隱藏於人性的律的後面的東西

Mere Christianity

C. S. Lewis

1943

Bill Lin 譯

Book I. Right and Wrong As A Clue to The Meaning of The Universe

Chapter 4. What Lies Behind the Law

人性規範的幕後

讓我們總結一下至今所提到的。在石頭和樹和類似的東西的例子裡，我們所謂的自然的定律 ，可能不是任何東西，而只是一種說法。當你說自然是被一些律所管轄，實際上，這可能只是意味著自然界表現出一些方式的行為。所謂的律可能不是真正的東西——任何超越我們所觀察的實際事實的東西。但是在人的例子裡，我們看到的不是如此。人類本性的律，或大是大非的律，必定是超越人類行為的實際事實的某些東西。除了實際事實以外，在這個情形下還有某些東西——一個真正的律，不是我們發明的，而且我們知道，它是我們所應該遵守的。

我現在要來研究，這個律告訴了我們，有什麼關這個我們居住的宇宙的東西。自從人類能夠思考以來，他們一直感到奇怪，這個宇宙到底是什麼，它是怎麼存在的。大致上有兩種看法。第一，有所謂的唯物主義者的看法。持著這種看法的人，認為物質和空間正巧就是存在的，而且是一直存在的，沒有人知道是為什麼；而這物質，照著某些固定的方式活動，很湊巧的，由一種蠕蟲，產生出像我們這樣會思考的生物。在千分之一的機會下，某個東西撞到了我們的太陽，使它產生了行星；在另一個千分之一的機會，生命所需的化學物質，和適當的溫度，在一個行星上湊在一起了，這樣，地球上的物質有了生命；然後經過了一大串的機會，生物進化到像我們這樣的東西。另一種是宗教的看法。(看本章最後一節的註釋) 根據宗教的看法，在宇宙的後面有個很像我們所知的心思意念這樣的東西。那是這麼說的，它是有意識，有目的，有喜好的。在這個看法裡，他造成了宇宙，一部分是我們不知道的目的，但是有一部分的目的，是要造成像他自己的生物——我的意思是，像他自己的具有心思意念。

請不要想成，一個看法在很久以前已經形成了，而另一個看法正慢慢的替代它的地位。任何一個地方，只要有思考的人們，兩種看法都會出現。同時也請注意這一點：你無法以科學的常理來判斷哪一個看法才是對的。科學是由實驗而來。它觀察東西如何表現。每一個長時間流傳下來的科學的陳述，不管看來有多複雜，真的是像這樣，「在1月15日凌晨2:20，我將望遠鏡瞄準到天空的某一部分，看到了如此如此。」或「我把某些分量的這個東西，擺進鍋子裡，將它加熱到這個溫度，它有了如此如此的變化。」不要想成我在說反對科學的言語：我只是在說科學的工作是什麼。越是個科學人，(我相信)他越會同意我，這是科學工作的說法——它也是一個很有用而且是必須的工作。但是東西究竟為什麼在那兒，在科學觀察到的東西的後面是否有什麼東西——一些不同種類的東西——這不是一個科學的問題。假如有“幕後的東西，”人們或是一直無從去知道它，或是它會用另外的方法使人們知曉它自己。有任何這種東西的陳述，和沒有這種東西的陳述，都不是科學可以做出來的。而且真正的科學家不會去做那樣的陳述。一般都是記者或通俗作家，撿到一些希奇古怪的東西，而從教科書裡去找出半生不熟的科學，所搞出來的結果。終究，它實在是屬於常識的事。假若科學真是變得完美到可以知曉整個宇宙中的每一樣東西。「為什麼有一個宇宙？」「為什麼它是這樣的發展下去？」「宇宙有什麼意義？」這些問題，不是明顯的依然存在嗎？

若非是因為以下要談的，這個處境就十分絕望了。在整個宇宙中還有一樣東西，只有一樣，我們可以從它了解，比從外在的觀察所得知的，更多的答案。這一樣東西就是人類。我們不僅僅是觀察人，我們也是人。如此說來，在這情況下，我們享有內部的資料；我們是在知道的那一方。因為如此，我們知道，人們發現他們受到一個不是他們所制定的道德律的管轄，想丟也丟不掉，而且知道他們應該去遵守。注意下面這一點：任一東西，從外界來研究人類，如同我們在研究電流或包心菜，不懂得我們的語言，結果是無法從我們得到任何內在的資料，只是觀察我們的作為，就無法得到一絲絲我們有這個道德律的證據。因為它的觀察只顯示了我們的作為，但是道德律是關於我們應該做什麼的。同樣的，假如有任何東西超越或隱藏於我們所觀察的事實的後面，例如石頭或氣候，我們從外界來觀察它們，可能永遠沒有希望去發現它。

然後，這個問題演變成這樣。我們要知道，或許這個宇宙只是湊巧，毫無理由的變成是這樣子，或是後面有一股力量，把它造成這樣。因為這力量假如是存在的，將不會是所觀察的事實之一，而是造成這些現象的實際，單單查看這些事實是無法發現它的。只有在一種情況裡，我們可以知道是否有多出來的東西，那就是我們自己的案例。而且在這一個案例裡，我們發現有它的存在。或者從另一方面來看：假如在宇宙的外面，有這麼一個控制的力量，它不能像宇宙中的一個事實一樣的對我們顯示它自己——正如在那個屋子裡的一面牆，或樓梯，或壁爐，不可能是建造這房子的建築師。唯一我們能期望它來顯示自己的，只有是呈現在我們自己裡面的一種影響或一個命令，試著使我們依某種方式來為人處世。那也正是在我們自己裡面所發現的。這不應該會引起我們的懷疑嗎？在唯一你期望能得到答案的案例裡，這答案竟然是“是的”；而在其他的案例裡，你得不到一個答案，你知道為什麼你得不到答案了吧！假設某人問我，當我看到一個穿著藍色制服的人，沿著街道下去，挨家挨戶的分發小紙袋，為什麼我會知道那些袋子裡裝的是信件？我會回答：「因為每次他留給我類似的小袋子，我都發現裡面有一封信。」假如他反駁：「但是你又沒看到，你所想像的其他人收到的這些信，」我會說：「當然沒有，而且也休想要有，因為它們又不是要寄給我的，我是藉著我可以打開的袋子，來解釋我不可以打開的袋子。」對這個問題來說，它是一樣的。我被允許打開的唯一袋子就是“人”。當我這樣做的時候，特別是當我打開了這個特殊的人，叫做“我自己”的時候，我發現，我並非自我存在，而是受到一個律的管轄；那某人或某樣東西要我依某種方式來為人處世。當然，我並沒有想到假如我能夠進入一個石頭或一棵樹的裡面，我會發現確切相同的東西，正如我不會去想像，所有其他住在這條街的人會收到跟我相同的信件。我會期望，譬如，發現石頭必須遵守萬有引力——而寄給我那些信的，只告訴我要遵守我的人類本性的律，祂強迫石頭遵守石頭的本性的律。但是我會期望去發現，在這兩個案例裡，有一個寄出那些信的，一個“力量”隱藏在事實的後面，像一個指揮，或一個嚮導。

不要把我給想過頭了。我們現在離開基督教的神學的神還有十萬八千哩。我所有提到的是一個指揮整個宇宙的“某些東西”，在我看來是個律，督促我做對的事情，當我做不對時，它使我感覺到該負的責任和不舒服。我想我們必須臆測，和我們所知道的其他東西相比，它比較像個心思意念——因為究竟我們所知道的其他的東西只是物質，你幾乎不可能像信物質會下指令的。當然它不需要很像一個心思意念，但是還不很像一個人。在下一章，我們就可以看到，我們是否可以發現更多有關於它的東西。只是先提醒你們一下，在近百年來，有許多有關神的奉承阿諛的說法。那不是我要說給你們聽的。你們可以斷了那個念頭。

[註] —— 當時為了要使這段簡短到適合廣播，我只提到了唯物論者和宗教的看法。如果要更完整，我應該提到一個中間的看法，稱為生命力哲學，或創造性的進化論，或突現進化論。有關這個說法，最風趣的解說出自於蕭伯納Bernard Shaw的作品，但是最深奧的是伯格森Bergson的著作。持著這種說法的人認為，在這個行星上面的生命，從最低級的樣式，“進化”到人類，並非偶然的，而是因為一個生命力的“努力”或“立意”。當人們這麼說的時候，我們必須問他們，他們所謂的生命力，是不是有一個心意。假如他們認為是的話，那麼“一個使生命存活，而且帶領它到完全的境地”實際上就是神，所以他們的說法本來就是宗教的。假如他們不是，然後說那東西無心的“努力”或“立意”，到底是什麼意思？依我看來對他們是個致命傷。為什麼很多人認為創造性的進化論是如此的吸引人，是因為它給人很大的信神的舒適感，而沒有半點的不愉快的結果。當你覺得很健康，陽光燦爛，而且你不要相信整個宇宙只是一堆機械式跳躍的原子，能夠想到這個偉大的神秘力量，滾過好幾個世紀的時間，把你帶到它的頂峰，真是多麼的美好。另一方面，假如你要去做某些蠻卑劣的事，這個只是盲目的，沒有道德律，沒有心意的生命力量，將不會像那個我們從小就知道的討厭的神那樣，來干涉你。這生命力是像個柔順的神。你要它時，開關一開它就來，卻不會使你厭煩。你可以享有所有宗教的刺激，卻不須有代價。生命力難道不是這世界上迄今最偉大的如意算盤的成就嗎？

*************************

Let us sum up what we have reached so far. In the case of stones and trees and things of that sort, what we call the Laws of Nature may not be anything except a way of speaking. When you say that nature is governed by certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a certain way. The so-called laws may not be anything real-anything above and beyond the actual facts which we observe. But in the case of Man, we saw that this will not do. The Law of Human Nature, or of Right and Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behavior. In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else-a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey.

I now want to consider what this tells us about the universe we live in. Ever since men were able to think, they have been wondering what this universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very roughly, two views have been held. First, there is what is called the materialist view. People who take that view think that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the planets; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of the matter on this earth came alive; and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into things like us. The other view is the religious view. (See Note at the end of this chapter.) According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know.

That is to say, it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself-I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds. Please do not think that one of these views was held a long time ago and that the other has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have been thinking men both views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science- and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not. Suppose someone asked me, when I see a man in a blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters? I should reply, "Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I find it does contain a letter." And if he then objected, "But you've never seen all these letters which you think the other people are getting," I should say, "Of course not, and I shouldn't expect to, because they're not addressed to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed to open by the ones I am allowed to open." It is the same about this question. The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way. I do not, of course, think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree I should find exactly the same thing, just as I do not think all the other people in the street get the same letters as I do. I should expect, for instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity-that whereas the sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the law of my human nature, He compels the stone to obey the laws of its stony nature. But I should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender of letters in both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.

Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology. All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know-because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions. But, of course, it need not be very like a mind, still less like a person. In the next chapter we shall see if we can find out anything more about it. But one word of warning. There has been a great deal of soft soap talked about God for the last hundred years. That is not what I am offering. You can cut all that out.

Note -In order to keep this section short enough when it was given on the air, I mentioned only the Materialist view and the Religious view. But to be complete I ought to mention the In between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution. The wittiest expositions of it come in the works of Bernard Shaw, but the most profound ones in those of Bergson. People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind "strives" or has "purposes"? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children. The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?

*