It's wonderful to be back. I love this wonderful gathering. And you must be wondering, "What on earth? Have they put up the wrong slide?" No, no. Look at this magnificent beast, and ask the question: Who designed it?
回到講台的感覺真好 很開心和大家聚首 你們一定覺得奇怪,"搞什麼?" 投影片是不是放錯了? 當然不是 看看這隻美麗的動物, 不禁想問,是誰的傑作? 歡迎來到TED
This is TED; this is Technology, Entertainment, Design, and there's a dairy cow. It's a quite wonderfully designed animal. And I was thinking, how do I introduce this? And I thought, well, maybe that old doggerel by Joyce Kilmer, you know: "Poems are made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree." And you might say, "Well, God designed the cow."
TED分別代表科技、娛樂及設計,還有一隻乳牛 乳牛的確是一個相當精彩的設計 我一直煩惱要怎麼介紹牠才好? 後來想到喬伊斯·基爾默那首打油詩 「詩詞歌賦我最行,我乃蠢蛋第一號 花草樹木誰能造?唯有神明最可靠」 你們也許會說"神創造了乳牛"
But, of course, God got a lot of help. This is the ancestor of cattle. This is the aurochs. And it was designed by natural selection, the process of natural selection, over many millions of years. And then it became domesticated, thousands of years ago. And human beings became its stewards, and, without even knowing what they were doing, they gradually redesigned it and redesigned it and redesigned it. And then more recently, they really began to do reverse engineering on this beast and figure out just what the parts were, how they worked and how they might be optimized -- how they might be made better.
不過,神當然還有其他幫手 這是牛的祖先 叫做大羚羊 是「物競天擇」後的產物 歷經數百萬年演化而來 人類於幾千年前馴化了羚羊 負責照顧並飼養羚羊 人類在不知不覺當中 參與了新一代羚羊的不斷演化 近來,人類確實開始採用 類似「逆向工程」的作法 探究羚羊全身各部器官及其運作方式 找出強化其功能的方法
Now, why am I talking about cows? Because I want to say that much the same thing is true of religions. Religions are natural phenomena -- they're just as natural as cows. They have evolved over millennia. They have a biological base, just like the aurochs. They have become domesticated, and human beings have been redesigning their religions for thousands of years. This is TED, and I want to talk about design. Because what I've been doing for the last four years -- really since the first time you saw me -- some of you saw me at TED when I was talking about religion -- and in the last four years, I've been working just about non-stop on this topic. And you might say it's about the reverse engineering of religions. Now that very idea, I think, strikes terror in many people, or anger, or anxiety of one sort or another. And that is the spell that I want to break.
我為什麼提到牛呢? 我要說的是,宗教的演變過程就跟牛一樣 是一種自然現象 宗教跟牛都是自然演變的結果 經過數千年的演進而來 跟大羚羊一樣具有生物性 宗教也被人類馴化,過去幾千年來 人類不斷重新設計他們的宗教 這裡我想把重點放在「設計」 打從四年前我開始進行一項研究 當時有些在座的聽眾在這裡初次見到我 談論宗教這個題目,四年來 我不間斷地努力研究 可稱之為宗教版的「生物逆向工程」 我想這個說法會令許多人感到惶恐 氣憤,或憂慮之類的 這就是我想打破的迷思
I want to say, no, religions are an important natural phenomenon. We should study them with the same intensity that we study all the other important natural phenomena, like global warming, as we heard so eloquently last night from Al Gore. Today's religions are brilliantly designed -- brilliantly designed. They are immensely powerful social institutions and many of their features can be traced back to earlier features that we can really make sense of by reverse engineering. And, as with the cow, there's a mixture of evolutionary design -- designed by natural selection itself -- and intelligent design -- more or less intelligent design -- and redesigned by human beings who are trying to redesign their religions.
我主張,宗教是一種重要的自然現象 我們研究宗教,應該也要充滿熱忱 如同我們研究其它重要自然現象一樣 比如全球暖化,誠如昨晚高爾先生所談到的 現代宗教可謂設計的無懈可擊、非常出色 屬於非常強力的社會制度 它有許多特徵可利用「生物逆向工程」 查明並追溯出它的早期特徵 宗教像牛一樣,是「演化設計」和「智慧設計」的混合物 「演化設計」來自自然淘汰,而「智慧設計」-- 或多或少 是由不斷試著重新設計宗教的人類一手打造
You don't do book talks at TED, but I'm going to have just one slide about my book, because there is one message in it which I think this group really needs to hear. And I would be very interested to get your responses to this. It's the one policy proposal that I make in the book, at this time, when I claim not to know enough about religion to know what other policy proposals to make. And it's one that echoes remarks that you've heard already today.
我們在TED不講書評,但我還是想秀一張 關於我的書的投影片,裡頭有一個重點 我認為在場諸位必須了解 我也很想聽聽大家對此有什麼意見 我在書中提到一個政策建議 以我當時有限的宗教知識 算是我唯一端得出來的建議了 我所要講的這個重點可以呼應你們今晚所聽的內容
Here's my proposal, I'm going to just take a couple of minutes to explain it: Education on world religions for all of our children -- in primary school, in high school, in public schools, in private schools and in home schooling. So what I'm proposing is, just as we require reading, writing, arithmetic, American history, so we should have a curriculum on facts about all the religions of the world -- about their history, about their creeds, about their texts, their music, their symbolisms, their prohibitions, their requirements. And this should be presented factually, straightforwardly, with no particular spin, to all of the children in the country. And as long as you teach them that, you can teach them anything else you like. That, I think, is maximal tolerance for religious freedom. As long as you inform your children about other religions, then you may -- and as early as you like and whatever you like -- teach them whatever creed you want them to learn. But also let them know about other religions.
先說一下我的政策建議 這要花幾分鐘的時間解釋 我國的小學、中學、公私立學校及家庭中 都要教學生認識世界各大宗教 我的建議是 就像讀、寫、算術及本國歷史 課程內容也應該納入 世界宗教知識 介紹各宗教的歷史沿革、教義和經典 以及音樂、符號、禁令、清規…等等 內容必須有事實根據,直言不諱 不帶偏見地介紹給我國學童 只要教會他們這些 你要教什麼別的東西都行 我想,這正是給予宗教自由最大的空間 只要也讓孩子認識其它的宗教信仰 父母就可以在任何時候 教給孩子任何父母想要他們學習的宗教信仰 同時也讓孩子了解其它宗教信仰
Now, why do I say that? Because democracy depends on an informed citizenship. Informed consent is the very bedrock of our understanding of democracy. Misinformed consent is not worth it. It's like a coin flip; it doesn't count, really. Democracy depends on informed consent. This is the way we treat people as responsible adults. Now, children below the age of consent are a special case. Parents -- I'm going to use a word that Pastor Rick just used -- parents are stewards of their children. They don't own them. You can't own your children. You have a responsibility to the world, to the state, to them, to take care of them right. You may teach them whatever creed you think is most important, but I say you have a responsibility to let them be informed about all the other creeds in the world, too.
我為什麼這樣講呢? 因為民主制度取決於一國公民能否充分獲得資訊 知情同意原則 是我們建立民主素養的根本 在不知情的情況下所作的決定並無意義 就像擲硬幣作決定一樣毫無意義可言 民主制度以人民知情同意為基石 視人民為能挑起責任的成年人 不過,未成年的小孩是特例 我想引用華理克牧師的說法-- 父母雖然是子女的監護人 但子女並非父母的財產 你無法擁有你的子女 為人父母者,有義務 履行他們對世界、對國家以及照顧子女的職責 父母可以教導孩子他們認為最重要的宗教信仰 不過,我主張父母也有責任讓孩子認識 世界上其它宗教
The reason I've taken this time is I've been fascinated to hear some of the reactions to this. One reviewer for a Roman Catholic newspaper called it "totalitarian." It strikes me as practically libertarian. Is it totalitarian to require reading, writing and arithmetic? I don't think so. All I'm saying is -- and facts, facts only; no values, just facts -- about all the world's religions. Another reviewer called it "hilarious." Well, I'm really bothered by the fact that anybody would think that was hilarious. It seems to me to be such a plausible, natural extension of the democratic principles we already have that I'm shocked to think anybody would find that just ridiculous. I know many religions are so anxious about preserving the purity of their faith among their children that they are intent on keeping their children ignorant of other faiths. I don't think that's defensible. But I'd really be pleased to get your answers on that -- any reactions to that -- later.
我之所以花這麼多時間談我的觀點, 是因為有些人對此的反應蠻有意思的 有一位天主教報紙的評論家,稱此觀點為「極權主義」 我倒認為這是比較自由主義論派的 要求學生學習讀寫算數是哪門子極權主義? 沒這回事 我只要求老師教真實的知識 不批判,只提供真實的宗教知識 另一位評論家以「可笑至極」來形容這個論點 這個嘛,我實在難以置信 竟有人認為這個論點可笑 對我來說,這個論點似乎很合理 從我們已有的民主原則自然延伸而來 因此我很驚訝,竟然會有人說它可笑 我知道有許多宗教,非常在意 小孩子在宗教信仰上的「單純性」 因此不讓他們知道其他的宗教信仰 我認為這種作法完全站不住腳,不過我很樂意 聽聽各位的意見,葷素不忌,先等我講完再來聊 言歸正傳
But now I'm going to move on. Back to the cow. This picture, which I pulled off the web -- the fellow on the left is really an important part of this picture. That's the steward. Cows couldn't live without human stewards -- they're domesticated. They're a sort of ectosymbiont. They depend on us for their survival. And Pastor Rick was just talking about sheep. I'm going to talk about sheep, too. There's a lot of serendipitous convergence here. How clever it was of sheep to acquire shepherds!
我們再來講這隻牛 這張照片是我從網路下載的 左邊這個人是照片很重要的一部分 他負責照顧牛 少了人類照顧,牛也活不了,因為牠們已被人類馴化 人與牛之間形成一種共生關係 牛仰賴人類而生存 華理克牧師剛剛講到羊 我也要談羊 人與羊之間發展出高度的趨同演化關係 羊竟然聰明到懂得跟牧羊人共同生活!
(Laughter)
看看這些羊得到了什麼
Think of what this got them. They could outsource all their problems: protection from predators, food-finding ...
牠們把所有的難題都「外包」了 譬如,免受掠食者威脅、覓食、保持健康等等
(Laughter)
... health maintenance.
(Laughter)
The only cost in most flocks -- not even this -- a loss of free mating. What a deal! "How clever of sheep!" you might say. Except, of course, it wasn't the sheep's cleverness. We all know sheep are not exactly rocket scientists -- they're not very smart. It wasn't the cleverness of the sheep at all. They were clueless. But it was a very clever move. Whose clever move was it? It was the clever move of natural selection itself.
羊群唯一付出的代價就是無法自由交配 很划算吧! 你或許會說,羊好聰明! 不過,不是羊聰明 誰都曉得羊這種動物呆呆的,談不上聰明 這整件事情完全不是因為羊的智慧 羊對這些事一無所知 不過,羊自願被人馴養的確非常高明 但,聰明的是誰呢? 當然是自然淘汰的過程本身
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA with Jim Watson, once joked about what he called Orgel's Second Rule. Leslie Orgel is a molecular biologist, brilliant guy, and Orgel's Second Rule is: Evolution is cleverer than you are. Now, that is not Intelligent Design -- not from Francis Crick. Evolution is cleverer than you are. If you understand Orgel's Second Rule, then you understand why the Intelligent Design movement is basically a hoax.
與吉姆·華生共同發現DNA雙螺旋結構的法蘭西斯·克里克 曾頑皮地以傑出分子生物學家雷斯利·奥吉爾的名字 為所謂「奥吉爾第二定律」命名 這個定律就是「演化比你還聰明」 克里克指的肯定不是「智慧設計」 演化肯定比你聰明 只要理解奥吉爾第二定律 就會知道「智慧設計」根本是騙局一場
The designs discovered by the process of natural selection are brilliant, unbelievably brilliant. Again and again biologists are fascinated with the brilliance of what's discovered. But the process itself is without purpose, without foresight, without design. When I was here four years ago, I told the story about an ant climbing a blade of grass. And why the ant was doing it was because its brain had been infected with a lancet fluke that was needed to get into the belly of a sheep or a cow in order to reproduce. So it was sort of a spooky story.
「自然淘汰」過程中展現的各種設計 非常了不起,令人難以置信 一次又一次,令生物學家嘆為觀止 不過,「自然淘汰」本身不具任何意圖 也沒有什麼預先的規劃 四年前,我在TED 講過螞蟻爬草的故事 螞蟻為什麼要爬草呢? 這麼說吧,螞蟻的腦子感染了柳葉吸蟲(lancet fluke) 這種蟲必須在羊或牛的體內繁殖,因此讓螞蟻爬上草,給牛羊吃下肚 聽起來有點嚇人
And I think some people may have misunderstood. Lancet flukes aren't smart. I submit that the intelligence of a lancet fluke is down there, somewhere between petunia and carrot. They're not really bright. They don't have to be. The lesson we learn from this is: you don't have to have a mind to be a beneficiary. The design is there in nature, but it's not in anybody's head. It doesn't have to be. That's the way evolution works. Question: Was domestication good for sheep? It was great for their genetic fitness.
不過,請不要誤會了 柳葉吸蟲一點都不聰明 我認為這種蟲的智商 頂多介於牽牛花與紅蘿蔔之間 牠們並不聰明,也用不著聰明 這個故事告訴我們 沒大腦的生物仍然可以得到好處 大自然的確存在某種設計,但並非出自任何人之手 因為沒這個必要 這就是演化 問題是,馴化對羊有益嗎? 應該說,對羊的「遺傳適合度」大有助益
And here I want to remind you of a wonderful point that Paul MacCready made at TED three years ago. Here's what he said: "Ten thousand years ago, at the dawn of agriculture, human population, plus livestock and pets, was approximately a tenth of one percent of the terrestrial vertebrate landmass." That was just 10,000 years ago. Yesterday, in biological terms. What is it today? Does anybody remember what he told us? 98 percent. That is what we have done on this planet.
我想讓各位重溫一個超棒的觀點 是三年前,麥可格雷迪在TED提出來的 他說 一萬年前農業文明剛剛萌芽的時候 全世界人口、家畜以及寵物合計 大約只佔「陸生脊椎動物」總數的0.1%左右 這不過是一萬年前的景況 從生物史看來就像昨天一樣近 現在呢? 有沒有人記得麥克格雷迪是怎麼講的? 他說是98% 地球是這樣的受到了我們的影響
Now, I talked to Paul afterwards -- I wanted to check to find out how he'd calculated this, and get the sources and so forth -- and he also gave me a paper that he had written on this. And there was a passage in it which he did not present here and I think it is so good, I'm going to read it to you: "Over billions of years on a unique sphere, chance has painted a thin covering of life: complex, improbable, wonderful and fragile. Suddenly, we humans -- a recently arrived species no longer subject to the checks and balances inherent in nature -- have grown in population, technology and intelligence to a position of terrible power. We now wield the paintbrush." We heard about the atmosphere as a thin layer of varnish. Life itself is just a thin coat of paint on this planet. And we're the ones that hold the paintbrush. And how can we do that?
我後來訪問了麥克格雷迪 想知道他是如何得出這個數字的 並向他求證資料來源等等 他給我看了他寫的一篇關於這個題目的文章 文章中有一段話,他演講裡沒提到 這段話很有參考價值,我唸給各位聽 「幾十億年前,在某一顆星球上 偶然冒出了小量的生物,覆蓋在地面上 這些生物結構複雜、外型奇特、既美麗又脆弱 忽然間,人類,一個不久前才出現的物種 全然不受自然界的制衡 除了數量激增,還快速發展出具有可怕力量的科技文明 此刻主導權握在我們手中。」 有人將大氣層比喻為一層薄薄的亮光漆 生物則是地球上那一層薄薄的油漆 而今是我們拿著油漆刷(主導權) 這是怎麼來的?
The key to our domination of the planet is culture. And the key to culture is religion. Suppose Martian scientists came to Earth. They would be puzzled by many things. Anybody know what this is? I'll tell you what it is. This is a million people gathering on the banks of the Ganges in 2001, perhaps the largest single gathering of human beings ever, as seen from satellite photograph. Here's a big crowd. Here's another crowd in Mecca. Martians would be amazed by this. They'd want to know how it originated, what it was for and how it perpetuates itself.
人類統治地球的關鍵在文化 而文化的關鍵則是宗教 假設火星上的科學家來到地球 一定會對地球上的許多現象感到迷惑 有沒有人知道這是什麼? 我告訴你們 這是2001年恆河兩岸聚集上百萬人的盛況 可能是有史以來最多人同時齊聚一堂的紀錄 就像各位在衛星照片看到的那樣 簡直人山人海 在聖地麥加也是同樣情形 火星人應該會感到難以置信 他們應該會好奇當初是如何開始的?有什麼目的?如何歷久不衰? 這張我先跳過去
Actually, I'm going to pass over this. The ant isn't alone. There's all sorts of wonderful cases of species which -- in that case -- A parasite gets into a mouse and needs to get into the belly of a cat. And it turns the mouse into Mighty Mouse, makes it fearless, so it runs out in the open, where it'll be eaten by a cat. True story. In other words, we have these hijackers -- you've seen this slide before, from four years ago -- a parasite that infects the brain and induces even suicidal behavior, on behalf of a cause other than one's own genetic fitness.
除了螞蟻之外 還有很多類似的例子 譬如,這隻寄生蟲感染了老鼠 寄生蟲必須進入猫的腹部才能繁殖 於是牠讓老鼠變得像「太空飛鼠」一樣勇往直前 自己送上門給猫吃 我沒蓋你們! 換句話說,生物界也有劫機犯 這張圖片我四年前曾經秀給大家看過 寄生蟲感染了宿主腦部 使宿主作出甚至是自殺的行為 反而不利於宿主的遺傳適合度
Does that ever happen to us? Yes, it does -- quite wonderfully. The Arabic word "Islam" means "submission." It means "surrender of self-interest to the will of Allah." But I'm not just talking about Islam. I'm talking also about Christianity. This is a parchment music page that I found in a Paris bookstall 50 years ago. And on it, it says, in Latin: "Semen est verbum Dei. Sator autem Christus." The word of God is the seed and the sower of the seed is Christ. Same idea. Well, not quite. But in fact, Christians, too ... glory in the fact that they have surrendered to God. I'll give you a few quotes. "The heart of worship is surrender. Surrendered people obey God's words, even if it doesn't make sense." Those words are by Rick Warren. Those are from "The Purpose Driven Life."
人類也會發生這種事嗎? 會!而且相當神奇 「伊斯蘭(Islam)」在阿拉伯語裡是順從的意思 意思是說,教徒要把自身的利益交託給「阿拉」 我指的不只是伊斯蘭教 還有基督教 這張樂譜是我50年前在巴黎某書報攤上找到的 上面用拉丁文寫著: (拉丁文) 「上帝的話是種子,播種之人乃是基督」 與「伊斯蘭」的意思很像,但不完全一樣 事實上,基督徒對「順服上帝」感到光榮 我先引用幾句話給各位參考 「當用敬拜的心降服於神, 神的旨意縱使不合情理,降服之人也會遵從。」 這幾句話都是華理克牧師寫的 引文選自他的《標竿人生》這本書
And I want to turn now, briefly, to talk about that book, which I've read. You've all got a copy, and you've just heard the man. And what I want to do now is say a bit about this book from the design standpoint, because I think it's actually a brilliant book. First of all, the goal -- and you heard just now what the goal is -- it's to bring purpose to the lives of millions, and he has succeeded. Is it a good goal? In itself, I'm sure we all agree, it is a wonderful goal. He's absolutely right. There are lots of people out there who don't have purpose in their life, and bringing purpose to their life is a wonderful goal. I give him an A+ on this.
我讀了這本書,現在我想稍微談一下 各位手上都有這本書 方才也聽過他的演講 我現在打算從設計的角度來談談這本書 因為我覺得這本書寫的很棒 首先,是這本書的宗旨 各位剛剛都聽過了對吧? 本書的宗旨是要為人生建立「標竿」,他也成功做到這點 這算好宗旨嗎? 大家應該都同意,此宗旨本身是好的 華理克牧師講的沒錯 許多人的一生毫無「標竿」可言 為他們的人生建立「標竿」是非常好的寫作宗旨 這一點我給華理克牧師打一百分
(Laughter)
這個宗旨有達成嗎?
Is the goal achieved? Yes. Thirty million copies of this book. Al Gore, eat your heart out.
達成了 這本書賣了三千萬本 高爾(美國前副總統)應該羨慕死了!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Just exactly what Al is trying to do, Rick is doing. This is a fantastic achievement. And the means -- how does he do it?
高爾想做的事,華理克牧師已經在做了 這是了不起的成就 華理克牧師怎麼做到的呢?
It's a brilliant redesign of traditional religious themes -- updating them, quietly dropping obsolete features, putting new interpretations on other features. This is the evolution of religion that's been going on for thousands of years, and he's just the latest brilliant practitioner of it. I don't have to tell you this; you just heard the man. Excellent insights into human psychology, wise advice on every page. Moreover, he invites us to look under the hood. I really appreciated that. For instance, he has an appendix where he explains his choice of translations of different Bible verses. The book is clear, vivid, accessible, beautifully formatted. Just enough repetition. That's really important. Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain. Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain.
他非常聰明地重新設計了傳統宗教命題 以符合現代需求,並將過時的部分悄悄去除 重新詮釋某些概念 這是幾千年來的宗教演化方式 華理克牧師是這場宗教演化過程的最新參與者 這點,各位已經知道了 你們聽過他的演講 他洞察人心,字字珠璣 他請讀者找出他葫蘆裡賣什麼藥 我很欣賞這一點 舉例來說,書裡的附錄解釋了 他如何選擇書中引用的聖經經節譯本 這本書清晰易懂,版面設計十分美觀 重複的地方恰到好處 這點很重要 每唸一次,就更加熟悉 每唸一次,就更加熟悉
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
With me, everybody --
大家跟著我說一遍,每唸一次...
(Audience and Dan Dennett) Every time you read it or say it, you make another copy in your brain.
就更加熟悉 謝謝
Thank you.
接下來我想提出一些疑問
And now we come to my problem. Because I'm absolutely sincere in my appreciation of all that I said about this book. But I wish it were better. I have some problems with the book. And it would just be insincere of me not to address those problems. I wish he could do this with a revision, a Mark 2 version of his book. "The truth will set you free." That's what it says in the Bible, and it's something that I want to live by, too.
由於我對這本書的讚賞 都發自肺腑 因此希望這本書可以更好 我有些疑問 要是不提出來的話,就是不負責任 我希望華理克牧師可以在修訂本當中 處理這些問題 「真理必叫你們得以自由」 這句話出自聖經,也是我的座右銘
My problem is, some of the bits in it I don't think are true. Now some of this is a difference of opinion. And that's not my main complaint, that's worth mentioning. Here's a passage -- it's very much what he said, anyway: "If there was no God we would all be accidents, the result of astronomical random chance in the Universe. You could stop reading this book because life would have no purpose or meaning or significance. There would be no right or wrong and no hope beyond your brief years on Earth." Now, I just do not believe that. By the way, I find -- Homer Groening's film presented a beautiful alternative to that very claim. Yes, there is meaning and a reason for right or wrong. We don't need a belief in God to be good or to have meaning in us. But that, as I said, is just a difference of opinion. That's not what I'm really worried about.
但是我對書中某些觀點不太認同 有些只是意見上的分歧 並非我想討論的重點 我得強調這一點 這兒我以書裡頭的一段話為例 「假如沒有神,我們的出現就只是一種偶然, 是宇宙中隨機出現的產物 果真如此,你大可不必繼續讀下去, 因為人生變得失去目標、沒有意義、也微不足道, 人生沒有對或錯,短暫的生命完結後不再有盼望」 我認為,並非如此 而且我發現霍默·格勒寧的電影 提供了另一種美好的選擇 沒錯,無論對錯,背後都有它的道理 要當好人或過有意義的人生,未必一定要信神 不過,這只是意見上的分歧而已 我擔心的不是這個
How about this: "God designed this planet's environment just so we could live in it." I'm afraid that a lot of people take that sentiment to mean that we don't have to do the sorts of things that Al Gore is trying so hard to get us to do. I am not happy with that sentiment at all. And then I find this: "All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality have their meaning and explanation in this central fact." Well, that's Michael Denton. He's a creationist. And here, I think, "Wait a minute." I read this again. I read it three or four times and I think, "Is he really endorsing Intelligent Design? Is he endorsing creationism here?" And you can't tell. So I'm sort of thinking, "Well, I don't know, I don't know if I want to get upset with this yet."
再聽聽這個:「神將地球設計成適合人類居住的環境。」 我擔心許多人誤解這句話的本意 以為我們可以忽視高爾 鼓吹我們去做的環保行動 這種看法讓我很不滿 還有這個例子:「所有生物學提出的證據 都證明宇宙是設計成一個整體 主要針對生命體與人類而設計出來的 宇宙中一切事物的意義與詮釋, 皆奉這個宗旨為圭臬。」 創造論者邁克爾·登頓所寫的這段話 使我反覆思量 我重讀一遍 反覆讀了三四遍後我自問 他究竟是主張「智慧設計論」 還是主張「創造論」呢? 實在難以分辨 我自己是覺得:我不曉得 還是先別為了這個問題而自尋煩惱吧
But then I read on, and I read this: "First, Noah had never seen rain, because prior to the Flood, God irrigated the earth from the ground up." I wish that sentence weren't in there, because I think it is false. And I think that thinking this way about the history of the planet, after we've just been hearing about the history of the planet over millions of years, discourages people from scientific understanding. Now, Rick Warren uses scientific terms and scientific factoids and information in a very interesting way.
我接著讀到這段話:「首先,諾亞根本沒見過雨水, 因為大洪水以前上帝使水從地裡冒出來灌溉大地。」 我很惋惜他這麼說,因為我認為他說錯了 我認為這句話的思維 就是我們剛剛聽到的 關於地球數百萬年歷史的思維 導致人們無法從科學角度來理解現象 華理克牧師在《標竿人生》中以一種「很有趣」的方式 運用科學術語與各種資料說明他的理念
Here's one: "God deliberately shaped and formed you to serve him in a way that makes your ministry unique. He carefully mixed the DNA cocktail that created you." I think that's false. Now, maybe we want to treat it as metaphorical. Here's another one: "For instance, your brain can store 100 trillion facts. Your mind can handle 15,000 decisions a second." Well, it would be interesting to find the interpretation where I would accept that. There might be some way of treating that as true. "Anthropologists have noted that worship is a universal urge, hardwired by God into the very fiber of our being -- an inbuilt need to connect with God." Well, the sense of which I agree with him, except I think it has an evolutionary explanation.
舉例來講,他說:「神刻意將你塑造成獨一無二的人 使你發揮獨特的才能來服事他 他費心地調配基因組合才造出獨特的你。」 我倒不這麼認為 也許我們可以將之視為一個隱喻 還有這句話:「譬如,人腦可以儲存一百萬億個訊息 我們可以在一秒鐘內做出一萬五千個決定。」 這類陳述還真讓人難以接受 說不定在「某些情況」下也有可能成立吧 還有這句:「人類學家指出,神祇崇拜是人類共同的內在需求, 神將這種本能需求輸入我們的本質, 使我們必須與神相通。」 這一點我同意 不過,用演化論就足以說明了
And what I find deeply troubling in this book is that he seems to be arguing that if you want to be moral, if you want to have meaning in your life, you have to be an Intelligent Designer, you have to deny the theory of evolution by natural selection. And I think, on the contrary, that it is very important to solving the world's problems that we take evolutionary biology seriously. Whose truth are we going to listen to? Well, this is from "The Purpose Driven Life": "The Bible must become the authoritative standard for my life: the compass I rely on for direction, the counsel I listen to for making wise decisions, and the benchmark I use for evaluating everything." Well maybe, OK, but what's going to follow from this?
這本書令我深感不安之處在於 作者似乎認為人若要培養道德 或創造有意義的人生 唯有相信智慧設計論 偋棄自然淘汰的演化論學說 相反地,我認為要解決世上一切難題 首先必須嚴肅看待演化生物學 問題是要相信誰的「真理」? 下面這段話同樣出自《標竿人生》: 「聖經必是我人生的最高準則, 也是引導我人生方向的指南針,我的人生導師 更是我作決定與評斷一切的準繩。」 這樣說也可以,但是這種想法,會導致什麼結果呢? 下一個例子讓我更不安
And here's one that does concern me. Remember I quoted him before with this line: "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense." And that's a problem.
記得我前面引用過他這句話嗎? 「神的旨意縱使不合情理,降服之人也會遵從。」 這的確是有問題的
(Sighs)
還有這一句:「絕不要與魔鬼爭論,
"Don't ever argue with the Devil. He's better at arguing than you are, having had thousands of years to practice." Now, Rick Warren didn't invent this clever move. It's an old move. It's a very clever adaptation of religions. It's a wild card for disarming any reasonable criticism. "You don't like my interpretation? You've got a reasonable objection to it? Don't listen, don't listen! That's the Devil speaking." This discourages the sort of reasoning citizenship it seems to me that we want to have.
他絕對比你厲害,畢竟都練習幾千年了。」 這種策略並不是華理克牧師自己發明的 古時候就有了 是宗教明智的應變之道 是消除各種合理質疑的萬靈丹 「你不喜歡我的解釋? 你有合理的反對理由是嗎? 我都不要聽就好了 這全是魔鬼在說話。」 這種思維就成了各國培養具批判能力的公民 最大的阻礙
I've got one more problem, then I'm through. And I'd really like to get a response if Rick is able to do it. "In the Great Commission, Jesus said, 'Go to all people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to do everything I've told you.'" The Bible says Jesus is the only one who can save the world. We've seen many wonderful maps of the world in the last day or so. Here's one, not as beautiful as the others; it simply shows the religions of the world. Here's one that shows the sort of current breakdown of the different religions.
我還要提出最後一個問題 希望華理克牧師能夠回答 基督教的「大使命」中,耶穌說:「你們要去,使萬民作我的門徒, 奉聖父、聖子、聖靈之名給他們施洗 凡我所吩咐你們的,都教他們遵守。」 聖經上記載唯有耶穌是救世主 這幾天各位看過好幾張世界地圖 都非常精美 但這張沒有其他地圖來的漂亮 它只標示出世界上所有宗教 也標示了目前各種宗教的分類
Do we really want to commit ourselves to engulfing all the other religions, when their holy books are telling them, "Don't listen to the other side, that's just Satan talking!"? It seems to me that that's a very problematic ship to get on for the future. I found this sign as I was driving to Maine recently, in front of a church: "Good without God becomes zero." Sort of cute. A very clever little meme. I don't believe it and I think this idea, popular as it is -- not in this guise, but in general -- is itself one of the main problems that we face.
試問,我們真的要消滅非我族類的宗教信仰 只因為我們奉若神明的經典告訴我們, 「別聽他們的,他們全是邪魔歪道!」 我們如果這麼做 只能說前景堪憂 最近我開車到緬因州時,看到教堂前面的告示牌寫著: 「Good這個字少了God只剩下0」 挺可愛的對吧? 的確是個很聰明的小「迷因(meme)」 我並不接受這種迷因所傳遞的思想,無論它多流行 大體說來,這類思想傳遞是我們面對的大問題之一 各位如果像我一樣認識許多卓越、積極、認真的
If you are like me, you know many wonderful, committed, engaged atheists, agnostics, who are being very good without God. And you also know many religious people who hide behind their sanctity instead of doing good works. So, I wish we could drop this meme. I wish this meme would go extinct.
無神論者或可知論者,就知道他們心中沒有神也能成為好人 各位應該也認識許多教徒,表面虔誠聖潔 卻不做善事 因此,我希望能廢除「單一宗教信仰」的迷因 最好永遠消失
Thanks very much for your attention.
謝謝各位
(Applause)
(掌聲)