖論救贖論往往在創造論中被淹沒。受造物能被救贖,因為它本身就是一個神聖過程。」[68] 又說「作為聖道和聖禮的敬拜不單叫人領悟道理,而且演活出創造者與受造物的關係。」[69] 這給我們正面的提醒,假如人只懂在科學上觀察,就只停留在「看見」的層面之上。而造物主卻在世界裡顯明的榮耀,給世人知道的愛和救贖,目的是要人向敬拜以及產生關係,得享兒女的自由和榮耀。[70] 在羅馬書八章21但受造之物仍然指望脫離敗壞的轄制得享神兒女自由的榮耀。」

總括來說,筆者認為智慧設計論提供到榮耀神學的層面,智慧設計論不但與神學有對話的空間,而且可以探討智慧設計論作護教之可能。後者筆者下文再作討論。

5.3        嘗試從巴特的啟示評論智慧設計論

巴特的啟示論是以聖經啟示為中心和基本,所以他否定自然世界裡可以再得知上帝的啟示。[71] 歷史上巴特與布仁爾(Emil Brunner)曾在這點上發生激烈的爭論,[72] 而主要的爭論點就是人可否透過受造物(人或自然界)認知上帝的啟示,而巴特的觀點是人根本沒有任何與生俱來的「接觸點」,任何的「接觸點」都是上帝啟示的結果。[73] 所以人不能從自然界領受上帝任何的啟示,因此巴特的立場是鮮明地否定自然神學,只有聖經的啟示而已,也即是唯有上帝的道主動地在聖經自我啟示才能知曉。[74]所以在巴特的啟示論中,根本就不可能有智慧設計論的存在。只是巴特卻提醒我們,人只能透過上帝的啟示認識信心的認知是唯一途徑。[75]

之不過麥格夫卻認為巴特面對的是將人化身成神的思想,[76] 所以巴特的神學是建基於道(Word)成肉身的基督之上,[77] 將一切的啟示收歸在三一神論裡[78] 繼而集中在聖道(Word)耶穌基督身上。而巴特猛烈地批評自然神學,使他看不見自然神學的實際功效。[79] 根頓也認為巴特的神學與自然神學之間的割裂,使巴特的神學變成了虛無縹緲和形而上的神學。[80] 誠然巴特的啟示神學與自然神學之間的確有分割的地方,因為巴特的啟示是聖道的特殊啟示,而智慧設計論明顯是以一般性的啟示作為立足點,以科學為基礎。所以以巴特的啟示論評論智慧設計論是各走極,也沒有什麼可以討論的空間。只是上帝對人的啟示是有場景,聖子耶穌基督也曾經呈現在世界裡,萬物也是藉而有的,在哥林多前書八章6「然而我們只有一位神,就是父,萬物都本於他;我們也歸於他,並有一位主,就是耶穌基督,萬物都是藉著他有的;我們也是藉著他有的。」儘管巴特否定自然神學,但是在聖道(logos)的層面,筆者認為我們憑著對上帝啟示之信心,以「世界」作為場景和啟示的空間,正如江丕盛認為巴特肯定自然神學在啟示神學之內的地位與重要性。[81] 因此智慧設計論探討聖道的創造啟示和智慧,這也有商討之餘地。

 

5.4        智慧設計論成為科學與神學溝通之平台

5.4.1 智慧設計論成為神學與科學溝通的第一步

長久以來,科學與神學是互相排斥,科學家認為科學是實驗、是經驗,而宗教或者是神學講求心靈的:所以物質(matter)與心靈(spirit)互不相干,甚至是互相衝突。[82] 再者智慧設計論也成為神學和科學攻擊的對象,因為智慧設計論運用科學方法證明上帝的存在,如鄧勃斯基也這樣認為智慧設計論是完全基於科學的理論。[83] 因此神學認為他們不能從科學上推演到上帝,原因是科學不談論「神」。[84] 甚至一些激進的人如撤哈(John Sailhamer),認為自然神學(Natural Theology)根本談不上救贖和團的上帝。[85] 而科學又認為智慧設計論為偽科學,根本這不是物質的研究,因為智慧設計論是無法從質量可以驗證,尤其是從無言的自然規律。同時沒有證據顯示智慧設計的存在。[86] 有哲學家指出,在生物學上也不能排除自然定律的影響,[87] 最後結論是智慧設計論與有神論(Theism)是存在張力。[88] 所以智慧設計論造成在神學和科學上造成兩頭不到岸的窘境。

今天科學建立新世界的觀念,[89] 而現代人擁抱科學和享受科學的成果。並且在今天資訊爆炸的年代裡,高科技帶給人類無限的知識,科學家不斷發現更多的知識,使我們更看見自然世界裡的真相。相反宗教給世人的感覺是反科學、壓制科學,甚至認為宗教是迷信的行為,更被人諷刺為是反科學的象徵。[90] 最佳的例子是物理學上已有證據證明宇宙由大爆炸而產生,相對宗教只相信上帝的創造,完全否定今天科學的發現。所以今天的基督教面對科學知識對信仰甚至是聖經的挑戰,智慧設計論的確是一道很好的橋樑。正如愛因斯坦對於宇宙有理性的秩序,因而接受泛神論的上帝觀。[91] 這反映智慧設計論是神學與科學溝通的第一步,給科學家認識基督教的上帝如何在世界裡工作。事實上神學難以與科學有對話的接口,但是若果基督教不再與科學有對話,更使人覺得基督教落後和迷信,更難打開福音的匣子。所以筆者認為從智慧設計論中探討榮耀神學,希望能夠拉近神學與科學之間的距離,以及打開對話的平台。

另一方面,傳統基督教的神學發展是「上帝不是人、不是世界、人和世界也不是上帝。所以人與上帝的交往是通過人聽到上帝之言,並且思考上帝之言。」[92] 因此基督教的神學只能抽空地討論上帝與人的交往,而欠缺上帝與人交往的場景,即是「世界」。在世界裡,人才能感受和經驗上帝的啟示,[93] 正如根頓評論巴特對世界的貢獻時提出「世界被造是預備舞台讓上帝的愛展現,那是一個讓上帝愛一切受造物這一宏大的目的可以成形的地方。」[94] 故此世界為人可以經驗上帝的最重要地方。而智慧設計論不但可以給我們了解上帝和聖道創造的世界,更重要是知道整個世界應該是圓滿並且是榮耀上帝。[95] 同時也可以開發基督教與世界的關係之探討,例如神學如何看環保等課題,在神學上討論地球暖化、生態危機等,今天值得我們關注的問題。[96] 這是人對上帝有責任之餘,也要對世界有責任之三角互動的關係。同時也是發展倫理的機會,探討基督教創世教義論與倫理的關係,[97] 這正是關鍵於人、世界和上帝的關係。這是基督教可以開展的神學討論議題,只不過這不是我們本文的主題。

總括來說,筆者認同智慧設計論成為神學與科學溝通的第一步,否則會被人認為基督教是故步自封的宗教。其次是可以發展從神學探討人透過世界回應上帝之討論的空間。

5.4.2 基督教應採取開放和積極的取向

儘管巴特對自然啟示的否定,不過基督教面對二十一世紀的科學挑戰的時候,智慧設計論無疑是一個平台,探討神學與科學的共通點。即使我們明白在智慧設計論中仍舊有很多方面的不足和問題,也面對在科學上不同的攻擊,如上文提及質疑智慧設計論的論點。只是我們基於想與未信者尤其是科學家有討論信仰的空間,筆者認為基督教應該採取積極和開放的態度,表明基督教神學是實際、客觀和可行的,[98] 並非迷信的宗教。

至於基督教可否以智慧設計論作為護教的可行性,筆者根據以上對智慧設計論的討論和了解,暫時不適合用來護教,因為他們所描述的智慧創造者與我們的上帝是有大的差別,並且智慧設計論的原意也不是護教。之不過基督教可以抱著積極和開放的態度,繼續探討信仰與科學之間的關係,例如麥格夫嘗試由自然神學入手,探討科學與神學。

5.5        總結

綜合以上的分析,神學與科學的鴻溝仍舊存在,這並非智慧設計論可以解決。只是筆者認為智慧設計論可以作為神學與科學之間對話的平台,同時開展公共神學的領域,因為人是生活在這世界裡,我們需要了解、管理這個世界。至於護教之可行性筆者暫時認為不太適合,因為信仰並非科學可以解釋。但可以抱著審慎和開放的態度,始終智慧設計的目的並非用來護教,這只是從科學方法對自然世界提出創造主之可能。在前文我們提及巴特反對自然神學,而集中在信心之上,這給我們一個重要反省「信心」的課題。畢竟基督教信仰核心是因信稱義,以致人可以「單憑信心」(per solam fidem)稱義,信心才是我們信仰中最重要的東西。因為信心使我們知道上帝是會接觸生命和聆聽世界的痛苦,[99] 並非單憑驗證認知。如馬丁路德所言「真正的信心需要閉起雙眼,去持守上帝的道、去跟隨上帝的道、去信靠上帝的道。」[100] 並且信心與上帝不是連在一起,而是同一個體(unity)[101] 他認為認識上帝,首先要將自然寫在心裡,其次藉著聖靈和基督之真光的幫助。 [102] 所以我們不是要「看見」上帝在世界的記號才討論和相信上帝,相反我們要憑著信靠上帝的信心和對聖經的解讀,去「閱讀」的記號。所以不是科學解釋信仰和神學,相反是神學解釋科學,科學是從屬於神學。

 


Selected Bibliography 參考書目

Alexander, Denis. ed. Can We be Sure About Anything? : Science, Faith and Postmodernism. Leicester, England: Apollos, 2005.

Ayala, J. Francisco. Darwin and Intelligent Design. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Bayer, Oswald. Theology the Lutheran Way. Grand Rapids, MI: WB. Eerdmans, 2007.

Carlson, Richard ed. Science & Christianity: Four Views. Downers Grove, Ill. : Inter Varsity Press, 2000.

Custance, Arthur. Science and Faith. Grand Rapids. MI: Zondervan, 1978.

Davies, P. C. W. God and The New Physics. Middlesex : New York : Penguin Books ; Simon & Schuster, 1983.

Dembski, William A. (ed) Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent. Downer Grove: IVP, 1998.

Dembski, William A. The Design Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Dembski, William and Kushiner, James. Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. MI: Grand Rapids, 2001.

Erickson Millard. Christian Theology. Baker Book House Company, 1998.

Gunton, Colin. The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Hein, Karl. Christian Faith and Natural Science. New York: Harper & Row, 1953.

Mcgrath Alistere. The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology. Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2008.

McGrath, Alister. A Scientific Theology: Nature. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 2001.

McGrath, Alister. A Scientific Theology: Reality. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 2002.

McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Published, 1994.

McGrath, Alister. The Science of God. London: WB Eerdmans, 2004.

McIntyre, John. The Shape of Pneumatology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Mckim, Donald. Martin Luther. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Polkinghone, John. Faith, Science & Understanding. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Polkinghone, John. Reason and Reality. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1991.

Polkinghorne, John. Belief in God in an Age of Science. New Haven: Yale University, 1998.

Polkinghorne, John. Science and the Trinity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

Porter, Stanley, Hayes, Michael, Tombs, David. ed. Faith in the Millennium. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Poythress, Vens S. Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2006.

Sailhame, John. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

Shanks, Niall. God, The Devil, and Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Swinburne, Richard. Was Jesus God? New York: Oxford Press, 2008.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002.

Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and The Search for God. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003.

大衛郝渥德著胡加恩譯。《舊約歷史書導論》。台北華神,2003

加爾文著。徐慶譽譯。《基督教要義》卷。香港基督教文藝,1991

江丕盛等編。《科學與宗教對話在中國》。北京中國社會神學出版社,2008

吳彼得編。《尋根問底︰科學與宗教》。多倫多加拿大恩福協會,2007

杜倫斯著。阮煒譯。《神學的科學》。香港漢語基督教文化,1997

杜倫斯著。陳群英譯。《時空與道成肉身》。香港:基督教文藝出版社,2008

杜倫斯著。陳群英譯。《神學的基礎和原則──神學與科學之調協》。香港:基督    教文藝出版社,2007

頓著。趙崇明、鄧紹光譯。《如此我信》。香港︰基道2009

根頓編。石彩燕譯。《劍橋基督教教義手冊》,頁171-88。香    天道,2006

泰德彼得斯、江丕盛和格蒙本納德合編。橋:科學與宗教。北京:中國社會科學出版社,2002年。

梅爾威利斯圖以特編。徐英瑾、冷欣等譯。《科學與宗教︰二十一世紀的對話》。上海︰復旦大學,2008

陳若愚。《系統神學︰基督教教義精要(上冊)》。香港天道,2007

麥奎利著。何菠莎譯。《二十世紀宗教思潮》。上海︰基督教協會,1999

麥格夫著王毅譯。《科學與宗教引論》。香港:基道,2006

楊慶球。護教叢書基督教不可信?》。香港天道,2006

趙崇明編。三一.創造.文化──根頓神學的詮釋。香港:基道,2006

劉大衛。《自然科學與信仰》台北︰雅哥出版社,1997

劉小楓。《走向十字架上的真理》。香港三聯,1991

摩爾迪籣、雷諾斯編錢錕等譯。《不再獨白求對話》香港學園傳道會出版,   2004

潘柏滔。〈神學與科學〉。講義。香港︰建道神學院,2008年冬。

鄧勃斯基著、盧風譯。《智慧設計論證》。香港︰天道書樓2004

霍金著。許明賢、吳忠超譯。時間簡史:從大爆炸到黑洞。台北:藝    文印書館,2000原著:Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York: Bantam Books, 1988.

禤浩榮。《創造神學》。香港天道,1998

羅秉祥、趙敦華編。《基督教與近代中西文化》。北京︰北京大學,2000

 

Journal

“Accident or Intelligent Design?” Y-Originshttp://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more(accessed 13 Mar 2009).

Corabi, Joseph . “Intelligent Design and Theodicy.” Religious Studies Vol. 45 Issue 01 (Mar 2009): 21-35.

Craig, William Lane. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities < http://www.williamlanecraig.com/>; Accessed 3 March, 2009.

Craig, William. Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection. < http://www.williamlanecraig.com/>; Accessed 13 March, 2009.

Dembski, William. The Intelligent Design Movement. <http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm>; Accessed 9 March, 2009.

Kwan Kai Man. “Objection to William Dembski’s Intelligent Design: A Critical Evaluation.” Jian Dao 26 (Jul, 2006): 129-168.

Santmire, Paul. “A Reformation Theology of Nature Transfigured” Theology Today 61 (2005): 509-27.

Van Till, Howard. “Intelligent Design” Theory: Two Viewpoints.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science Vol. 34 Issue 4 (Dec. 1999): 667-675.

余達心。〈生態危機與人文精神〉。《校園》51(12 2009),頁6-17

楊慶球。〈杜倫斯科學與神學〉。《中國神學研究院期刊》。第三十七期(2004年七月),頁67-100



[1] 摩爾迪籣、雷諾斯編,錢錕等譯《不再獨白求對話》(香港學園傳道會出版,2004),頁195

[2] Francisco , Ayala,. Darwin and Intelligent Design (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 7. The design of organisms and their complexity, the multiplicity of species and their interactions, set “the natural attributes of the Deity”, namely, omnipotence, omniscience, eternity, self-existence, necessary existence and spirituality.

[3] 鄧勃斯基著、盧風譯《智慧設計論證》(香港︰天道書樓2004),頁27

[4] Kwan Kai Man, “Objection to William Dembski’s Intelligent Design: A Critical Evaluation,” Jian Dao 26 (Jul, 2006): 129. The intricate design manifested in biological organism has long been used as the premise of the popular design Argument, which argues that Intelligent Designer is the best explanation of biological design.

[5] William Dembski and James Kushiner, Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design (MI: Grand Rapids, 2001),126. Individual protein – coding regions in DNA cannot result from natural regularities or chance, and show clear evidence of design.

[6] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁237-243

[7] 摩爾迪籣、雷諾斯編《不再獨白求對話》,頁207

[8] 梅爾威利斯圖以特編,徐英瑾、冷欣等《科學與宗教︰二十一世紀的對話》(上海︰復旦大學,2008),頁91

[9] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁253

[10] 梅爾威利斯圖以特編《科學與宗教︰二十一世紀的對話》,頁91

[11] Larry Witham, By Design: Science and The Search for God (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), 135. By 1992, Behe had stated his doubts in public debates, and in his own book, Darwin’s Black Box, he declared his openness to intelligent design theory.

[12] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁262

[13] 梅爾威利斯圖以特編《科學與宗教︰二十一世紀的對話》,頁85

[14] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁126-130

[15] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁125

[16] 梅爾威利斯圖以特編《科學與宗教︰二十一世紀的對話》,頁170

[17] Kwan Kai Man, “Objection to William Dembski’s Intelligent Design: A Critical Evaluation,” :146. The conclusion has high probability if the premises have high probability…design inference is robust.

[18] 梅爾威利斯圖以特編《科學與宗教︰二十一世紀的對話》,頁170

[19] 江丕盛等編《科學與宗教對話在中國》(北京中國社會神學出版社,2008),頁104

[20] 梅爾威利斯圖以特編《科學與宗教︰二十一世紀的對話》,頁171

[21] 潘柏滔〈神學與科學〉講義 (香港︰建道神學院,2008年冬)

[22] 大衛郝渥德著胡加恩譯︰《舊約歷史書導論》(台北華神,2003),頁167

[23] Howard J. Van Till, “Intelligent Design” Theory: Two Viewpoints,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science Vol. 34 Issue 4 (Dec. 1999): 673. If Overman’s reading of the scientific literature is appropriate, a straightforward appeal to realistically computed probabilities would demonstrate that the purely accidental assembly of living systems is effectively impossible. Furthermore, if your opponent chose to argue that material systems have the capabilities to self-organize into living organisms, you could argue that such a case could not be proved on the basis of what is actually known by the empirical sciences today. Finally, says Overman, you could clinch your case by pointing to the extreme improbability for the existence of a universe having all of the properties and capabilities (the fine tuning) that would make it just right for the emergence of life within the relatively brief time (130 million years) during which life apparently came to be formed on planet Earth. No doubt about it, argues Overman, we are the outcome not of blind chance but of intelligent design.

[24] Howard J. Van Till, “Intelligent Design” Theory: Two Viewpoints,”: 675. The importance that ID proponents place on the role of extranatural assembly must be made explicit. The central role of “hand action” should no longer be hidden under the cover of the ID label that directs primary attention to the actions of a Mind.

[25] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 317. The hidden Yahweh Himself is present in His name and all the predicates of the name are those of the hidden Yahweh Himself.

[26] Millard J. Erickson. Christian Theology (Baker Book House Company, 1998), 340. God is not an aspect of human beings or the best of human nature. He is separated from humanity by an infinite qualitative distinction. There is within humans no spark of affinity with the divine, no ability to produce divine revelation, no remainder in them of a likeness to God. Moreover, God is not involved in nature or conditioned by it. He is free from all such limitations. Nor is he really known by us. He is the hidden one; he cannot be discovered by our effort, verified by our intellectual proofs, or understood in terms of our concepts.

[27] 羅馬書一章20

[28] Erickson, Christian Theology, 181. Certain assumptions are involved in this view. One is, of course, that there is an objective, valid, and rational general revelation—that God actually has made himself known in nature (for example) and that patterns of meaning are objectively present—independently of whether anyone perceives, understands, and accepts this revelation.

[29] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁236

[30] Richard F. Carlson ed., Science & Christianity: Four Views (Downers Grove, Ill. : Inter Varsity Press, 2000), 113. The Bible, taken at face value, also seems to affirm that God created and designed the natural world, that the universe and time itself began as a result of his initial creative act, and that God formed the physical universe in such a way that his power and wisdom are “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”.

[31] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁98

[32] Alistere Mcgrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2008), 16. John Henry Newman’s lapidary remark: ‘I believe in design because I believe in God; not in God because I see design.”

[33] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁180

[34] “Accident or Intelligent Design?” Y-Originshttp://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more(accessed 13 Mar 2009).

[35] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁163

[36] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁180

[37] William Lane Craig, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities < http://www.williamlanecraig.com/>; Accessed 3 March, 2009. Dembski emphasizes that in attributing an event to design, he is not characterizing it as a product of intelligence. For he defines "design" to mean "neither regularity nor chance," that is to say, if something is not explicable in terms of natural law or chance, then by definition it is due to "design." To say that something is due to "design" is just to say that it exhibits a certain kind of pattern. Nevertheless, Dembski thinks that proving that something is due to neither regularity nor chance is the logical prerequisite for proving that it is due to intelligence. He makes the move from "design" to a bona fide designer or intelligent agent by means of a three step schema of actualization exclusion specification; that is to say, one finds that a certain possibility has been actualized (and therefore presumably requires a cause), one excludes accounts of the event based on natural law explanations (thereby showing that the event is physically contingent), and finally one specifies that contingency so as to show that it conforms to an independently given pattern (thereby distinguishing choice from mere chance as the cause of the event). Since the hallmark of intelligent agency is choice, one has thus shown that the best explanation for the occurrence of the event is an intelligent agent. Obviously, this three step schema simply retraces the steps of Dembski's design inference, so that it turns out that one is getting to genuine design (a previsioned product of intelligent agency) after all. Thus, if the initial conditions of the universe are due to "design," as argued above, then the inference to a Cosmic Designer is warranted.

[38] Arthur Custance, Science and Faith (Grand Rapids. MI: Zondervan, 1978), 45. The reason for its creation in the way that it was created, is best found in the existence of man himself, a unique creature made in the image of God that he might to be able to share God’s thoughts.

[39] 彼得M. J..赫斯,上帝的兩本書:基督教西方世界中的啟示、神學與自然科學,泰德.彼得斯、江丕盛、格蒙.本納德編橋:科學與宗教》(北京:中國社會科學出版社,2002,頁192-3

[40] Alister E. McGrath, The Science of God (London: WB Eerdmans, 2004), 73. This basic framework is of considerable importance in relation to the development of the “two books” tradition within Reformed theology, especially in England, which regarded nature and Scripture as two complementary sources of our knowledge of God.

[41] 出埃及記314-15

[42] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 329-330. The revelation attested in the Bible purports to be a historical event. In this regard, if we bring in the concept of history in explanation, our only possible tertium comparationis* can be the fact that in revelation as in history the reference is to a definite event which is different from every other event and which is thus incomparable and cannot be repeated. If with the Enlightenment we were to regard the event as again the mere exponent of some general occurrence, a special case under a rule, or the realisation of a general possibility; if history were to be understood as a framework within which there might also be something like revelation, then at this point we should have to reject the concept of historicity no less emphatically than that of myth. In relation to revelation the term historical can only denote event as a fact over which there is no court by reference to which it may be regarded as a fact, as this particular fact. It is thus that revelation is imparted to man according to the Bible, and this is why the Bible lays such stress on chronology, topography and contemporary world history, i.e., on the contingency and uniqueness of the revelations recorded by it. In doing this it is simply saying that revelation comes vertically from heaven…By this concept we mean that in the Bible revelation is a matter of impartation, of God’s being revealed, by which the existence of specific men in specific situations has been singled out in the sense that their experiences and concepts, even though they cannot grasp God in His unveiling and God in His veiling and God in the dialectic of unveiling and veiling, can at least follow Him and respond to Him.

[43] 鄧勃斯基《智慧設計論證》,頁187

[44] 杜倫斯著,陳群英譯《神學的基礎和原則──神學與科學之調協》(香港:基督     教文藝出版社,2007),頁149

[45] 杜倫斯著,陳群英譯《時空與道成肉身》(香港:基督教文藝出版社,2008),頁93

[46] 羅秉祥、趙敦華編《基督教與近代中西文化》(北京︰北京大學,2000),頁52

[47] Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Nature (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 2001), 273. Calvin stresses that “Knowledge of God and of ourselves are of ourselves are connected. Without a knowledge of God, we cannot truly know ourselves; without knowing ourselves, we cannot know God.

[48] 劉大衛《自然科學與信仰》(台北︰雅哥出版社,1997),頁41

[49] William A. Dembski, The Design Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 8. Moreover, since in any practical application the mathematical expectation will constitute a specification, the Law of Small Probability advise rejecting null hypothesis H0, contrary to statistical hypothesis testing. Thus, whereas statistical hypothesis eliminates chance because divergence from mathematical expectation is too great, the design inference eliminates chance because the fit with mathematical expectation is too close.

[50] 箴言三章19節。

[51] 詩篇10424節。

[52] McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Nature, 197. If the deep-seated congruence of the rationality present in our minds with the rationality present in the world is to find a turn explanation, it must surely lie in some more profound reason which is ground of both. Such a reason would be provided by the Rationality of the Creator.

[53] John Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 9. That it was the Judaeo-Christian –Islamic concept of a creation whose order had been freely chosen by its rational Creator that provided an important element in the intellectual setting that enable modern science to come to birth in Europe in the seventeenth century.

[54] William Lane Craig, Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection < http://www.williamlanecraig.com/>; Accessed 13 March, 2009. So the question is, has the Grounding Objector given us good reason to think that the key postulate of the Molinist theory of providence, viz., that counterfactuals about creaturely free acts are true logically prior to the divine decree, is false? Grounding Objectors, I allege, seem to be presupposing a construal of truth as correspondence known as the theory of truth-makers… And Grounding Objections not rooted in the want of a sufficient reason for libertarian choices should be seen, so far as I can tell, as objections which are predicated on the assumption that counterfactuals of freedom require truth-makers that either are or imply the existence of concrete objects.

[55] Paul Davies, God and The New Physics (New York : Penguin Books ; Simon & Schuster, 1983), 43. Although we may be able to find a cause for every event, still we would be left with the mystery of why the universe has the nature it does, or why there is any universe at all.

[56] Denis, Alexander ed. Can We be Sure About Anything? : Science, Faith and Postmodernism (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2005), 245. On this basis it is easy to set up a conflict between the “fact” of science and the “faith” of being a Christian.

[57] 史蒂芬.霍金著,許明賢、吳忠超譯︰《時間簡史:從大爆炸到黑洞(台北:藝文印書館,2000),頁111

[58] William Dembski ed., Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent (Downer Grove: IVP, 1998), 354. The former provides good reason to believe that behind the existence of our universe stands a Personal Creator, whom the teleology argument shows to be also a Cosmic Designer…Thus the cause of the origin of the universe must be a transcendent of Personal Agent.

[59] 加爾文著,徐慶譽譯︰《基督教要義》卷 (香港基督教文藝,1991),頁16-33

[60] John Polkinghone, Faith, Science & Understanding (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 159-160. Science exploits the wonderful rational transparency of the physical world, but it does not explain it. If the universe is the creation of the rational God, then it is possible to understand its intelligibility as due to its being shot through with signs of the mind of its Creator, signs that are accessible to the thoughts of creatures made in the image of the Creator.

[61] John Polkinghone, Reason and Reality (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1991), 33. The Christian understanding of Jesus is as the true Symbol, bearing the stamp of the divine nature, in whom are brought together revelation and reconciliation, the human and the divine.

[62] 根頓編,石彩燕譯《劍橋基督教教義手冊》(香港天道,2006),頁186

           [63] John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven: Yale University, 1998), 13. The Gift of Love must be the gift of freedom, the gift of a degree of letting-be, and this can be expected to be true of all creatures …it is in the nature of divine snow field that they will sometimes slip with the destructive force of an avalanche.

[64] Richard Swinburne, Was Jesus God? (New York: Oxford Press, 2008), 180. I conclude that the fact tat the later Church taught the order items of the Nicene Creed in no way detracts from the very probable truth of the central claim the Nicene Creed that Jesus was God. Form that it follows, since no divine person can cease to be divine, that Jesus is God.

[65] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002), 53-4.

[66] 禤浩《創造神學》(香港天道,1998),頁44

[67] Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Published, 1994), 161. Having stressed this point, Calvin then introduces the notion of revelation; Scripture reiterates what may be know be know of God through nature, while simultaneously clarifying this general revelation and enhancing it. “The Knowledge of God, which is clearly shown in the ordering of world and in all creatures, is still more clearly and familiarly explained in the World”. It is only though Scripture that the believer has access to knowledge of redeeming actions of God in history, culminating in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Calvin, revelation is focused upon the person of Jesus Christ; our knowledge of God is mediated through him. God may know only through Scripture; the created order, however, provides important points of contact for and partial resonances of this revelation.

[68] 根頓《劍橋基督教教義手冊》,頁186

[69] 根頓《劍橋基督教教義手冊》,頁187

[70] Vens S. Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2006) 338. Science is intended to be a task pursued and carried out in a spirit of praise. In science, we think God’s thoughts after him, and praise rises in our hearts as we see more of his wisdom…We need the renewing and energizing of the Holy Spirit, who is a gift to those who com to Christ, if we are to discover again the way of freedom and the way that opens freedom to freedom.

[71] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 283. Scientific dogmatics—and now we come to the decisive point—enquires into the agreement of Church proclamation with the revelation which is attested in Holy Scripture. This is what we called the meaning and point of dogma in the first sub-section. If the scientific nature of dogmatics consists in its specific objectivity, i.e., in its orientation to the question of dogma, then we have here the decisive test by which its scientific character has always to be proved. We have already seen that Church proclamation could and can be criticised and corrected from very different standpoints too. What might happen when this is done could even be science from these different standpoints. But it would certainly not be dogmatic science. The two aberrations mentioned above do not have to be fatal to dogmatics. Both a gnostic and also an uncritical dogmatics might incidentally at least do justice to the task of dogmatics. But this is ruled out in the case of the third error, namely, the confusion of the criterion of dogmatics with other criteria. Humanly speaking, and this is the only way we can speak, the result in this case can only be perversion. Dogmatic work stands or falls by whether the standard by which Church proclamation is measured is the revelation attested in Holy Scripture and not a philosophical, ethical, psychological or political theory. Now it is obvious that everyone who works at dogmatics works more or less with specific intellectual presuppositions.

[72] 麥奎利著,何菠莎譯:《二十世紀宗教思潮》(上海︰基督教協會,1999),頁398

[73] 麥格夫著,王毅譯《科學與宗教引論》(香港:基道,2006),頁163

[74] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 297. The Bible certainly tells us who the God is whom it attests as self-revealing.

[75] 楊慶球〈杜倫斯科學與神學〉《中國神學研究院期刊》第三十七期(2004年七月)68

[76] Alister McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Reality (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 2002), 260. While Barth may well fulminate against Schleiermacher, his real enemy is to be seen as Feuerbach, whose concept of the “humanization of God’ determines the inherent anthropology of all statements concerning God.

[77] McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Reality, 263. The strongly incarnation - dare we even say “sacramental”?- Character of Barth’s Concept of revelation is everywhere apparent. We know God as God revealed in Christ, or we do not know God at all… Barth’s theological realism may therefore be said to be grounded in Christ.

[78] John McIntyre, The Shape of Pneumatology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 135. The second introductory statement is more concerned with material content than with semantics, in so far as it draws attention to the way in which the concept of ‘revelation’ dominates both the general and the specific in all of Barth’s account of the Trinity and of the persons in the Trinity. For example, he openly affirms that ‘we come to the doctrine of the Trinity by no other way than by [the] analysis of the concept of revelation’. The relationship is in fact reciprocal, for not only is the doctrine of the Trinity the interpretation of revelation, but revelation is the ground of the doctrine of the Trinity, while this reciprocity is rooted in the fact that the revelation attested to in the Scriptures, that is, to the self-revealing God, is understood solely in trinitarian terms. Again, in a proposition which is perhaps more difficult to understand, he argues that the statement, ‘God reveals himself as Lord’ is ‘the root of the doctrine of the Trinity’. Without repeating what I have said elsewhere, may I briefly sum up, for our present purpose, that for Barth biblical revelation in general, and the revelation of God effected in the incarnation in particular, constitute the starting-point, the hermeneutic ambience and the normative control of all that he has to say about the doctrine of the Trinity.

[79] McGrath, A Scientific Theology: Reality, 264. Barth’s ferocious critique of sciences, suggest that Barth himself would be not see such an undertaking as particularly useful or appropriate.

[80] 趙崇明編︰《三一.創造.文化──根頓神學的詮釋(香港:基道,2006),頁70

[81] 江丕盛〈科學與宗教對話的嶄新現象〉橋:科學與宗教9-10

[82] 楊慶球〈杜倫斯科學與神學〉《中國神學研究院期刊》,67-68

[83] William Dembski, The Intelligent Design Movement, <http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm>; Accessed 9 March, 2009. It is the empirical detectability of intelligent causes that renders Intelligent Design a fully scientific theory, and distinguishes it from the design arguments of philosophers, or what has traditionally been called "natural theology." The world contains events, objects, and structures which exhaust the explanatory resources of undirected natural causes, and which can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes. Scientists are now in a position to demonstrate this rigorously. Thus what has been a long-standing philosophical intuition is now being cashed out as a scientific research program.

[84] 吳彼得編《尋根問底︰科學與宗教》(多倫多加拿大恩福協會,2007),頁93.

[85] John Sailhame, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 13. Natural Theology does not lead to salvation and fellowship with God.

[86] Niall Shanks, God, The Devil, and Darwin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 242. Once again, we have not been presented with the extraordinary evidence that would warrant a leap to the conclusion of intelligent design. At various points in this book we have seen how the misleading appearance of intelligent design can be generated by the combined effects of chance and dumb mechanisms operating in accord with the dumb laws of nature. There is currently no evidential reason to believe that the appearance of cosmological intelligent design is anything more than an illusion explicable in terms of purely natural effects.

[87] Joseph Corabi, “Intelligent Design and Theodicy,” Religious Studies Vol. 45 Issue 01 (Mar 2009): 23. If ID theorists are correct about the development of the biochemical systems they discuss, then there are important lessons that transcend matters of actual biological fact. There are also important conclusions to draw about the likelihood of life evolving naturalistically–in particular, conclusions about the likelihood of certain kinds of life developing if natural processes are left to their own devices. If the arguments of ID theorists are good ones, then it is all but impossible for life of the sort we find on earth (everything from bacteria to human beings) to evolve on its own, where the natural building blocks of a typical solar system/solid planet and the natural laws are the only operative influences.

[88] Corabi, “Intelligent Design and Theodicy,” 35. I hope I have adequately demonstrated the nature of the tension between ID and theism. I also hope to have shown that, of the three potential theistic responses that I considered, the first has little or no plausibility, while the second and third have more promise. The third, in particular, is likely to be fruitful once fully developed, owing to the fact that it is less prone to entanglement in thorny issues about value comparison than the second.

[89] 陳若愚《系統神學︰基督教教義精要(上冊)(香港天道,2007),頁27

[90] Polkinghone, Reason and Reality, 49. There is a popular caricature which sees the scientist as ever open to the correcting power of new discovery and, in consequence, achieving the reward of real knowledge, whilst the religious believer condemns himself to intellectual imprisonment within the limits of an opinion held on a priori grounds, to which he will cling whatever facts there might be to the contrary.

[91] 楊慶球︰《護教叢書基督教不可信?》(香港天道,2006),頁121-126

[92] 劉小楓《走向十字架上的真理》(香港三聯,1991),頁309

[93] Karl Hein, Christian Faith and Natural Science (New York: Harper & Row, 1953), 72. His Words, which are accompanied by lively gesticulations, reveal to me first of all a new objective world which I did not know before, the world in which this order man lives, the world as it appears from his angle. His vivid words make me forget completely for a time that this world of his into which I believe I am looking is in truth only a picture of my own imagining which I am building up simply by inferring from the other man’s outer picture to his inner picture.

[94] 頓著,趙崇明、鄧紹光譯《如此我信》(香港︰基道2009),頁81

[95] 頓著︰《如此我信》,頁81

[96] 余達心〈生態危機與人文精神〉《校園》51(12 2009),頁16-17

[97] Colin Gunton, The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History and Philosophy (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 153. I will now attempt to sketch the dogmatic bases of a Christian ethic of createdness, always keeping in mind that it would be just as possible and legitimate to set out the ethical foundations of a Christian doctrine of creation, provided this attempt is undertaken as the description of the Christian life which is anchored in faith as the creature of the divine word, the exemplary case of createdness.

[98] 托倫斯著,阮煒譯《神學的科學》(香港漢語基督教文化,1997),頁55

[99] Stanley Porter, Michael Hayes, David Tombs, ed., Faith in the Millennium (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 145. So I have three personal answers to why we should pray and think and work on debt as a matter of interest for our Christian faith—because it helps us understand our faith better, because it touches an area that is central to our lives and because the nature of God is to hear a suffering world and inspire people to dream and work for a better one.

[100] Paul Santmire, “A Reformation Theology of Nature Transfigured” Theology Today 61 (2005): 515. Luther virtually admitted as much himself, on numerous occasions. “A right faith,” he wrote, “goes right on with its eyes closed; it clings to God’s Word; it follows that Word; it believe that Word.” Again he stated: “The ears are the only organ of the Christian.”

[101] Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way (Grand Rapids, MI: WB. Eerdmans, 2007), 20. Faith and God do not belong together because there is general basic unity between them, outside the word.

[102] Donald Mckim, Martin Luther (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 23-4. While “to know that there is a good” is implied by natural law, it makes a world of difference, argues Luther, “to know who God is. The first is known by nature and written in hearts, the second is taught through the Holy spirit alone.”…In the light of Christ’s self-less love, neighborly love cannot but become self disinterested. The “as yourself” may serve as a pointer toward the rationality of natural law- everyone can see that what the golden rule is just and true.