作者：C. S. Lewis
譯者：DeepSeek & Bill Lin
「不信基督教就不能過好生活嗎？」這就是他們給我的題目。只是在回答之前，我必須先說幾句。
這個問題聽起來像是提問者在對自己說：「我不在乎基督教是否真實。我也不關心真實的宇宙究竟更符合基督徒說的還是唯物論者說的。我只關心如何過上好生活。我選擇信仰不是因為它真不真，而在於它有用。」
坦白說，我很難體諒這種心態。人類有別於其他動物的一點在於：人想要知道事物，想要找出現實究竟是什麼樣的──只是為了求知本身。當求知慾在一個人身上完全熄滅時，我認為他已經變得不那麼像人了。
事實上，我不認為你們當中有人真正失去了那種渴望。更有可能的是，那些愚蠢的傳道人總是告訴你們基督教將如何幫助你們，對社會有多好，這反而讓你們忘記了基督教並不是一種特效藥。
基督教聲稱要陳述事實——告訴你真實的宇宙是什麼樣子。它對宇宙的描述可能是真的，也可能不是。一旦這個問題真正擺在你面前，你天生的好奇心必定會驅使你去找答案。
如果基督教是不真實的，不管它多有用，任一誠實的人都不會想要相信它；如果它是真的，那麼每個誠實的人都會願意相信它，即使它根本無法給他帶來任何助益。我們一認識到這一點，也就認識了另一點。如果基督教碰巧是真實的，那麼，知曉這真理的人和不知曉的人，在過好生活的裝備上，絕不可能相同。
對事實的認識必然會對人的行為產生影響。假設你知道一個人快餓死，你想去做對的事。如果你沒有醫學知識，你很可能給他一頓豐盛的正式大餐；以至於這個人被撐死。這就是在黑暗中行事的結果。
同樣地，一個基督徒和一個非基督徒可能都希望對自己的同胞行善。前者相信人類將永遠活下去，上帝對人類的創造，使得他們只有與上帝聯合才能找到真正而持久的幸福；他們已嚴重偏離軌道，只有藉著對基督的順服信仰才是回歸之路。
後者相信人類是物質盲目運轉的偶然產物，他們始於純粹的動物，加上或多或少的穩定進化；他們大約能活七十年，他們的幸福完全可以透過良好的社會服務和政治組織來實現；其他一切（例如，活體解剖、生育控制、司法系統、教育）之被稱為"好"或"壞"，僅僅取決於它是幫助還是阻礙了那種“幸福"。
這兩人為同胞做事時，確實有許多方面能達成一致。兩者都會贊成建造高效的排污水系統、醫院和健康的飲食。但遲早，他們信念的差異會導致具體建議的分歧。例如，兩者可能都非常熱衷於教育：但他們希望人們接受的教育類型顯然會大不相同。再者，面對一個擬議的行動，唯物論者可能只會問：「這會增加大多數人的幸福嗎？」而基督徒可能不得不說：「即使這會增加大多數人的幸福，我們也不能這麼做。這是不公正的。」
並且，一個巨大的差異將貫穿他們所有的政策。對唯物論者而言，像國家、階級、文明這類東西，必然比個體更重要，因為每個個體只活大約七十多年，而群體可能延續數百年。但對基督徒來說，個體更為重要，因為他們永遠活著；而種族、文明之類的東西，相較之下不過是朝生暮死的生物。
基督徒和唯物論者對宇宙有不同的信念。他們不可能都對。那個錯了的人，行事方式還是與真實的宇宙格格不入。結果是，即便懷著世界上最好的意願，他是在幫助他的同胞走向毀滅。
懷著世界上最好的意願……那就不是他的錯了。當然，上帝（如果有上帝的話）不會因為一個人誠實的錯誤而懲罰他吧？但你思考的僅限於此嗎？我們願不願意冒這樣的風險：終其一生在黑暗中摸索，造成無窮的傷害，只要有人向我們保證我們不會被波及，不會有人懲罰或指責我們？我不相信讀者您會這樣想。但即便您是這樣，我還是有些話要對您說。
我們面對的問題，並非"沒有基督教，人能否過上好生活？"問題在於："我能否？"我們都知道，歷史上有些好人並非基督徒：比如從未聽說過基督教的蘇格拉底和孔子，或者像 J.S. 穆勒那樣確實無法真誠相信它的人。假設基督教是真實的，那麼這些人是處於一種誠實的無知或誠實的錯誤狀態。如果他們的意圖如我所想的那樣良善（因為我當然無法窺視他們隱密的內心），我希望並相信，上帝的智慧和憐憫會彌補他們的無知（若任其自然發展）本會給他們自己及其影響者帶來的惡果。
但是，那個問我：「"不信基督教就不能過好生活嗎？」的人，顯然不屬於同一情況。如果他從未聽過基督教，他就不會提出這個問題。如果他聽說過，並且認真考慮過後認定它是假的，那麼他同樣也不會提出這個問題。提出這個問題的人，是聽說過基督教，並且遠遠不能肯定它可能是假的。他其實是在問：「我非得費心去考慮這事嗎？難道我就不能迴避這個問題，不去招惹是非，只管繼續做個'好人'嗎？難道只要有良好的意圖，就足以讓我安全無虞、無可指責，而不必去敲那扇可怕的門，確認裡面到底有沒有人嗎？」
對於這樣的人，也許只需這樣回應就足夠了：他實際上是在要求，在還沒有盡力去弄明白"好"究竟意味著什麼之前，被允許繼續做個"好人"。但這還不是事情的全貌。我們無需探究上帝是否會因他的懦弱和懶惰而懲罰他；那些事本身就會懲罰他。
這個人正在逃避。他故意試圖不去弄清楚基督教是真是假，因為他預見到，如果它結果是真的，那將會帶來無盡的麻煩。他就像一個故意"忘記"去看佈告欄的人，因為如果看了，可能會發現自己的名字被列在某項不愉快的任務下面。他像個不敢看銀行帳單的人，因為害怕看到裡面的數字。他也像一個初次感到莫名疼痛卻不願去看醫生的人，因為害怕醫生可能會告訴他真話。
出於這種原因而堅持不信的人，並非無辜的。他處於一種不誠實的錯誤狀態，而這種不誠實將會滲透到他所有的思想和行動中：其結果將是某種程度的閃避、內心深處隱隱的不安，以及他整個思維敏銳度的遲鈍。他失去了心靈上的純真（ intellectual virginity）。誠實地拒絕基督，無論多麼錯誤，都會被寬恕和療癒——"凡說話干犯人子的，還可得赦免。"(马太福音12:32)
但是逃避人子，看向別處，假裝你沒注意到，突然全神貫注於街對面的事情；把電話聽筒擱下，因為可能正是祂打來的電話；不拆開某些字跡奇怪的信件，因為它們可能是祂寫的——這可就不一樣了。你或許還不能確定自己是否該成為基督徒；但你肯定知道自己應該做個人，而不是一隻把頭埋進沙子裡的鴕鳥。
但是——由於在我們這個時代，知識分子的榮譽感已經不值錢——我仍然聽見有人哽咽著繼續提問：「這會幫助我嗎？會讓我快樂嗎？你真的覺得我成為基督徒會變得更好嗎？」好吧，如果你非要知道不可，我的答案是：「是的。」不過，我實在不喜歡這時給出任何答案。
這裡有一扇門，據說門後藏著宇宙的秘密。要嘛是真的，要嘛不是。如果不是真的，那麼門後實際隱藏的不過是有史以來最大的騙局、最龐大的"兜售"。難道每個人（這裡指的是真正的人，而不是兔子）的職責不就是去探尋真相，然後傾盡全力去守護這個驚天秘密，或者揭露並摧毀這個彌天大謊嗎？面對這樣的問題，你還能完全沉浸在自己那可憐的「道德修養」中嗎？
好吧，基督教確實會對你有益——比你想要或期待的益處多得多。而它帶給你的第一個好處，就是讓你明白（這滋味你可不會喜歡）：你以前所謂的"好"——那些關於"過體面生活"、"與人為善"之類的東西——並非你所想的那樣了不起和至關重要。它會教導你，事實上，憑你自己的道德努力，你根本無法做到"好"（連二十四小時都做不到）。然後它會教導你，即使你做到了，你仍然沒有達到你被造的目的。僅僅有道德，並非生命的終點。你被造是為了完全不同的目的。 J. S. 穆勒和孔子（蘇格拉底則更接近真相）根本不明白生命是怎麼回事。
那些不斷追問沒有基督能否過體面生活的人，不明白生命是怎麼回事；如果他們明白，就會知道，與我們人類真正被造的目的相比，"體面的生活"不過是機械的運作。道德固然不可或缺，但那賜給我們、呼召我們成為神的眾子的神聖生命，為我們預備的，是某種將道德吞沒的東西。我們將被重塑。我們裡面所有屬於兔子的成分都會消失──不只是懦弱、感性的兔子，還有那焦慮、謹小慎微、講求道德的兔子。當一把把兔毛被扯下時，我們會流血、會尖叫；然後，令人驚奇的是，我們會在那一切之下發現一個從未想像過的東西：一個真正的人，一個永不衰老的神之子（a son of God），強壯、光輝、智慧、美麗，並且浸透在喜樂之中。
"等那完全的來到，這有限的必歸於無有。"(哥林多前书13:10) 那種沒有基督也能達成"好生活"的想法，基於一個雙重錯誤。第一，我們做不到；第二，把"好生活"設定為最終目標，我們恰恰錯失了自身存在的意義。
道德是我們無法憑己力攀登的高山；即使我們能登上頂峰，也只會凍斃於峰頂的冰雪與稀薄空氣中，因為我們缺少完成剩餘旅程所必需的雙翼。因為真正的攀登正是從那裡開始。繩索和冰鎬都"沒用了"，接下來的正是展翅高飛。
“Can't you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, "I don't care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I'm not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more like what the Christians say than what the materialists say. All I'm interested in is leading a good life. I'm going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful." Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathize with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.
As soon as we have realized this, we realize something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don't should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one's actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. The one believes that men are going to live forever, that they were created by God and so built that they can find their true and lasting happiness only by being united to God, that they have gone badly off the rails, and that obedient faith in Christ is the only way back. The other believes that men are an accidental result of the blind workings of matter, that they started as mere animals and have more or less steadily improved, that they are going to live for about seventy years, that their happiness is fully attainable by good social services and political organizations, and that everything else (e.g., vivisection, birth control, the judicial system, education) is to be judged to be "good" or "bad" simply insofar as it helps or hinders that kind of "happiness."
Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. Again, where the materialist would simply ask about a proposed action, "Will it increase the happiness of the majority?" the Christian might have to say, "Even if it does increase the happiness of the majority, we can't do it. It is unjust." And all the time, one great difference would run through their whole policy. To the materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy-odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.
The Christian and the materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can't both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction.
With the best will in the world... then it won't be his fault. Surely God (if there is a God) will not punish a man for honest mistakes? But was that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us? I will not believe that the reader is quite on that level. But even if he were, there is something to be said to him.
The question before each of us is not, "Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?" The question is, "Can I?" We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J.S. Mill who quite honestly couldn't believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest err6r. If their intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can't read their secret hearts), I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, "Can't I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, "Need I bother about it? Mayn't I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being 'good'? Aren't good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?"
To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being "good" before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately "forgets" to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won't look at his bank account because he's afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won't go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor may tell him.
The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him." But to evade the Son of man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.
But still—for intellectual honor has sunk very low in our age—I hear someone whimpering on with his question, "Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I'd be better if I became a Christian?" Well, if you must have it, my answer is "Yes." But I don't like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal "sell" on record. Isn't it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed "moral development"?
All right, Christianity will do you good—a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won't enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called "good"-all that about "leading a decent life" and "being kind"—isn't quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. It will teach you that in fact you can't be "good" (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn't have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different from that. J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn't know what life is about. The people who keep on asking if they can't lead a decent life without Christ, don't know what life is about; if they did they would know that "a decent life" is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be remade. All the rabbit in us is to disappear—the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.
"When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The idea of reaching "a good life" without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up "a good life" as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are "done away" and the rest is a matter of flying.
