View Full Version : Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"
if_chf24
10-07-2006, 10:13 AM
Richard Dawkin最近又出了本新書叫：The God Delusion.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/customer-reviews/0593055489/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/026-9359641-2350011?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=266239
這本書在英國Amazon上很熱，不知道本會有沒有人看過可以評論一下。（本人沒有看過，也不打算現在去買Dawkins的硬皮書。）
不過，大家看看UK Amazon上的評論，你會覺得幾有趣。看看哪些評價比較多人覺得有用，你就可以猜想會不會是Dawkins的fans才上網買他的書？而反對他的人根本不會去買。反轉來看，為什麼Denis Alexander的書沒有變暢銷書？我的觀察是：大家都是愛看與自己立場相近的書，然後reinforce自己已有的信念。因此我的同事中的幾個Dawkins迷，就會覺得Dawkins的書很「正」，但卻可能從沒有看過Polkinghorne或Denis Alexander的書。（當然，他們也可以問我為什麼不買Dawkins的書看!）:)
Daniel_Cheung
10-07-2006, 10:24 AM
在書店翻過幾頁，今次他擺明車馬把有神論證逐一攻破，而不是談進化論。
是的，當這世界有太多書，人們就只會揀自己喜歡的來看。讀研究院的其中一個好處是，您要逼自己看一些相反立場的書，但一般學院外的人卻很少會這樣做。（所以有時我不得不因人們的學習過程而對他們有一些偏見。）
Richard Dawkin最近又出了本新書叫：The God Delusion.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/customer-reviews/0593055489/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/026-9359641-2350011?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=266239
這本書在英國Amazon上很熱，不知道本會有沒有人看過可以評論一下。（本人沒有看過，也不打算現在去買Dawkins的硬皮書。）
不過，大家看看UK Amazon上的評論，你會覺得幾有趣。看看哪些評價比較多人覺得有用，你就可以猜想會不會是Dawkins的fans才上網買他的書？而反對他的人根本不會去買。反轉來看，為什麼Denis Alexander的書沒有變暢銷書？我的觀察是：大家都是愛看與自己立場相近的書，然後reinforce自己已有的信念。因此我的同事中的幾個Dawkins迷，就會覺得Dawkins的書很「正」，但卻可能從沒有看過Polkinghorne或Denis Alexander的書。（當然，他們也可以問我為什麼不買Dawkins的書看!）:)
喜歡看自己立場相近的書是很普遍的。一來若是整理一個理論，就必須先掌握好它，所以會多看同一派的東西，像我多看new perspective of Paul一樣。但從敵人的眼中看也有助了解自己的東西，所以當掌握了基本之後，也要看看其他陣營的作品，這是我一向的做法。一開始便甚麼都看，有時連弄清單一個立場都有困難。我認為一些很受Intelligent Design的人，他們也選擇先看ID的東西，再看別人的批評。我不認為那是錯的。只是若只停在自己的陣營，便容易是安慰自己，不敢迎接別人的挑戰。
Amazon的書評，我一向都不理會，很難有一篇是高水準的。有不少是胡扯的，搖旗吶喊的有很多，尤其是政治性的題目，這就像yahoo的新聞下的討論區一樣，絕大多數是胡來的。愈多人寫回應，題目愈具政治性，而書評也愈多廢物。
Dawkins的書，我看過兩本，自私基因最早，另有一本是伊甸出的河。其實Dawkins並沒有甚麼進步，總停留在其反教立場，他出書除了賺錢和宣揚自己的觀點，已很少有甚麼科學和宗教互動的研究了，Ted Peters, John Haught等神學家的作品，他很少去回應。我認為他現在只是一個活圖騰而已。我已不打算再買他的書來看了，有機會在圖書館打書釘吧。
if_chf24
10-08-2006, 05:22 PM
謝謝兩位回應。我個人感興趣的是，Dawkins為何在英國這麼受歡迎？他早前在BBC的節目The Root of All Evil就引起了很大的回響。是因他夠出位去反教，說出了許多人的心底話，大快人心？是因他引起許多人的反駁，因而使他的fans覺得他是科學真理的martyr，受到 fanatics的攻擊，因而更受歡迎？我覺得一些Dawkins' fans有些self-victimisation，覺得自己是martyrs，是bearers of the Truth against falsehood，心理就像一些religious fundamentalists一樣。難怪Denis Alexander在《泰晤士報高等教育副刊》(Times Higher Education Supplement)上對"The Root of All Evil"的回應文章題目是：A Clash of Fundamentalisms.
參考：http://cis.org.uk/resources/dawkins.shtml
Daniel_Cheung
10-08-2006, 06:22 PM
你的問題，似乎最適宜回答的是你，因為我們都沒有在英國生活過。你說的好像挺有可能，這是社會裡的反基督教情緒令這類書籍大受歡迎。
if_chf24
10-29-2006, 02:13 PM
Open Forum with Alister McGrath
October 22, 2006
Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life
An online lecture on 22 October 2006, by Prof. Alister McGrath, in response to Richard Dawkins' new book " The God Delusion"
For free download (mp3), please visit
http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum.htm
if_chf24
11-05-2006, 09:52 AM
你的問題，似乎最適宜回答的是你，因為我們都沒有在英國生活過。你說的好像挺有可能，這是社會裡的反基督教情緒令這類書籍大受歡迎。
昨天在英國Christians in Science London Conference 2006裡，與一位念工程的英國年青人聊，提到以上問題。他的見解如下：
１．Intellectual laziness. 因為英國社會現在很世俗化，很多人都不信教，很多人都持無神論的反宗教觀點。他們想聽一個他們的"famous preacher"去reinforce 他們已有的信念，就正如很多基督徒愛聽名講員講道一樣。不管基督徒還是無神論者，有不少人都是只愛聽自己已接受的觀點，而不會去聽反對意見的。
他又說，據悉，The God Delusion很有可能成為這個聖誕在英國最熱賣的書。我問為什麼Polkinghorne 或McGrath的書，沒有成為暢銷書。他答：
２．Scope of readership. 因為看他們的書的人，多是基督徒。但，
2a. 英國基督徒人少；
2b.基督徒中間，又會有不少人懶得想這些問題，覺得憑信心就可以了．．．．
2c.所以看這些書的基督徒本來就不多；
反觀，
2d. Dawkins 的書的對象是一般重視理性思考的世俗知識份子，人數較多;
因此，
Conclusion: Dawkins 的書比Polkinghorne或 McGrath的更暢銷。
我問為什麼Polkinghorne 或McGrath的書，沒有成為暢銷書。他答：
２．Scope of readership. 因為看他們的書的人，多是基督徒。但，
2a. 英國基督徒人少；
2b.基督徒中間，又會有不少人懶得想這些問題，覺得憑信心就可以了．．．．
2c.所以看這些書的基督徒本來就不多；
反觀，
2d. Dawkins 的書的對象是一般重視理性思考的世俗知識份子，人數較多;
因此，
Conclusion: Dawkins 的書比Polkinghorne或 McGrath的更暢銷。
釋譯的書一樣，台灣的科普書，有翻譯Dawkins，讀的人也多。Polkinghorne的一本書也有翻譯，但賣斷後就未再版。McGrath的書好像只有基督教譯，但基督徒少，看書的基督徒更少，所以，連出版社也生存不了，要出版市場認受的書種，科學神學一定不入圍。
if_chf24
12-04-2006, 12:19 PM
"Thank God for Richard Dawkins?"
Book(s) review written by Tom Kirkwood of Newcastle University
Lancet 2006; 368(9551):1955-6 (2 December 2006)
Kirkwood comments on what Dawkins has achieved in his career since his publication of the Selfish Gene 30 years ago. He noted how big an impact is his thoughts on fellow scientists and others in the recent 3 decades (as seen in "Richard Dawkins: How A Scientist Changed The Way We Think" Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley (eds), OUP, 2006. ISBN 0199291160.) "The 30-year interval provides an excellent vntage point for assessing a work that many recall as an essential stimulus in their intellectual development" (Kirkwood).
"What makes The Selfish Gene so special?....Its freshness was rather that it brought together a wealth of important but, at the time, little known ideas and imbed them with the enthusiasm of a young zoology lecturer who had a remarkable way with words. ...."
"Despite the intrinsic merits of the book, it was Dawkins' debatable use of the fiery word "selfish" that caused The Selfish Gene to ignite such a powder keg of reaction. It didn't matter that Dawkins was careful to make clear how he intended the word "selfish" to be understood; the pharse pressedc emotional buttons then, and it conitnues to do so today. ...."
"The diversity of reflections collected in Richard Dawkins makes a stimulating companion to The Selfish Gene itself....Not all of the contributors agree with Dawkins; Patrick Bateson, for example, who has long sparred with Dawkins about the levels at which selection acts, cautions that Dawkins' very eloquence may at times have led his reades astray. In this regard it is disappointing that the collection fails to include much of a perspective from the new field of functional genomics, where intriguing challenges to the self-sh-gene-centred view of life have arisen. Anyalysis of functional pathways involving the coordinated actions of multiple genes has shown that, when one species is compared with another, the properties of the pathway as a whole tend to be conserved but the individual genes from which the pathway is constructed can vary quite a lot. Other essays offer critiques, mostly negative, of the concept of “memes”—transmissible units of ideas—which Dawkins introduced in the final chapter of The Selfish Gene to explore the basis of human social and cultural evolution."
"From fielding the reactions to The Selfish Gene of those who favour the view that the world we know is one that a God has made, Dawkins has been pushed further and further into the front line of the battle between evolutionary science and the slippery concept of “intelligent design”. In his latest work, The God Delusion, Dawkins goes over the top with all guns blazing. For those seeking castigation of the world's organised religions for their many misdemeanours, they will find it here. Dawkins marshals his arguments well, but to my mind it is unfortunate that advocacy of Darwinism finds itself so easily in opposition to the quest for spiritual meaning in life. (highlighted by Lancet editor in its print version) Where The God Delusion falls down is in its failure adequately to engage with the crucial issue of faith. Dawkins tellingly dissects and dismisses supposed proofs of the existence of God and highlights with his typical flair some of the absurdities of today's creation science. In the end, however, he does little for those of us who feel, as Einstein did, that “if something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it”. Scientists will do well to remember the humility of these words. Evolutionary biology can tell us much about why life works but it cannot, of itself, address all the deeper questions about why the universe exists. Differences of belief are notoriously resistant to argument. Perhaps, though, we might offer the following accommodation with those whose faith includes a God: if there should happen to be a Creator, the creation of a universe that evolves by natural selection, and which every now and then throws up a writer like Richard Dawkins, is a feat deserving applause (highlighted by if_chf24)."
I agreed with Kirkwood that it is indeed very unfortunate that the advocacy of evolutionary theories is often highjacked (if I can say so) by some atheists to attack religions. I particularly appreciate the last sentence of his review. I personally do not know what faith position Kirkwood holds. But the way he ends his review really captures my attention. Can I one day write a book review as good as this? I think that my English still needs to be improved.
Daniel_Cheung
12-04-2006, 12:32 PM
I agreed with Kirkwood that it is indeed very unfortunate that the advocacy of evolutionary theories is often highjacked (if I can say so) by some atheists to attack religions. I particularly appreciate the last sentence of his review. I personally do not know what faith position Kirkwood holds. But the way he ends his review really captures my attention. Can I one day write a book review as good as this? I think that my English still needs to be improved.
十分同意。你日後也可以寫一些類似的東西，中文或英文都有需要，努力！:)
if_chf24
12-04-2006, 12:40 PM
As a note, I really do not know how come the God Delusion can be so popular among certain corners of England. I personally believe that this phenomenon is a result of the combination of several factors:
1. Antipathy against organised religions (whether it is the Christian Right of the US, or the rise of Islam fundamentalism, etc.) due to the foreign policies of Bush and Blair and that of Isreal.
2. Afraid that the resurgence of religions will limit the freedom that they enjoy now (esp. on issues of homosexuality and abortion etc.) The issue of Muslim veils is a sign of the attitude of the British general public.
(1. + 2. reflect the "threats" that many secular humanists in this country felt today. One of my colleague who is a Dawkins' fan, explicitly says that the increase of "fundamentalist Christians" in Britian worries him.)
3. The eloquence of Dawkins (to his credit and discredit). Dawkins has many fans (like 李天命). I have heard that they have even founded a Richard Dawkins Foundation to promote his causes (promoting evolutionism and getting rid of religions). These fans took pleasure in Dawkins' attacks/critiques on religions.
4. Dawkins gave many scientists a sense of self-confidence that they are now losing in the general public. As our British society becomes more and more post-modern, the authority of science is being debunked. Scientists are paid very badly in this country (compared to the US). Secondary school students prefer Media Studies or Psychology to Physics and Chemistry in their choices of A-level subjects. The Royal Society has called for the attention of the government and the general public of this dangerous trend of sciences losing students.
5. Commercial promotion. You will find (literally) piles of The God Delusion in every big bookstores. Discounts are offered (even half-price). (Do they print too many copies that they need to offer half-price now?) People predicted that this book is going to be the best-seller in Britain for this Christmas.
As a note, as far as I know, Alistair McGrath and his wife are going to publish their new book next February: The Dawkins Delusion . =)
Breeze
12-25-2006, 09:58 AM
His recent article on Virgin Birth
http://richarddawkins.net/article,452,n,n
if_chf24
02-05-2007, 03:53 AM
At last, Alistair and Joanna McGrath publish their rebuke of Dawkin's arguments:
The Dawkins Delusion?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0281059276/ref=pd_ys_nr_all_1/202-6412265-6259060
# Paperback: 96 pages
# Publisher: SPCK Publishing (1 Feb 2007)
# Language English
# ISBN-10: 0281059276
# ISBN-13: 978-0281059270
# Product Dimensions: 5.4 x 8.5 inches
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
Alister McGrath invariably combines enormous scholarship with an
accessible and engaging style.
Publishing News
"God" answers back...SPCK to rush out Dawkins rebuke...a clever piece of
opportunistic publishing...
Book Description
World-renowned scientist Richard Dawkins writes in The God
Delusion: `If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.' The volume has received wide coverage, fuelled much passionate debate and caused not a little confusion.
Alister McGrath is ideally placed to evaluate Dawkins' ideas. Once an
atheist himself, he gained a doctorate in molecular biophysics before going on to become a leading Christian theologian. He wonders how two people, who have reflected at length on substantially the same world, could possibly have come to such different conclusions about God. McGrath subjects Dawkins' critique of faith to rigorous scrutiny. His exhilarating, meticulously argued response deals with questions such as:
● Is faith intellectual nonsense?
● Are science and religion locked in a battle to the death?
● Can the roots of Christianity be explained away scientifically?
● Is Christianity simply a force for evil?
This book will be warmly received by those looking for a reliable
assessment of The God Delusion and the many questions it raises -
including, above all, the relevance of faith and the quest for meaning.
From the Publisher
'The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and
the McGraths show why.'
Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University
'Richard Dawkins' utopian vision of a world without religion is here deftly punctured by McGrath's informed discourse. His fellow Oxonian clearly demonstrates the gaps, inconsistencies, and surprising lack of depth in Dawkins' arguments.'
Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy, Harvard University
From the Back Cover
'Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point
with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian,
Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to
atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his
much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism.'
Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project
if_chf24
02-27-2007, 01:27 PM
原本William Lane Craig來了英國：
1. IS GOD A DELUSION? - A public debate between professor Lewis Wolpert and professor William Lane Craig
Venue: Central Hall Westminster, London SW1H 9NH
Tues 27/2/2007 7:30pm
(Entry free)
2. Reasonable Faith: The evidence for Christianity : - A public lecture by Prof. William Lane Craig
Venue: All Souls Church, Langham Place, LONDON W1B 3DA
Wed 28/2/2007 7:30 pm TOMORROW NIGHT
(Entry free)
Other places, dates and time:
Bristol University March 1 7.30pm
Oxford Town Hall March2 7.30pm
MANCHESTER University March 5 7pm
Sheffield University Students Union March 6 7.30pm
Liverpool U March 7 7.30pm
Nottingham U Lecture Theatre March 8 7.30pm
Cambridge U Babbage Lecture Theatre March 9 7.45pm
4. Dawkins gave many scientists a sense of self-confidence that they are now losing in the general public.
As a note, as far as I know, Alistair McGrath and his wife are going to publish their new book next February: The Dawkins Delusion . =)
可能真係......鐸氏的教席叫Professor of Public Understanding of Science.......認真騎呢......我諗仲有一個point.......佢樣子俏俊......有d似羅拔偉納......在科學界唔係咁多.....佢d頭髮仍然幾密.......難得.......
側聞有香港出版社眅實麥氏伉儷本小書......
可能真係......鐸氏的教席叫Professor of Public Understanding of Science.......認真騎呢......我諗仲有一個point.......佢樣子俏俊......有d似羅拔偉納......在科學界唔係咁多.....佢d頭髮仍然幾密.......難得.......
側聞有香港出版社眅實麥氏伉儷本小書......
最關鍵係搵個譯。Dawkin's God都唔錯，不過好像無人譯。Michael Ruse幾風趣，他看來很不滿Dawkins氾濫的反宗教情緒。
你認為誰拿手譯呢......
美國福音派旗艦報"今日的基督教"請來哲學教授艾云．皮瀨丁格評?神的幻覺?.......http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
皮文提到反神陣營的二號打手但以理．鄧泥個本書.....已被人剷......http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394&var_recherche=dennett
你認為誰拿手譯呢......
if_chf24 :D
if_chf24
02-28-2007, 12:51 PM
if_chf24 :D
我連Polkinghorne的文章（不是書），也譯得很辛苦（皆因人家英文好，要譯成相同水平的中文，很難；物理學的名詞，要請教讀物理的朋友），暫時不敢再接其他project....
幾天前，讀Simon Conway Morris的2005 Boyle Lecture (http://www.stmarylebow.co.uk/?Boyle_Lectures:2005)，人家的英語水平，我望其項背，如果要譯成中文，也不知要花多少個小時。
最近忙於學術編務，覺得當編輯真不容易，真敬佩clement兄和蒲先生敬業樂業，為我們提供好書上市。
Ref: Boyle Lecture (http://www.stmarylebow.co.uk/?Boyle_Lectures)
據我了解.....某些英文如法律個d......雖然寫得精密至密不透風.....也可視為好的英文......但根本冇得譯.....皆因傳統意義上的好的中文根本唔係咁的.....那些詩詞歌賦文采風流就更加冇得譯.....所以所謂好英文要用同樣好的中文翻譯.......有時可能是一種包袱......
大陸好似狂出波義耳講座.....唔知有冇記錯呢....
if_chf24
03-01-2007, 02:09 AM
你認為誰拿手譯呢......
我推薦那間出版社找 Mr. Wang-Yen Lee. 他是劍橋大學科學歷史及哲學系的博士生，我在劍橋一間華人教會見過他一次（他應該不會記得我），他在星加坡時，也有譯英文學術著作為中文。
參考：
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php
樣貌唔錯...一表人材.....希望本書岩佢譯....
Daniel_Cheung
03-01-2007, 05:07 AM
我推薦那間出版社找 Mr. Wang-Yen Lee. 他是劍橋大學科學歷史及哲學系的博士生，我在劍橋一間華人教會見過他一次（他應該不會記得我），他在星加坡時，也有譯英文學術著作為中文。
參考：
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php
嗯，如果他會寫中文，不如邀請他來這裡！:)
clement
03-02-2007, 11:50 AM
我推薦那間出版社找 Mr. Wang-Yen Lee. 他是劍橋大學科學歷史及哲學系的博士生，我在劍橋一間華人教會見過他一次（他應該不會記得我），他在星加坡時，也有譯英文學術著作為中文。
參考：
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php
這個人我也見過。
他好像把小楓的文章翻譯過做英文，基本上都可以，不夠某些比較哲學、思想史的東西就未必處理得最恰當了－－從我的學術編輯角度來看。而且，不少人名的漢語拼音都搞錯，我實在不明白為甚麼會這樣。
當然，要翻譯科學的東西，應該不太困難吧。
if_chf24
03-07-2007, 10:16 AM
今天與同事下午茶／cake meeting時，聽到一位天主教同事與另一位懷疑論同事又有些與宗教有關的討論。事緣現在正值四旬齋，有兩位天主教徒同事都選擇abstain from cakes/sweets。那位懷疑論同事不斷在問那天主教同事為什麼她信這樣那樣的基督教信仰內容，她又不是太會回答。懷疑論同事又提起The God Delusion，問天主教同事有沒有看。看來，Dawkins真的受反宗教的朋友歡迎。
懷疑論同事說，如果這個世界沒有了宗教，多好呢！我又就忍不住口插嘴道，那麼世界主流宗教對世界文明的貢獻呢？他說，有貢獻不等於make things right。我答曰，那麼君不見在蘇俄和現代中國，無神論亦不見得make things right。他答曰，那不可以直接怪無神論。之後，我們很自然又提到科學與宗教，他說宗教的本質，就是信仰，信仰是不能被證明的。他問，你有什麼可以證明基督教是真呢？我之後，就從critical realism的角度，講there is different domain/realm of realities, which require us using different approaches of enquiry....之後又提到自然科學裡不同學科，以及自然科學與社會科學（如人類學等）在審理理論之可靠性上的分別，因此我會refrain to judge another disciplines using my own discipline's standard.但他回應道，自然科學提出的解釋和人類學提出的解釋是有不同，但其不同不至於像有人要證明上帝存在的證明與科學的證明那麼不同。他又認為我這樣是intellectual dishonest，因為我提不同事情，有不同標準；但我回應到，不同學科處理不同事物，就是應該用不同的方法和標準。他說，這是我們分歧的地方。（以上是當時對話的縮短版）
話說回來，雖然兩位天主教同事，自四旬齋開始以來，每星期三都被人半開玩笑地取笑，她們仍然堅持不吃甜點糕餅，我倒很敬佩。不過，的確不少受過高等教育的average lay believer（同事們是博士生）雖然信得認真，但一般來說，其神哲學水平都不高，反而反教的朋友對他們的哲學觀點倒很清楚，因而，面對反教的朋友，信徒們都處於捱打狀態，我也不例外。也許，本會的存在，對提升一般知識份子信徒的神哲學水平，會有一點幫助吧。
Daniel_Cheung
03-07-2007, 10:48 AM
先問一點：
其實我聽了很多人說 critical realism ，但一直都未找到一個很確切的定義，請問 if_chf24 ，你的 critical realism 定義是甚麼？是出自甚麼書籍？
clement
03-07-2007, 11:25 AM
先問一點：
其實我聽了很多人說 critical realism ，但一直都未找到一個很確切的定義，請問 if_chf24 ，你的 critical realism 定義是甚麼？是出自甚麼書籍？
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritischer_Realismus
?
if_chf24
03-07-2007, 05:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
回張兄、clement兄：我在這裡所指的，是英文wikipedia詞條下，Theological critical realism一節所指，由T.F.Torrence開始的一派的觀點。我是深受McGrath和Polkinghorne的影響的。
用在上述的例子中，我的立場簡言之，是認為運用所謂的科學方法之於上帝，是在方法論上不恰當的。目的，當然是反對科學主義。
這樣的同事都幾煩.....飲野都要問人宗教......其實呢dprivate devotion野係克己既操練......等於一d人不飲咖啡或做gym游水玩瑜伽打坐.......只不過較有宗教性和教會傳統色彩......亦根據教會指導做....絕對不用尷尬.......
回張兄、clement兄：我在這裡所指的，是英文wikipedia詞條下，Theological critical realism一節所指，由T.F.Torrence開始的一派的觀點。我是深受McGrath和Polkinghorne的影響的。
看來，我雖然在哲學研究上沒有甚麼興趣與訓練，但我也是漸漸走到這一群裡。Polkinghorne, McGrath, Tom Wright, Van Huyssteen這四位，都在維基的條目裡提到，恰巧也是我愛讀的幾位。Wright在New Testament and the People of God裡，也介紹了他要如何新約研究上採用critical realism，他在Jesus and the Victory of God裡就使用他的方法來重描一個耶穌的形像。
仲有個trevor hart都唔錯....睇黎溫和聖公宗基本上是這路線既大擁疐.....蘇格蘭教會.....荷蘭reformed新加爾文主義.....也好此道......可能真係同真正尊重科學探究既傳統有關......
Daniel_Cheung
03-07-2007, 11:41 PM
這樣的同事都幾煩.....飲野都要問人宗教
在大學裡是這樣的吧！事實上這樣的風氣已越來越少，我在哲學系裡，反而很少見人們認真地對談，總是避開不就哲學議題（幾乎甚麼都可以包括的）表達意見。
Daniel_Cheung
03-07-2007, 11:43 PM
回張兄、clement兄：我在這裡所指的，是英文wikipedia詞條下，Theological critical realism一節所指，由T.F.Torrence開始的一派的觀點。我是深受McGrath和Polkinghorne的影響的。
用在上述的例子中，我的立場簡言之，是認為運用所謂的科學方法之於上帝，是在方法論上不恰當的。目的，當然是反對科學主義。
看來，我雖然在哲學研究上沒有甚麼興趣與訓練，但我也是漸漸走到這一群裡。Polkinghorne, McGrath, Tom Wright, Van Huyssteen這四位，都在維基的條目裡提到，恰巧也是我愛讀的幾位。Wright在New Testament and the People of God裡，也介紹了他要如何新約研究上採用critical realism，他在Jesus and the Victory of God裡就使用他的方法來重描一個耶穌的形像。
然而，兩位認為那一席話（抄出如下）真的有說明了甚麼是 critical realism 麼？第一段與引文的那段的內容是截然不同並且沒有明顯關係的。有沒有一個較像樣的定義？
Critical realism is employed by a community of scientists turned theologians. They are influenced by the scientist turned philosopher Michael Polanyi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi). Polanyi's ideas were taken up enthusiastically by T. F. Torrance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._F._Torrance) whose work in this area has influenced many theologians calling themselves critical realists. This community includes John Polkinghorne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne), Ian Barbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Barbour), and Arthur Peacocke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Peacocke). The aim of the group is to show that the language of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) and Christian theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_theology) are similar, forming a starting point for a dialogue between the two. Alister McGrath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath) and Wentzel van Huyssteen (the latter of Princeton Theological Seminary) are recent contributors to this strand. Tom Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wright), New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) scholar and Anglican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican) Bishop of Durham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Durham) also writes on this topic:
...I propose a form of critical realism. This is a way of describing the process of "knowing" that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence "realism"), while fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence "critical"). (The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 35)
wilson
03-08-2007, 12:19 AM
在google尋找critical realism definition, 首三個資料如下:
http://f.students.umkc.edu/fkfc8/BhaskarCR.htm
Roy Bhaskar: ...something is real if it can bring about visible/material consequences.
http://informationr.net/ir/7-2/paper124.html
The critical realist agrees that our knowledge of reality is a result of social conditioning and, thus, cannot be understood independently of the social actors involved in the knowledge derivation process. However, it takes issue with the belief that the reality itself is a product of this knowledge derivation process. The critical realist asserts that "real objects are subject to value laden observation"; the reality and the value-laden observation of reality operating in two different dimensions, one intransitive and relatively enduring; the other transitive and changing. Bhaskar argues that a lack of recognition of this division is a fundamental error of much of postmodernist work. This so-called epistemic fallacy assumes that statements about being (ontological statements) can be analysed in terms of statements about knowledge of that being (epistemological statements).
http://www.meta-library.net/gengloss/critr-body.html
Critical Realism
A philosophical view of science and/or theology which asserts that our knowledge of the world refers to the-way-things-really-are, but in a partial fashion which will necessarily be revised as that knowledge develops.
我睇過trevor hart有本書用個比喻都幾好.....佢話有個湖.....湖邊有屋....各屋都見湖....但唔係個個view都一樣.....有dview比較靚比較清楚.....想睇真個湖既要個個view試下比較下......但始終冇一個view完全capture得晒個湖.....始終有限制和盲點.....但人同一時間只能站一個view睇野......
對於呢個比喻.....我會再加上......直頭跳落個湖.....感覺更難忘.......更加認識那湖.....
又一部反對上帝的書....可怒也....
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1867.html
又一部反對上帝的書....可怒也....
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1867.html
有好多呢類書啫，再多一本又如何呢？我有興趣知道你點解會怒？
clement
03-15-2007, 02:10 AM
又一部反對上帝的書....可怒也....
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1867.html
"Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a setup, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won't change their minds, of course (that is what faith means), but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book."
Richard Dawkins
Author of the New York Times best seller The God Delusion
上帝已經無處容身，無處藏匿了！
"Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a setup, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won't change their minds, of course (that is what faith means), but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book."
Richard Dawkins
Author of the New York Times best seller The God Delusion
上帝已經無處容身，無處藏匿了！
要問邊種上帝先？:D
"The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a setup, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won't change their minds, of course (that is what faith means), but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book."
Richard Dawkins
Author of the New York Times best seller The God Delusion
上帝已經無處容身，無處藏匿了！
要問邊種上帝先？:D
其實Flew由無神論轉到Deism，對很多無神論者來說是難以接受的。Flew的其中一個 "墮落" 點，就是被宇宙的contingency所 "說服"。這一回，又繼續有人以為可以使上帝真正的退休，他們以為把最後一個據點都奪走。呢輪仲邊到有地方再需要佢？不知道他們有沒有好好地去想過他們所講的，到底是一種怎樣的上帝？
我怒自己心裏暗自高興.....
雖然道金獅無恥.....但佢既修辭又確係幾抵死.....搞到我又愛又恨....不愧為科學普及化教席教授.....
我怒自己心裏暗自高興.....
雖然道金獅無恥.....但佢既修辭又確係幾抵死.....搞到我又愛又恨....不愧為科學普及化教席教授.....
對，他的修辭很好。我讀他的書也很感動。本來想抄他描述一種parasitic wrap如何在寄主身上成長，生吞寄主的身體組織... 的那一段說話，可惜找不到。真的很精彩呢。
你的修辭都很好，怒自己喜歡。有點sado-masochistic，很好！
if_chf24
03-18-2007, 01:25 PM
又一部反對上帝的書....可怒也....
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1867.html
從那個網頁上引：
'Many authors claim that modern science supports the proposition that God exists, but very few authors have directly challenged this assertion. Physicist Victor J. Stenger points out that if scientific arguments for the existence of God are included in intellectual, not to mention political discourse, then arguments against his existence should also be considered. In God: The Failed Hypothesis, Stenger argues that science has advanced sufficiently to make a definitive statement on the existence ? or nonexistence ? of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. He invites readers to put their minds and the scientific method to work to test this claim.'
我不反對啊。
'By using five principal conditions for evaluating extraordinary claims, Stenger treats the existence of God like any other scientific hypothesis, stipulating that God should be detectable by scientific means, given that he is supposed to play a central role in the operation of the universe and in the lives of humans.'
這一點上，已經好有問題。How can God be detectable by scientific means?
Stenger provides hypothetical examples in which scientific research could in principle demonstrate conclusively that God exists. By examining the studies done by reputable institutions on the power of prayer; the writings of philosophers who have puzzled over the problem of God and of good and evil; the efforts of biblical scholars to prove the accuracy of holy scriptures; and the work of biologists, geologists, and astronomers looking for clues to a creator on Earth and in the cosmos, Stenger determines that all these human endeavors fail to demonstrate the existence of a divine creator. '
我倒有興趣知道他憑什麼說所有上述事業皆無法demonstrate the existence of a divine creator。這也涉及他對何謂「證明」的看法。
'He convincingly shows that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but scientific observations actually point to his nonexistence. Life on Earth looks just as it should look if it were not designed, and indeed, the universe looks and operates just as it should if it appeared spontaneously from nothing.'
有趣。基督徒本來就信creatio ex nihilo。問題是背後的造物主根本不能用所謂科學方法去證實或證偽。至於生物的「設計」問題，對於我們這些神導進化論者言，根本不是問題。打倒所謂的Intelligent Design movement，和打倒有神論是兩回事。
'Even though the scientific community has largely disavowed "theories" such as intelligent design that claim to prove God's existence, ancient beliefs in a creator deity persist. Stenger concludes, after reflecting on the long history of misrepresentation and manipulation of scientific fact regarding God, that our world actually is worse off as a result of religious faith. "The certainty and exclusiveness of the major monotheisms make tolerance of differences very difficult to achieve, and these differences are the major source of conflict," he writes. Instead of holding on to ancient superstitions, Stenger stresses the importance of finding meaning internally rather than externally and reminds us that beauty and inspiration can indeed arise from secular sources.'
這裡簡直是跳steps。寬容的問題真的是與科學無關。我也可以指出無神論者在蘇聯和中國是多麼的不寬容。至於最後一句，是典型的自然主義或世俗人文主義的觀點，但與科學也沒有直接關係。最後這段，又有些似Dawkins般不充分論證就下斷言。
也許書名，已經指出問題所在。上帝，是用來作為科學問題的假設而被提出的嗎？
if_chf24
03-18-2007, 01:35 PM
"Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a setup, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won't change their minds, of course (that is what faith means), but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book."
Dawkins文采的確了得。不過，問題仍然在。由此至終，像Polkinghoren等人，沒有說物理學上的人擇原理Anthropic principle可以「證明」上帝存在，而是那是consistent with theistic belief，而且在Polkinghorne等人看來，有神論的解讀更合理。但他們沒有說可以「證明」上帝存在。許多無神論者的反撃，都是由這種誤讀而起的：以為只要可以提出alternative explanations, 就「證明」不了上帝存在，那麼有神論的case就倒了似的。
shall we rid the mind of God?
Alister McGrath vs Peter Atkins
http://www.atheistdebate.org/
愛因斯坦的信仰之路
作者: 窩打．以撒臣
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
都幾感人......
if_chf24
04-23-2007, 01:34 PM
這個世界也真的多Dawkins迷。坐在我後面的Dawkins迷，最近買了本書，叫做
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Hardcover) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0007231601/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-1435800-7333238?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177352429&sr=8-1)
by Bobby Henderson (Author)
書名應該是引自Dawkins的書的。
Anyway, 我拿了來，翻了幾翻，簡言之是搞笑ridiculous, obviously make fun of religion, esp. the creationists.
其實作者是想用類比方法，把上帝類比作Flying Spaghetti Monster，通過這本書裡面的可笑的敘述，（言下之意地）使讀者感到creationism/Intelligent Design的可笑。
不過，我沒有仔細看，所以不知道作者有沒有玩過了頭，像Dawkins亂來。不過，看來那班Dawkins迷，都是同出一轍的，在他們眼中，有宗教信仰就是愚夫愚婦，就是信六日（x24hours)創造......
我看我的那個Dawkins迷同事，看來看去的書都是那一班人寫的反教書，老實說，這與那些除「屬靈書籍」外，甚麼也不看的基督徒有什麼不同？
Daniel_Cheung
10-03-2007, 04:10 PM
"The God Delusion" Debate
可在網上收聽，不過可能您看到時已過了。
http://www.fixed-point.org/billboard/billboard.asp?ItemID=41
The debate will feature Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.
Dawkins, voted by Europe?s Prospect Magazine as one of the world?s most important intellectuals, is regarded by many as the spokesman for the ?New Atheism.? BBC has labeled him ?Darwin?s Rottweiler.? He has written numerous best-sellers, most notable among them, his recent book, The God Delusion. TGD has been on The New York Times List of Best-Sellers for over thirty weeks. It is a no-holds-barred assault on religious faith generally, and Christianity specifically. According to Dawkins, one can deduce atheism from scientific study; indeed, he argues that it is the only viable choice.
Daniel_Cheung
11-20-2007, 10:53 PM
忘記了有沒有朋友貼過出來，有關 McGrath 回應 Dawkins 的新書：
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/november/35.79.html
Deconstructing Dawkins
Alister McGrath's challenge of famous atheist is bracing?but does not go far enough.
Logan Paul Gage | posted 11/16/2007 04:26PM
As Oxford professor and arch-evangelist of atheism Richard Dawkins continues his crusade against religion, we finally have the first book-length critique of The God Delusion: Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (InterVarsity Press).
if_chf24
11-22-2007, 03:53 PM
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/november/35.79.html
Deconstructing Dawkins
Alister McGrath's challenge of famous atheist is bracing?but does not go far enough.
Logan Paul Gage | posted 11/16/2007 04:26PM
Thank you Daniel for posting this here. Just a few comments on this piece of book review.
I have much in common with McGrath's point of view and thus I do not intend to comment or criticise on that.
What I want to say is about Gage's critique of McGrath, or essentially the critique of theistic Darwinism or theist evolution, namely that theism and Darwinism are incompatitible.
I disagree.
While theists can have a variety of legitimate views on life's evolution, surely they must maintain that the process involves intelligence. So the question is: Can an intelligent being use random mutations and natural selection to create? No. This is not a theological problem; it is a logical one. The words random and natural are meant to exclude intelligence. If God guides which mutations happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses which organisms survive so as to guide life's evolution, the selection is intelligent rather than natural.
Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved" in creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life developed via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural selection. Yet they never explain what God is doing in this process. Perhaps there is still room for him to start the whole thing off, but this abandons theism for deism.
I disagree. I think that we need some help here from analytical philosophers and philologists.
Why can't random natural processes be guided by God?
Why can't God use natural processes to guide evolution? Or why such a guidance not natural?
Why do 'natural' and 'random' exclude 'intelligence'?
Of course, what is 'natural' and what is 'random', in the first place?
What if God has started off a universe that with all the conditions set in place will ultimately lead to the emergence of life on earth and human life in particular? (Will I be accused of being Deist?)
But I think here the major fault in Gage's argument is that his theological understanding is too 'nominalist', and cannot understand that God is in nature as well as out of it. In Tillich's words, God is the ground of being.
This clear-cut demarcation between God and nature has its roots in late medieval nominalism, which paved the way for Deism, naturalism and its counterpart supernaturalism. In other words, something is either natural or God-driven, but can't be both. But why not?
To me, I agree with McGrath, Darwinism is open to both atheists and theists.
Lastly, may I draw your attention to the fact that Gage is from the Discovery Institute, the major financial supporter for the creationism and later the Intelligent Design movement in the US.
很多人用Random來exclude intelligence。但是電腦遊戲便用很多random來創造處境。Free will 與 free process defense似乎並不popular。Engage它們的人不多。
clement
11-22-2007, 06:14 PM
Re: Ifchf24
Some people like to think that, if a given phenomena can be satisfactorily explained off by empirical factors, then there is no need or no more excuses to resort to supernatural causes.
For them, "God" is just a trump card for the not-yet-known. As science progresses, the living space for "God" becomes narrower and narrower, since people no longer need to use God to account for phenomena.
Using God to explain the nature is just like those uneducated rural people who "still" explain raining and lightning in terms of deities' activities.
Add one more sentence: if one still likes to cling to the word "God", it is one's own preference, but such a word should then have no meaning others than personal fancies.
Re: Ifchf24
Some people like to think that, if a given phenomena can be satisfactorily explained off by empirical factors, then there is no need or no more excuses to resort to supernatural causes.
For them, "God" is just a trump card for the not-yet-known. As science progresses, the living space for "God" becomes narrower and narrower, since people no longer need to use God to account for phenomena.
Using God to explain the nature is just like those uneducated rural people who "still" explain raining and lightning in terms of deities' activities.
Add one more sentence: if one still likes to cling to the word "God", it is one's own preference, but such a word should then have no meaning others than personal fancies.
我也明白，試試分享一下我的理解。
我覺得這個no need問題不是上面所講的incompatible的問題，也不是由於有randomness在過程中，就須使得神"不再需要"，神要活在已有的解釋的空隙之中。目前要用純physical的解釋去解釋整個宇宙，仍然只是一些科學主義者的樂觀盼望。而在生命科學上，要解釋生命起源，仍然面對很巨大的困難。就算以空隙的神來議論神，神也有很大的活動空間，或許那是ontological gap，就如quantum state一様。返過來說，若如一個遊戲設計程式，可以通過應用隨機數來產生變化，神亦透過隨機數來使物質世界有它的一種獨立性，這並不使隨機與上帝的工作成為incompatible。
我一直覺得問題的其中一個核心部份，就是預設了神與世界的關係，是一個非此即彼的關係，若是世界的過程(例如物質性定律、隨機性→ chance and necessity)，就不是神的工作。若是神的工作，就一定是違反自然的(interventionistic)。這是典型的deist model。
另一些如ID人，一方面從資訊分析來講intelligent design，因此intelligent design與undesign (chance and necessity)彼此對立。但在這個局限的理解下的intelligent design，與上帝的工作是兩回事。在這種意義下的design，是從過濾necessity與chance後所剩下的complex pattern來理解的，ID可以把這種特徵視為上帝工作的其中一種，no problem。但反過來說necessity and chance就不是(或不能知道是)上帝的工作，這就很有問題。這是混淆了design與divine creativity。我覺得William Dembski 本人算是很consistent，但有一些ID camp的人卻不很consistent。可能接受ID的人都不很了解ID。
語義上....干預似乎是幾強.......但若說神的護理是非干預性的......又好似怪怪地.....至少唔能夠滿足人某些得救或幸運的經驗.......如遇溺時祈求以至於獲救......或遇大病而康復.....一般事主都會用神干預一類的字眼........
筆君的程式設計員上帝蠻有趣.....值得深入研究......這個可能都是神的護理的例子.......從前發現機械定律.....就會想像上帝是機械師.......今天是數碼資訊處理時代......神學可以作出相應想像......
論到random及設計......會唔會上帝類似一位賭場荷官.......他負責擲骰.....骰的outcome是random.....但卻有智慧生物去擲.....而呢位智慧生物沒有作出干預......也不知道outcome.....不過好似又唔多夠........或者上帝唔只擲骰.....仲設計埋個輪盤及玩法.......(長遠來說.....開賭場是必勝......換算成神學.......又幾貼切........神是最終的贏家).....
不過點都好......設計的科學味太濃.......我都係中意古典d神學d朦朧d既creativity講法......就讓科學做回自己吧.......
剛剛睇聖經.....有句野幾精....."有些人心裏說: '耶和華必不賜福, 也不降禍.' 我耶和華必懲罰這些人."......出自西番雅書.....雖然呢班惡人既重點可能只係可以放心作惡.......唔係特別講佢地有甚麼神學......但我不禁想起deist的神學......再想起整本聖經........聖經應該係幾一面倒干預式神學及超自然主義的.......biblical religion就係咁......應該好難詮釋得away.....
剛剛睇聖經.....有句野幾精....."有些人心裏說: '耶和華必不賜福, 也不降禍.' 我耶和華必懲罰這些人."......出自西番雅書.....雖然呢班惡人既重點可能只係可以放心作惡.......唔係特別講佢地有甚麼神學......但我不禁想起deist的神學......再想起整本聖經........聖經應該係幾一面倒干預式神學及超自然主義的.......biblical religion就係咁......應該好難詮釋得away.....
咁又唔係。耶和華有行動，但問題是interventionist不只主張耶和華有行動，而是指耶和華的行動是以一種破壞自然律的方式進行，有的interventionist不認為這是耶和華的行動的必然模式，有的卻認為逢神蹟(神的行動)都必然是破壞自然律地進行。整個問題是specific divine action是否必須破壞恆常自然律(假如存在自然律的話)。
咁又唔係。耶和華有行動，但問題是interventionist不只主張耶和華有行動，而是指耶和華的行動是以一種破壞自然律的方式進行，有的interventionist不認為這是耶和華的行動的必然模式，有的卻認為逢神蹟(神的行動)都必然是破壞自然律地進行。整個問題是specific divine action是否必須破壞恆常自然律(假如存在自然律的話)。
多謝解釋.....清楚晒........
驟眼睇聖經.....我仲以為佢係充塞著一般理解為破壞自然律的神的行動.......我始終以為.......除非用甚麼啟示文體例外論或非字面象徵論去解釋.......我很難唔覺得神在聖經中會亦的確有記載以破壞/暫停/開創自然律的方式做野......當然.....抽離一步.......聖經作者未必有我地個種自然律既框架或包袱.......但對大而可畏的事產生震慄感應是共通的.......否則讀聖經也無意義.......我相信作者亦是想讀者產生這種效果.......
話說回來......遇溺獲救或絕症中得救都可以以自然主義方式解釋.......有些聖經事件都可以.......如應許甲國必打敗乙國......或預言某惡人必死.......神確是可以用在沒有破壞自然律的證據的方式下做野.......但如此說來.......則是否神的行動就變成純粹信仰的斷言......不能驗證了.......
休謨啊休謨........你的鬼魂始終揮之不去......
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.