C. S. Lewis
1943
Bill
Lin 譯
Book II. What Christians Believe
有關神的對立的看法
有人要我告訴你們，基督徒相信什麼，現在，我要開始告訴你們的一件事，就是基督徒不需要相信的是什麼。
假如你是一個基督徒，你沒必要相信，所有其他的宗教簡直是徹頭徹尾的錯誤。假如你是一個無神論者你就必須相信，在這整個世界上所有的宗教的主要重點，簡直是一個大錯誤。假如你是一個基督徒，你可以自由的去想所有的這些宗教，甚至是最怪的，都包含了至少某些真理的提示。當我還是個無神論者的時候，我必須試著說服自己，大多數的人類，在和他們最息息相關的事情的問題上，經常是弄錯的；當我變成一個基督徒以後，我可以有個比較寬鬆的看法。當然，所謂是個基督徒，就是在思考基督教的信仰和其他的宗教有哪些不一樣，基督教是對的，他們是錯的。正如在算術裡——對於總和，只有一個對的答案，而且所有其他的答案都是錯的：但是有些不對的答案比起其他的更接近正確答案。
人類的第一個大區分，多數人相信有某種的神或好些神，少數人不相信有神。在這一點上，基督徒和多數人站在一邊——和古代的希臘、羅馬人，現代的化外人、斯多葛學派的、柏拉圖學派的、印度教的、回教的，等等同一邊，和現代的西方歐洲的唯物論者對立。
現在我要繼續往下做另一個大區分。所有信神的人當中，可以根據他們所信的神的類別再加以區分。在這個主題上有兩個很不同的看法。
第一種的神是超越善惡的。我們人類稱一樣事情好，另一樣事情壞。但是某些人認為那只是我們人類的觀點。這些人會說，你越有智慧，越不會去斷言好壞，而且會更進一步的看到，所有的東西都有好的一面，壞的另一面，什麼都一樣。結果，這些人認為，在距離你能靠近神的觀點還很遠以前，所有的差距都會消失了。他們會說，我們說癌症是不好的，因為癌症殺了一個病人；但是你也可能說一個成功的外科醫生不好，因為他殺死了一個癌症。這完全取決於觀點。
另一個相反的概念就是，神是很明確的“美善”或“公義”選邊站的一位神，祂喜悅愛，憎惡仇恨，祂要我們這樣做人而不該有那樣的行為。
這些看法中的第一種——認為神是超越善惡的——被稱為泛神論。普魯士(德國) 的大哲學家黑格爾，和印度教
(以目前我的了解) 持有這個看法。持有另一種看法的是猶太教，回教和基督教。
在泛神論和基督徒之間的對神的看法，除了這個巨大差異，通常還有其他的不同。可以這麼說，泛神論者通常相信，神賦予宇宙生命，就像你賦予你的身軀生命：宇宙幾乎就是神，所以假若宇宙不存在，祂也不會存在，你在宇宙間找到的任何東西，都是神的一部分。基督徒的觀念就很不一樣。他們認為，神創造了宇宙——就像人畫了一張圖片或譜了一首曲子。一個畫家不等於一張圖，假如他的畫被毀了，他不會就死了。你或許會說：「他把大半的自己都擺進去了，」不過你只是意味著，這幅畫的美和有趣是來自於他的腦子。他的技巧呈現在畫裡，和在他的腦子裡，甚至在他的手裡，是不一樣的。
我期望你會看到這一點，還有把另一點掛在一起，可見在泛神論者和基督徒之間是如何的不同。假如你對善惡的區別沒有很認真的看待，你可以很容易的說，這世上你所知道的任何東西，都是神的一部分。當然，假如你認為某些東西實在很壞，而神實在很好，那你就不能那樣子說了。你必須相信，神和這世界是分開的，我們所看到的某些東西是和祂的旨意相違背的。當面對著癌症或一個貧民窟的時候，泛神論者會說：「假如你能夠只從神的觀點來看，你會明白，這也是神。」基督徒會回答：「不要講該死的*廢話。」
[*註] 一位聽眾抱怨“該死的”字眼是輕浮的咒罵。不過我是言必由衷的——該死的廢話是屬於神的咒詛，將會 (與神的恩典隔離)導致那些相信它的人到永死。
因為基督教是一個爭戰的宗教。它認為神造世界——空間和時間，熱和冷，所有的顏色和味覺，和所有的動物和植物，都是神“從祂的頭裡造出來”的東西，正如一個人編了一段故事。但是它又認為，這世上的很多東西都已經變得不是當初神所造的和神所堅持的那樣，而且是大聲的堅持，要我們把它們再矯正回來。
當然那就讓人起了一個很大的疑問。假如一個美好的神造了世界，為什麼會讓它走錯路呢？許多年來，我就是拒絕去聽基督徒對這個問題的回答，因為我總是覺得：「無論你怎麼說，也不管你的論點有多聰明，為什麼不直接了當的說，這世界不是被任一個有智慧能力的所造成的嗎？你所有的論點只不過是以一個複雜的企圖來避開明顯的事實嗎？」但是，那只不過是把我帶回到另一個難題。
我的反對神的論點是，宇宙看來是如此的殘酷和不公義。但是我怎麼會有公義和不公義的念頭呢？一個人不會說一條線歪斜，除非他已經有什麼是直線的觀念。當我說這個宇宙是不公義的，我是拿什麼來和它相比呢？照這麼說，假如整齣戲從頭到尾是不好又無意識的，我又是這齣戲的一部分，我為什麼會發現自己有這麼激烈的反應去反對它呢？一個人掉到水裡會感到濕，因為人不是水裡的動物：一條魚是不會覺得濕的。
當然我可以放棄我的公正的觀念，藉口那沒什麼，只不過是我個人的一個私下的看法。假如我那樣做，那我的反對神的論點也跟著崩潰了——因為那個論點是根據這個世界是實在的不公義的說法，不只是說它沒發生，來滿足我的私人的幻想。所以嘗試要證明神不存在的行動裡——換句話說，整個的現實是無意識的——我發現我被逼得承擔一部分的現實——也就是我的公正的觀念——是滿有意識的。
結果，無神論證明是太單純了。假如整個宇宙沒有任何意義，我們應該永遠不會知道它沒有意義：正如，假如在宇宙裡沒有光，所以沒有一個生物有眼睛，我們應該永遠不會知道它是黑暗的。黑暗就沒有意義。
********************************************************
I have been
asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling
you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian
you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all
through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in
all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a
Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest
ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try
to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the
question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to
take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking
that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and
they are wrong. As in arithmetic-there is only one right answer to a sum, and
all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer
being right than others.
The first
big division of humanity is into the majority, who believe in some kind of God
or gods, and the minority who do not. On this point, Christianity lines up with
the majority-lines up with ancient Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics,
Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans, etc., against the modern Western European
materialist.
Now I go on
to the next big division. People who all believe in God can be divided
according to the sort of God they believe in. There are two very different
ideas on this subject. One of them is the idea that He is beyond good and evil. We humans call
one thing good and another thing bad. But according to some people that is
merely our human point of view. These people would say that the wiser you
become the less you would want to call anything good or bad, and the more
dearly you would see that everything is good in one way and bad in another, and
that nothing could have been different. Consequently, these people think that
long before you got anywhere near the divine point of view the distinction
would have disappeared altogether. We call a cancer bad, they would say,
because it kills a man; but you might just as well call a successful surgeon
bad because he kills a cancer. It all depends on the point of view. The other
and opposite idea is that God is quite definitely "good" or
"righteous" a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates hatred, who wants us to
behave in one way and not in another. The first of these views-the one that
thinks God beyond good and evil-is called Pantheism. It was held by the great
Prussian philosopher Hagel and, as far as I can understand them, by the Hindus.
The other view is held by Jews, Mohammedans and Christians.
And with
this big difference between Pantheism and the Christian idea of God, there
usually goes another. Pantheists usually believe that God, so to speak,
animates the universe as you animate your body: that the universe almost is
God, so that if it did not exist He would not exist either, and anything you
find in the universe is a part of God. The Christian idea is quite different.
They think God invented and made the universe-like a man making a picture or
composing a tune. A painter is not a picture, and he does not die if his
picture is destroyed. You may say, "He's put a lot of himself into it,"
but you only mean that all its beauty and interest has come out of his head.
His skill is not in the picture in the same way that it is in his head, or even
in his hands. I expect you see how this difference between Pantheists and Christians
hangs together with the other one. If you do not take the distinction between
good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in
this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really
bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that
God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are
contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say,
"If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realize
that this also is God." The Christian replies, "Don't talk damned
nonsense." (*)
[*] One listener complained of the word damned as
frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say-nonsense that is damned is
under God's curse, and will (apart from God's grace) lead those who believe it
to eternal death.
For
Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world-that space
and time, heat and cold, and all the colors and tastes, and all the animals and
vegetables, are things that God "made up out of His head" as a man
makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong
with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on
our putting them right again.
And, of
course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made the world why has
it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian
answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and
however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that
the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments
simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me
back into another difficulty.
My argument
against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got
this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has
some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I
called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to
speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such
violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because
man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet.
Of course I
could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private
idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too-for
the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply
that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of
trying to prove that God did not exist-in other words, that the whole of
reality was senseless-I found I was forced to assume that one part of
reality-namely my idea of justice-was full of sense.
Consequently
atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we
should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no
light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never
know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment