彼得·哈里森 著
張蔔天 譯
選自《科學與宗教的領地》
通常認為, 自然神學為整個歷史中的自然科學和神學提供了主要銜接點。 於是, 這裡我們不妨追問一下, 我們一直在討論的處理自然界的進路與自然神學有何關係。 我們在本章開篇提到了湯瑪斯·內格爾的看法, 他認為當代的一些分析哲學家主要是從他們目前關注的東西來理解傳統哲學, 因此常常誤解傳統哲學的追求。 還有一種相關的誤解涉及中世紀對自然界神學意義的理解。 21世紀的讀者往往會把自然研究中任何帶有神學動機的興趣都歸於自然神學範疇,
分析宗教哲學家威廉·奧爾斯頓(William Alston)給出了這種被廣泛接受的自然神學定義:“自然神學是指這樣一種事業, 它從既非宗教信念亦不預設宗教信念的前提出發, 為宗教信念(religious belief)提供支援。 ”[1]警覺的讀者無疑會想起“宗教信念”這個片語中每一個術語都是成問題的, 還會意識到, 時代誤置地使用這些術語有潛在的危險。 同樣值得注意的是, “自然神學”這一表達從一開始就幾乎完全不見於教父時代和中世紀的文獻。 [2]最早的英文書籍也有類似的情況, 【72】直到17世紀中葉以後, 對它的使用才逐步增多。 中世紀之所以很少提及“自然神學”,
當然, 相關活動可以在沒有現代標籤的情況下進行, 但出於我希望現在已經明瞭的理由, 我們應該抵制住誘惑,
我們在湯瑪斯·阿奎那那裡也許可以看到當代自然神學版本更有前途的候選者。 但即使在這裡, 事情也並非那麼簡單。
《反異教大全》通常被視為阿奎那發展出一種自然神學的主要著作,當我們考慮阿奎那說他在這本書中所做的事情時,我們再次發現,他實際上並非在從事一種從無需宗教信念的前提開始的理智活動,而是在關注那些不相信特定的基督教啟示真理的同時代人所能接受的前提。這是完全不同的事情。因此,作為阿奎那出發點的共同的“理性”基礎已經是有神論的。基督教、伊斯蘭教和希臘哲學被認為指向了同一個目標——正如阿奎那所說:【74】“幾乎所有哲學都指向對神的認識。”[11]《反異教大全》的護教目的是讓讀者確信,基督教第一次以與眾不同的方式成功實現了這些(宗教)目標。因此之故,阿奎那在這部著作的開篇先討論“哲學家的職責”和對智慧的追求,因為他試圖表明,古希臘人和阿拉伯人所理解的哲學探索只有在基督教中才有實際可行的成功前景。因此,當阿奎那談到“理性探究所能達到的神聖真理”時,這並不等同於奧爾斯頓所說的“既非宗教信念亦不預設宗教信念的前提”。[12]阿奎那的出發點預設了一種有神論、相信某種靈魂、相信一種目的論人類觀(認為存在著某些既定的“目的”)和一種哲學觀(認為哲學追求的是智慧和靈性完滿)。簡而言之,阿奎那關於超越了理性能力的真理與未超越理性能力的真理之間的區分既不適用於《聖經》之書與自然之書的中世紀二分,也不適用於啟示神學與自然神學的現代區分。
事實上,當一種世俗的理性觀念在17、18世紀開始出現時,人們開始基於被普遍認為中立的前提認真構造關於神的存在的論證。它與一種新的宗教觀同步出現,在這種宗教觀中,命題式信念開始發揮重要作用,同步出現的還有對自然哲學目標和目的的重新思考。簡而言之,把這種發展與我們的一個主題相聯繫,我們可以說,自然神學的誕生伴隨著“宗教”和“科學”德性的客觀化,“宗教”和“科學”不再是個人的品質,而是漸漸僅指認識活動和知識體系。
[1] William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 289. Compare this with Lord Gifford’s understanding of the “science” of natural theology, which, as he expresses it in his bequest, is devoid of “reference to or reliance upon any supposed special exceptional or so-called miraculous revelation.”
[2] A search for theologia naturalis and variants in PL and Brepols’s Library of Latin Texts yielded two hits: Augustine, City of God VII.6, and William of Occam, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (ordinatio) op. theol., vol. 1, prologus, quaestio 12, p. 365, line 3.
[3] Aquinas, ST 2a2ae, 94, 1. Cf. Augustine, City of God VI.5: “There are three kinds of theology, or reasoning concerning the gods: of these one is mythical, the other natural [physicum], the third civil”; Tertullian, Ad nationes 2.1: “the philosophers have ingeniously composed their physical [theology] (physicum theologiae) out of their own conjectures” [PL 1, 659]. The works of Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BC) survive only as fragments.
[4] Bacon, Novum Organum, I, 96, Works, vol. 4, p. 93.
[5] Hugh of Saint Victor, De tribus deibus, passim (PL 176, 811–38).
[6] Bonaventure, Breviloquium II.12.
[7] Ramon Sibiuda [Raymond of Sabunde], Theologia naturalis seu liber creaturarum, ed. F. Stegmüller (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1966), Prologus.
[8] For a sustained argument that Aquinas is involved in natural theology precisely along the lines of Alton’s definition, see Norman Kretzmann, The Metaphysics of Creation: Aquinas’s Natural Theology in Summa Contra Gentiles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), esp. p. 7.
[9] Kerr, After Aquinas, pp. 58–72; Eric L. Mascall, He Who Is: A Study in Traditional Theism (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1967), pp. 80–82; Edward Sillem, Ways of Thinking about God: Thomas Aquinas and Some Recent Problems (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961); Thomas S. Hibbs, Dialectic and Narrative in Aquinas: An Interpretation of the Summa Contra Gentiles (Notre Dame, 1995). It is also significant that for Aquinas the assurance that we can know God from nature is itself given in divine revelation, and is not a postulate of reason.
[10] Leo Elders, “Justification des ‘cinq voies,’” Revue Thomiste 61 (1961): 207–25. The five ways can be mapped onto the “three ways” of ascent to God set out by Dionysius (via negationis, via causalitatis, via eminentiae). For Elders, admittedly, they are not to be understood only in this sense. See The Philosophical Theology of Aquinas (Leiden: Brill, 1990).
[11] Aquinas, SCG I.4.3 (vol. 1, p. 67).
[12] Aquinas’s distinction in SCG 1.3.2 is between two modes of truth—those accessible to natural reason, and those that exceed the ability of human reason.
長按二維碼或點擊閱讀原文購買科學史哲書
代表心靈上升到對神的存在的更深層次理解的各個階段。[10]《反異教大全》通常被視為阿奎那發展出一種自然神學的主要著作,當我們考慮阿奎那說他在這本書中所做的事情時,我們再次發現,他實際上並非在從事一種從無需宗教信念的前提開始的理智活動,而是在關注那些不相信特定的基督教啟示真理的同時代人所能接受的前提。這是完全不同的事情。因此,作為阿奎那出發點的共同的“理性”基礎已經是有神論的。基督教、伊斯蘭教和希臘哲學被認為指向了同一個目標——正如阿奎那所說:【74】“幾乎所有哲學都指向對神的認識。”[11]《反異教大全》的護教目的是讓讀者確信,基督教第一次以與眾不同的方式成功實現了這些(宗教)目標。因此之故,阿奎那在這部著作的開篇先討論“哲學家的職責”和對智慧的追求,因為他試圖表明,古希臘人和阿拉伯人所理解的哲學探索只有在基督教中才有實際可行的成功前景。因此,當阿奎那談到“理性探究所能達到的神聖真理”時,這並不等同於奧爾斯頓所說的“既非宗教信念亦不預設宗教信念的前提”。[12]阿奎那的出發點預設了一種有神論、相信某種靈魂、相信一種目的論人類觀(認為存在著某些既定的“目的”)和一種哲學觀(認為哲學追求的是智慧和靈性完滿)。簡而言之,阿奎那關於超越了理性能力的真理與未超越理性能力的真理之間的區分既不適用於《聖經》之書與自然之書的中世紀二分,也不適用於啟示神學與自然神學的現代區分。
事實上,當一種世俗的理性觀念在17、18世紀開始出現時,人們開始基於被普遍認為中立的前提認真構造關於神的存在的論證。它與一種新的宗教觀同步出現,在這種宗教觀中,命題式信念開始發揮重要作用,同步出現的還有對自然哲學目標和目的的重新思考。簡而言之,把這種發展與我們的一個主題相聯繫,我們可以說,自然神學的誕生伴隨著“宗教”和“科學”德性的客觀化,“宗教”和“科學”不再是個人的品質,而是漸漸僅指認識活動和知識體系。
[1] William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 289. Compare this with Lord Gifford’s understanding of the “science” of natural theology, which, as he expresses it in his bequest, is devoid of “reference to or reliance upon any supposed special exceptional or so-called miraculous revelation.”
[2] A search for theologia naturalis and variants in PL and Brepols’s Library of Latin Texts yielded two hits: Augustine, City of God VII.6, and William of Occam, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum (ordinatio) op. theol., vol. 1, prologus, quaestio 12, p. 365, line 3.
[3] Aquinas, ST 2a2ae, 94, 1. Cf. Augustine, City of God VI.5: “There are three kinds of theology, or reasoning concerning the gods: of these one is mythical, the other natural [physicum], the third civil”; Tertullian, Ad nationes 2.1: “the philosophers have ingeniously composed their physical [theology] (physicum theologiae) out of their own conjectures” [PL 1, 659]. The works of Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BC) survive only as fragments.
[4] Bacon, Novum Organum, I, 96, Works, vol. 4, p. 93.
[5] Hugh of Saint Victor, De tribus deibus, passim (PL 176, 811–38).
[6] Bonaventure, Breviloquium II.12.
[7] Ramon Sibiuda [Raymond of Sabunde], Theologia naturalis seu liber creaturarum, ed. F. Stegmüller (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1966), Prologus.
[8] For a sustained argument that Aquinas is involved in natural theology precisely along the lines of Alton’s definition, see Norman Kretzmann, The Metaphysics of Creation: Aquinas’s Natural Theology in Summa Contra Gentiles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), esp. p. 7.
[9] Kerr, After Aquinas, pp. 58–72; Eric L. Mascall, He Who Is: A Study in Traditional Theism (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1967), pp. 80–82; Edward Sillem, Ways of Thinking about God: Thomas Aquinas and Some Recent Problems (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961); Thomas S. Hibbs, Dialectic and Narrative in Aquinas: An Interpretation of the Summa Contra Gentiles (Notre Dame, 1995). It is also significant that for Aquinas the assurance that we can know God from nature is itself given in divine revelation, and is not a postulate of reason.
[10] Leo Elders, “Justification des ‘cinq voies,’” Revue Thomiste 61 (1961): 207–25. The five ways can be mapped onto the “three ways” of ascent to God set out by Dionysius (via negationis, via causalitatis, via eminentiae). For Elders, admittedly, they are not to be understood only in this sense. See The Philosophical Theology of Aquinas (Leiden: Brill, 1990).
[11] Aquinas, SCG I.4.3 (vol. 1, p. 67).
[12] Aquinas’s distinction in SCG 1.3.2 is between two modes of truth—those accessible to natural reason, and those that exceed the ability of human reason.
長按二維碼或點擊閱讀原文購買科學史哲書