C. S. Lewis
1943
Bill
Lin 譯
Book I.
Right and Wrong As A Clue to The Meaning of The Universe
我們的不自在是有原因的
上一章我們結束於這個構想：在道德律裡，有某些超越物質宇宙的東西，實際上在跟我們指指點點。當我談到了那一點，我心想，你們裡面有人會感到有些過敏。你們可能會想到，我耍弄了你們——經過我仔細的包裝過，看來像是哲學的東西，原來更像是“宗教的嘮叨”。你們可能會覺得，只要你們想到我能告訴你們一些新的東西，你們會聽下去；但是如果原來只是宗教的，就是如此，這世界已經嘗試過那樣，時間無法倒流。假如有人是那樣子想，我要告訴他三件事。
首先，談到時光倒流。假如我說你可以把時鐘撥回去，你一定想，我是在開玩笑，不過假設時鐘是錯的，這不是很明智的做法嗎？但是我寧願跳開整個時鐘的話題。
我們都要進步。我們都想進步。所謂的進步，就是越來越靠近你的目的地。假如你已經拐錯了彎，繼續往前走只會使你越走離得越遠。假如你已經誤入歧途，轉個對的方向，走回正路，才叫做進步；在那個情況下，最早回轉的人，是最有進步的。我們做算術時都碰過這種情況：當我一加錯了，我越早發現錯誤，重算，我越早得到答案。像個豬頭三不願認錯，是不會有進步的。我想，假使你們看看這個世界的現況，很明顯的，人類已經犯了大的錯誤，我們已經誤入歧途了。果真如此的話，我們就必須走回去，往回走才是捷徑。
第二，這還沒轉變到一個“宗教的嘮叨”的地步。我們還沒碰觸到任一個宗教的神，還夠不到那特殊的基督教的神。我們只是說：在道德律的背後有某些東西。我們並沒有從聖經或教會拿出任何東西，我們只是嘗試用我們自己的動力來找出這個東西。我要很清楚的指出，用我們的動力所找出來的東西，對我們已經是一個震驚。
我有兩點有關這個東西的證據。一個是祂所創造的宇宙。假使我們只用那宇宙當成唯一的線索，我想我們應該推論出：祂是一個偉大的藝術家(因為宇宙是一個非常美麗的地方)，但祂是無情，不是人類的朋友(因為宇宙是一個很危險驚人的地方)。
另一點證據是祂擺進我們的心裏的道德律。這是比另一個好一點的證據，因為這是得自於內在的信息。你們從道德律，可以比從大致上的宇宙更認識神，正如你們從聆聽一個人的對話裡，可以比看著他所所蓋的屋子，更認識他。
現在，從這第二點的證據，我們判斷這隱藏於宇宙後面的神Being，是很看重對的行為——公平競爭、不自私、勇敢、信實、誠實和真實。在那種感覺下，我們應該同意基督教和其他的宗教的認定，神是“良善的”。
但是別走太快了。在放縱的、或柔軟的、或有同情心的意識上，道德律並沒有任何立基讓我們去聯想到神是“良善的”。在道德律裡面，沒有一絲的放縱。它是斬釘截鐵的。它告訴你們去做正直的事，看來是絕不顧慮到去做這事有多痛苦、或危險、或困難。假若神就像這道德律，那祂是不柔軟的。在這個階段，去說你所謂的一個“良善的”的神是一個會原諒的神，是沒什麼用的。你是走得太快了。
只有一個“個人”能原諒人。我們也還沒提到一個像“個人”的神——只提到在道德律後面的力量，比起其他任何東西更像一個心意。但是它有可能還很不像一個“個人”。
假如它是純粹的非個人的心意，去要求它給你一些空間或是下臺階，是個沒有時間感的行為，正如你算錯了答案，卻要求99乘法表放過你，一樣的沒有意義。你注定是要得到錯誤的答案的。
所以你或是說，假使有這樣的一位神——一位絕對好的沒有個人性的神——那你就不喜歡祂，跟祂沒有來往，是沒有用的。因為麻煩的是，因為你裡面的一部分是跟祂站在同一邊的，真心同意祂對人的貪婪、詭詐和剝削的非難。你或許只能要求祂在你的情形下給個例外，在這次饒了你；但是你打從內心知道，除非這個在世界的後面的力量是真正的而且毫無更改的恨惡那種行為，祂不可能是良善的。從另一方面來看，我們知道，假如真存在一個絕對的良善，它一定恨惡我們大部分的所形所為。那是我們現在很糟糕的處境。
假如宇宙不是被一個絕對的良善所管轄，那我們所有的努力，在長時間內是無望的。假若它是的話，我們每天是在與那良善的為敵，而且至少明天也不會好到哪裡去，所以我們的情況又是無望的。我們不能沒有它，有它又不能如我們的願。神是唯一的慰藉，祂也是至高的恐怖：是我們最需要又避之唯恐不及的東西。祂是我們唯一可能的盟友，我們卻把自己變成祂的敵人。
有人說：如果能面對面碰見絕對的良善是好玩的事。他們需要三思。他們還只是在玩宗教的把戲。良善可以是最大的安全，也可以是最大的危險——端視你的反應而定。只是我們已經在做錯誤的回應了。
第三點。當我選擇這樣繞一大圈才來到我的主題，我並不是想玩弄你們。我是有個不同的道理。我的理由是，若不是你們已經面對了我所描述的這些事實，基督教對你們是沒有意義的。基督教告訴人們要悔改，也應許他們寬恕。所以它對於那些，不知道他們到底做了什麼事需要悔改，沒有感到需要任何寬恕的人，是沒有什麼(依我目前看來)好說的。
當你已經認知有個真正的道德律的存在，和一個在這法則幕後的“實力”，而且你已經違犯了那個法則，把你自己擺到和那“實力”相對的錯的一邊以後——所有的這些以後，一分也早不了，你才開始聽得進基督教的說詞。
當你知道你病了，你才會聽醫生的話。當你已經認知我們的處境危急，你才會開始了解基督教是在說什麼。他們給你解釋，我們如何會陷入又恨又愛這個良善的地步。他們給你解釋，神如何在道德律的背後是個非個人的心意，但又是一個“個人”。他們告訴你，這個道德律是如何的要求，是你我無法達到的；這要求現在已經為了我們的緣故被達成了，神是如何的將自己變成一個人來拯救人類，使他們免於神的非難。
它是一個古老的故事，假如你想知道它，你會毫無疑問的去請教比我更有權威來說它的人。所有我正在呼籲的，是要人們面對事實——去了解那些基督教宣稱要回答的問題。它們是很嚇人的事實。我希望能說得更容易被接受。但是我必須實話實說。
長時間看來，我十分同意基督徒的宗教是有說不出的平安喜樂。但是它的起頭不是平安喜樂；它的起頭是我所形容的沮喪，而且想不先經過那個沮喪而直接得到平安喜樂是無濟於事的。在宗教裡，如同在戰爭中，和其他的每一件事一樣，平安喜樂不是你去盼望就能得到的。假如你盼望真理，你可能在最後得到平安喜樂；假如你盼望平安喜樂，你將不但得不到平安喜樂，而且也得不到真理——在開始只有泡沫和如意算盤，結局便是絕望。我們多數人都看穿了戰前(二次大戰) 全球政治的意算盤。在宗教上，也是該做同樣的事的時候了。
********************************************************
I ended my
last chapter with the idea that in the Moral Law somebody or something from
beyond the material universe was actually getting at us. And I expect when I reached
that point some of you felt a certain annoyance. You may even have thought that
I had played a trick on you-that I had been carefully wrapping up to look like
philosophy what turns out to be one more "religious jaw." You may
have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I had anything
new to say; but if it turns out to be only religion, well, the world has tried
that and you cannot put the clock back. If anyone is feeling that way I should
like to say three things to him.
First, as
to putting the clock back. Would you think I was joking if I said that you can
put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible
thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks. We all
want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to
be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you
any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn
and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back
soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen this when doing
arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this
and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing
progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think
if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity
has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so,
we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.
Then,
secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a "religious jaw." We
have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God
of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a
Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law. We are not taking anything from the
Bible or the Churches, we are trying to see what we can find out about this
Somebody on our own steam. And I want to make it quite clear that what we find out
on our own steam is something that gives us a shock. We have two bits of
evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that
as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great
artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite
merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and
terrifying place). The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put
into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it
is inside information. You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from
the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to
his conversation than by looking at a house he has built. Now, from this second
bit of evidence we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely
interested in right conduct-in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith,
honesty and truthfulness. In that sense we should agree with the account given
by Christianity and some other religions, that God is "good." But do
not let us go too fast here. The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for
thinking that God is "good" in the sense of being indulgent, or soft,
or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is as hard
as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care
how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If God is like the Moral
Law, then He is not soft. It is no use, at this stage, saying that what you
mean by a "good" God is a God who can forgive. You are going too
quickly. Only a Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a
personal God-only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind
than it is like anything else. But it may still be very unlike a Person. If it
is pure impersonal mind, there may be no tense in asking it to make allowances
for you or let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the multiplication
table to let you off when you do your sums wrong. You are bound to get the
wrong answer. And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that
sort-an impersonal absolute goodness-then you do not like Him and are not going
to bother about Him. For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and
really agrees with His disapproval of human greed and trickery and
exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let
you off this one time; but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the
world really and unalterably detests that sort of behavior, then He cannot be
good. On the other hand, we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness
it must hate most of what we do. That is the terrible fix we are in. If the
universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in
the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to
that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better
tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. We cannot do without it. and we
cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the
thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only
possible-ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if
meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again.
They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety
or the great danger-according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted
the wrong way.
Now my
third point. When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I
was not trying to play any kind of trick on you. I had a different reason. My
reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced
the sort of facts I have been describing. Christianity tells people to repent
and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to
say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do
not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realized that
there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken
that law and put yourself wrong with that Power-it is after all this, and not a
moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick,
you will listen to the doctor. When you have realized that our position is
nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking
about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both
hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this
impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell
you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on
our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of
God. It is an old story and if you want to go into it you will no doubt consult
people who have more authority to talk about it than I have. All I am doing is
to ask people to face the facts-to understand the questions which Christianity
claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to
say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think true. Of course, I
quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of
unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay
I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort
without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything
else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look
for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not
get either comfort or truth-only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with
and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the prewar wishful thinking
about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment