香港新浪網 MySinaBlog
« 上一篇 | 下一篇 »
andrew | 21st Jun 2006, 12:07 AM | 科學, 信仰

平均分: 8.00 | 評分人數: 1

竟然在報紙能見到科學和宗教的討論。

宇宙論一定涉及宗教問題:如果宇宙由奇點誕生,宇宙誕生前是什麼?誰決定宇宙什麼時間誕生?或許有人會說是科學理論決定了。但這是個不圓滿的解答,更大的題的是,誰決定自然定律的形式?例如為何萬有引力是距離平方,而不是三次方?為何電子電荷是這個數值?為何能量一定要守衡?科學定律不能從邏輯推理得出。

宗教界犯的最大錯誤,是企圖反科學(如反對進化論),或以科學解釋宗教裡的神蹟或創世論。

前些時間的美國保守派提出的Intelligent design ,雖然是政治動作多於宗教,但提出在科學課上教授只會令人失笑:這根本不是一個科學理論。但這個學說有沒有道理呢?我覺得也有一點。

科學研究有一個盲點,就是否定所有偶然性。在邏輯上,宇宙的誕生有可能被造物主介入(而且可能性很大),但科學研究的前題是把這個可能性否定了。Intelligent design可取之處在於補充這個思考的盲點。當然,它的內容卻是荒謬可笑。

在科學課唯一要補充的,是科學理論的假設:事先否定造物主介入。以後的就留給學生思考好了。

宗教界中不乏很好的科學家,但看來話事人再提出各種反擊時,沒有尋求他們的意見。可悲。

對我來說,這個世界的存在才是最難解釋。為何會有宇宙?是誰決定物理定律的形式?在思考這個問題時,無可避免地會考慮到造物主這個可能性。

另一個宇宙難題,是為何宇宙中的定律,都能以邏輯數學表達?可能現在都被認為理所當然,但想深一層,數學是數學家坐在家裡想出來的東西,是從一系列的前設得出的理性結果,但終歸也是腦袋中的產物。為何這些東西,竟然能非常有效地描述科學家在實驗室觀察到的自然現像?究竟以數學描述自然能走多遠?能完整地描述所有自然定律嗎?如果不能數學,還能用什麼呢?是有些科學家大力提倡的cellular automata嗎?

更進一步,以理性理解宇宙,有沒有極限,會不會到有一天,我們發現有些東西是理性無法理解的?到時,科學要不就把這些東西否定,要不就只好認同,有些東西不是科學能解答的了。

-------------

江丕盛﹕霍金挑戰創世論﹖

【明報專訊】作者為浸會大學宗教及哲學系教授、國際科學與宗教學會創會會員

《明報》上周五以特大標題〈霍金挑戰創世論〉介紹霍金在科大的公開演講,但究竟他如何挑戰創世論,報章內文卻幾乎沒有交代。事實上,他在演講中並沒有清楚提及其量子引力論的宗教意涵,但在《時間簡史》中則有詳細解釋其理論如何衝擊基督教創造觀。

霍金修正了《時間簡史》

依據廣義相對論,宇宙不是永恆的,時空間是有限的,並且於約150億年前的奇點處出現,這已是科學家的共識。問題在於宇宙在奇點處是如何開始的﹖奇點的起始條件是什麼﹖由於自然定律在奇點崩潰了,因此科學無法告訴我們宇宙在奇點如何開始或其起始條件。霍金試圖結合廣義相對論和量子理論,並假設宇宙的起始點有如地球的南極,時間如緯度那樣,沒有斷裂的起點或終點。這樣一來,自然定律在宇宙的起始點或任何一處都同樣有效,並沒有分別。宇宙有起始,但沒有自然定律失效的奇點。

霍金在《時間簡史》中強調,量子引力論的宇宙觀是一個沒有起始亦沒有終結的宇宙,沒有奇點的界限或邊緣,也沒有起始條件。但在
這次的演講中,他作了一個重要的修正,承認量子引力論的宇宙觀雖然毫無界限或邊緣,但仍有起始和終結,其起始條件則完全由量子引力論的方程式而不是創造主宰、決定。換言之,他認為只有在自然定律完全失效的奇點處,我們才需要創造主宰的介入。

霍金的說法在宗教哲學上被稱為「空隙中的上帝」(God of the gaps),它假設了神哲學上的解釋完全是「偽科學」的,只要新的科學理論一出現,不管它是否已經被證實為科學事實,神哲學就可以被扔入知識的垃圾桶裏了。它也假設了人們對事物的一切理解和解釋,都可以被自然科學上的理解和解釋所取代,後者才是人類所真正需求的。

理論不是事實

霍金已經證實了宇宙的起始點不是奇點嗎﹖不然﹗霍金的量子引力論仍只是一個未經證實的美麗數學模型,是對雛形宇宙的一種設想(proposal)而已。霍金自己坦言無法就整個宇宙模型作出準確的預言和驗證。因此當被問及太空人掉入黑洞的命運時,他給予一個吊詭的回答﹕掉陷在黑洞的結局仍然是極可悲的﹔只有當太空人在虛時間裏生活,才不會遭遇到奇點。霍金清楚知道量子引力論的虛時間並不是我們日常生活於其中的實時間。

或許有人會問﹕倘若霍金的理論日後被證實為真的話,那麼基督教的創造論是否就被否定呢﹖

「不在場」不是「不存在」

不少人以為霍金已經證實了上帝不存在。其實霍金只是說,依據量子引力宇宙論,上帝如果存在的話,其存在與宇宙的起始無關。宇宙沒有起始條件(《時間簡史》)或其起始條件完全由科學定律所決定(演講),因此上帝的能力儘管無限,就這宇宙的開端來說,祂無所事事,無從介入創造。即是說,這宇宙毋須創造主,在其開始時上帝並不在場(the absence of God)。可惜不少人誤以為霍金的理論否定上帝的存在,就連許明賢和吳忠超的譯本也把天文物理學家Carl Sagan的序文中的the absence of God譯為「上帝的不存在」。

基督教創造觀並不局限宇宙的起始點,其深層意義在於「宇宙存有的本體基礎」,即指宇宙是偶發的(contingent),不是自有的(self-existent)。霍金在《時間簡史》末尾處清楚表明科學無法迴避神哲學問題。他正確指出,即使科學家找到了解釋宇宙一切的統一理論(unified theory),那仍然只是一組規則和方程而已。他尖銳地問﹕究竟是什麼賦予這些數學符號生命的火焰,並產生出一個它們所描述的宇宙呢﹖科學塑造數學模型的進路根本無法回答這類的問題﹕為什麼會存在一個為這模型所描述的宇宙﹖難道宇宙統一理論這麼真實,以致於它自身的實現竟無可避免﹖

【國際科學與宗教學會於2002年創立。首任會長是霍金在劍橋的同事和英國皇家科學院院士John Polkinghorne,現任會長是與霍金合編第一本書《The Large Scale Structure of Space-time》的南非物理學家George Ellis。科學家對宗教的濃厚興趣以及科學對宗教的深遠意義,使到科學與神學的對談成為近20年來最卓越的跨學科研究之一,甚至有人認為這個對話熱是由科學家所帶動的,他們把上帝及宗教再帶回到嚴肅的學術研究上。】


[1]

我沒有宗教信仰,但相信有造物者的存在。這樣才能解釋那奇點。

為何造物者要這樣做??未必人類能弄得清楚。就算能找到一個解釋的可能性,都不能confirm這個解釋,畢竟,誰能和造物者問過明白呢??又就算他說他能,你又憑甚麼相信這個人呢??

最後,也是沒完沒了的爭辯下去。

CO2


[引用] | 作者 二氧化碳 CO2 | 21st Jun 2006 1:53 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[2]

CO2,
是啊,或者佢同我地咁講,話咁咁咁,我地都唔會明。


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 21st Jun 2006 10:32 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[3]

不是理科生﹐Andrew說的幾乎完全不明...

科學研究有一個盲點,就是否定所有偶然性。

我也認為是!! 我們的習慣性思維是﹐任何事情發生都有解釋的﹐未有解釋是我們不知道﹐因此很可能出現盲點。

或者我們的祖先這樣去想﹐神的觀念才開始產生呢。

然而﹐即使真有統一理論﹐它又如果產生﹖難道像是演化論般﹐慢慢砌出來﹖那即是之前有千百萬個被淘汰的宇宙了﹖又或者這個統一理論﹐就是神本身﹖

實在很複雜........


[引用] | 作者 艾力 | 21st Jun 2006 10:53 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[4]

我是徹底的無神論者,但我認為科學最終亦未必能解答所有問題.一來因為人腦始終有極限.二來我們提出的問題本身己經很有問題.為甚麼奇點一定要有之前?為甚麼存在一定要有解釋?我們的思維,永遠只能局限於小小腦袋對時間/因果的偏見.

但科學不能解答,也不等於創造論能夠成立.我覺得創造論的成因,是人的狂妄.既然不能解釋,為甚麼不乾脆承認自己的愚昧?硬要把不能證明的做物主搬出來,去證明自己存在的意義;我覺得,這不過是人類的insecurity.

明報這篇稿,真係愈睇愈頭痛.科學和宗教哲學,是不同的領域.那些「不在場」「不存在」「空隙中的上帝」「宇宙存有的本體基礎」,是千百年來Aristotle,escartes,Kant, Hume的課題;和Quantum physics, Superstring theory, singularity根本扯不上關係.現代物理學是抽象的數學世界,你和我用日常語言去討論的,不過皮毛上的皮毛.拋幾個哲學名詞,借科學之名去affirm自己的宗教立埸,是對科學家的不敬,是不誠實的學術抽水.


[引用] | 作者 orangutan | 21st Jun 2006 12:23 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[5] Re:
艾力 :
不是理科生﹐Andrew說的幾乎完全不明...
科學研究有一個盲點,就是否定所有偶然性。
我也認為是!! 我們的習慣性思維是﹐任何事情發生都有解釋的﹐未有解釋是我們不知道﹐因此很可能出現盲點。
或者我們的祖先這樣去想﹐神的觀念才開始產生呢。
然而﹐即使真有統一理論﹐它又如果產生﹖難道像是演化論般﹐慢慢砌出來﹖那即是之前有千百萬個被淘汰的宇宙了﹖又或者這個統一理論﹐就是神本身﹖
實在很複雜........

我們的年代就是如此理性,認為什麼事情都是能理解,好的是這樣破除了很多迷信,不好的是,這樣太高估人的極限了。


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 21st Jun 2006 9:58 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[6] Re:
orangutan :
我是徹底的無神論者,但我認為科學最終亦未必能解答所有問題.一來因為人腦始終有極限.二來我們提出的問題本身己經很有問題.為甚麼奇點一定要有之前?為甚麼存在一定要有解釋?我們的思維,永遠只能局限於小小腦袋對時間/因果的偏見.
但科學不能解答,也不等於創造論能夠成立.我覺得創造論的成因,是人的狂妄.既然不能解釋,為甚麼不乾脆承認自己的愚昧?硬要把不能證明的做物主搬出來,去證明自己存在的意義;我覺得,這不過是人類的insecurity.
明報這篇稿,真係愈睇愈頭痛.科學和宗教哲學,是不同的領域.那些「不在場」「不存在」「空隙中的上帝」「宇宙存有的本體基礎」,是千百年來Aristotle,escartes,Kant, Hume的課題;和Quantum physics, Superstring theory, singularity根本扯不上關係.現代物理學是抽象的數學世界,你和我用日常語言去討論的,不過皮毛上的皮毛.拋幾個哲學名詞,借科學之名去affirm自己的宗教立埸,是對科學家的不敬,是不誠實的學術抽水.

我倒相信世界是有創造者的。

信仰和科學沒有什麼衝突,科學家只要不用信仰來研究科學就沒有問題了。
我想那個宗教哲學教授不過是想整理出一個和現代科學相容的宗教觀。在我來說,我比較明白科學研究的本質,和現存的理論,知道這些理論能說什麼,不能說什麼,有多大可信性,倒不覺得有什麼難以相容的東西。

或許有些宗教是源於人的insecurity,這也是個很合理的解釋,但如果把所有宗教的起源都歸為insecurity,則是以「可能的動機」來否定一件事情,是陰謀論的一種。有些宗教如基督教、伊斯蘭教等,是以歷史記載形式記錄上帝向人顯現,如果要反駁他們的可信性,應從他們的文獻入手。

另一方面,其實也有很多科學家思考宗教和哲學的問題,畢竟這些問題是引發很多科學家研究的動機,即使科學不能確定地說什麼,也有很多人思考。


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 21st Jun 2006 10:12 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[7]

I think Science and Religion are in different domain, using one to refute the other is nothing but a fruitless and meangingless attempt ...

I also think that the following 2 questions are more pertinent :

1. What would you do in your life if there is God ?

2. What would you do in your life if there is no God ?

The key point is "what if" -- what if there is God vs what if there is no God ...

And ah ha :), a 3rd question :

3. What would you do in your life if there is God but he is so far away that you could actually treat him as if he were not there at all ???

You may say "as if he were no there at all" is a far reaching argument ... but look at all the natural disasters and human atrocities, and you still think an all merciful God is overlooking and taking care of us ???


[引用] | 作者 cliff | 22nd Jun 2006 2:43 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[8]

Cliff,

" look at all the natural disasters and human atrocities, and you still think an all merciful God is overlooking and taking care of us ???"

I think this is a really strong arguement to say that God is not merciful / not exist.

I dont know the answer (as nobody should claim he/she knows). But there is indeed an answer in the Old Testament: The book of Job. All in sudden, all of the bad things happened to him. And he started questioning why God allow the sufferings to such a righteous man. His friends tried to explain the action of God in different ways, such as it was because Job was actually a sinner, etc in order to rationalize God's behaviour (in human eye). It turns out that God was gambling with Satan (!) to test whether Job would remain righteous if all his things all taken away.

The moral of the story is that we dont know why God allows a particular thing happen to us, as He has his own free will.

Also, if I want to make up a religion, it is so easy to make one that most people think it is rational to solve the "natural disaster" problem. For example, if I am the minister, I would make the religion "open cannon" (like Buddhism) so I can add / correct the religion as I wish as things happen. Then I can say "God make all people died in the disaster go to heaven, with extra bonus...blahblahblah..."

In my point of view, making up a religion that is "rational" in people's eye is so easy, and so whether the doctrine sound rational in our age is not necessarily related to the authenicity.


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 22nd Jun 2006 5:53 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[9]

Is Religion compatible with Science?
Is Religion complementary to Science?
Is Religion contradictory to Science?
Is Religion superior/or inferior to Science?
Something is fully established on faith whereas something else is based on facts. When we explore the unknown with human curiosity, perhaps we shall bear in mind: there must be some forces that arrange the world/the Universe the way it is. Remain humble and alert.


[引用] | 作者 GingerBread | 22nd Jun 2006 5:43 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[10] Re:
GingerBread :
Is Religion compatible with Science?Is Religion complementary to Science?Is Religion contradictory to Science?Is Religion superior/or inferior to Science?Something is fully established on faith whereas something else is based on facts. When we explore the unknown with human curiosity, perhaps we shall bear in mind: there must be some forces that arrange the world/the Universe the way it is. Remain humble and alert.

There would always be possible that there are some "force" acting freely as he wish in the universe and physical laws has no control of it. But the study of science excluded this in the first place. As long as he doesnt act in a consistent and regular way, we can exclude it from science.

But we should bear in mind that possibility.


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 22nd Jun 2006 8:19 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[11] To : GingerBread

"There must be some forces that arrange the world/the Universe the way it is." .... I assume that by "some forces" you mean "some architect, higher intelligence, or God" ...

But why MUST there be some forces ??? ... could it be that there "might be" or "could be" some forces only ???

And I think we can all remain humble and alert whether or not there might be, or might not be, some forces out there ...


[引用] | 作者 cliff | 22nd Jun 2006 8:44 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[12] The Book of Job

Andrew,

Thanks very much for your reply ...

Hmm, the Book of Job ... I have to admit that I've never finished reading the whole thing ... only read the beginning and the ending ... don't like the beginning 'cause all was set off by a wager ... what, a wager ?! ... yes, a wager between God and Satan and then all the sufferings that Job had to go thru ...

So, I jumped to the ending to see how God could salvage or explain away, the whole situation ... but no, I'd say there was no real attempt at all from God to salvage the whole thing ... basically God said, SHUT UP !!! ... who were you to question what I did !!! ... "I am that I am" and "I do what I do" ... wow, that is a very powerful, but pitiful, msg ...

Oops ... not just the beginning, I don't like the ending either ... sorry ...


[引用] | 作者 cliff | 23rd Jun 2006 4:41 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[13] To : orangutan

徹底的無神論者 ...

You can't prove that God exists ... but I think you can't prove that God doesn't exist either ...

So, how can you be so sure of yourself that you are a 徹底的無神論者


[引用] | 作者 cliff | 23rd Jun 2006 4:44 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[14]

cliff,

thank you for your interest to this little post. I agree that atheism is more or less like a religion -- you need pure faith to beleive that God doesnt exist.

For the book of Job, I dont like it too, as I dont like all natural disasters. Its a story to say how uncontrollable our lives are in front of our creator. But I decided to accept it anyway. The main element of the religion is indeed faith. The faith that God exist and that He will treat us well, as least eventually.


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 23rd Jun 2006 5:07 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[15] To cliff

"But why MUST there be some forces ??? ... could it be that there "might be" or "could be" some forces only ???

And I think we can all remain humble and alert whether or not there might be, or might not be, some forces out there ..."

Hey, buddy, it is not a matter of "could be", "should be", or "might be". That is ORDER, the rule of life or of everything. And it needs no theories or futile explanations to prove it. It is existence itself.
I also remain humble and alert in front of challenges. Thanks for your attention and feedback.  emoticon


[引用] | 作者 GingerBread | 23rd Jun 2006 8:41 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[16]

Cliff,

Yours is a very common argument. But there is a fundamental flaw: if God doesn't exist, there is no way I can "prove" its non-existence, because it's a non-existent, imaginary concept.

For instance, you can claim that an alien being invaded my body yesterday, that I am not the same "me" today. I can't refute it, but does it make your theory more credible? For all I know, I have the same memory and behavior; I don't remember being abducted; my friends don't notice anything strange from me; my doctor tells me I am a perfectly human human being.. These are very strong circumstantial evidences that your alien theory is wrong, but I can't disprove it, because, by definition, your theory is not provable.

As an atheist, I don't see any role for God in the world. Atheism is not a religion. I don't need to "believe" that God doesn't exist. I "know" God doesn't exist because all evidences I observe in this world support my hypothesis. Faith is not involved in my atheistic view. I simply employ my own rational thinking.

Of course one can say that we are never 100% certain, since human knowledge is still limited. Yes, but then again, I "may" be invaded by an alien, Elvis "may" still be alive. Demanding atheists to disprove God, is very similar to tactics used by proponents of Intelligent Design: neglect the overwhelming facts supporting evolution; doesn't matter ID'ers can't produce a single piece of evidence; just make sure the "theory" is worded in such a peculiar way that no one can prove it's wrong.


[引用] | 作者 orangutan | 23rd Jun 2006 8:44 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[17]

I quite appreciate the attitude of the blogger here.
Sicence may reject possibilities, IFs or WHAT-IFs but Science itself is just one of the ways we perceive and define the universe, so it is to be rectified and extended. There is no rule but has an exception and the exception usually proves the rule.
Life too,  is full of possibilities and I enjoy life for this reason.


[引用] | 作者 GingerBread | 23rd Jun 2006 2:11 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[18]

GingerBread,
haha, thank you!


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 23rd Jun 2006 10:04 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[19] To : GingerBread

Hi GingerBread,

Easy, easy, and pls don't get me wrong ... I didn't even have the slightest intention to challenge anyone ...

I was just trying to make the point that at times it may not be Ok to use such strong words like MUST and 徹底 ... to me, these words kind of preclude all the other possibilities ... and just like you, I love life to be full of possibilities ...


[引用] | 作者 cliff | 24th Jun 2006 6:26 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[20] To : orangutan

Wow, I am confused ... is there really a fundamental flaw in my attempt to ask you to prove to me that god doesn't exist ???

You said, "if God doesn't exist, there is no way I can "prove" its non-existence, because it's a non-existent, imaginary concept." ... but you predicate your sentence with a IF and that IF already pre-conditions the non-existence of God ... so was it you, or me, who have gone circular in our reasoning :) ???

Ok ... enough word game here ... I guess the point I was trying to make is for sure someone can be a 無神論者, but to be a 徹底的 無神論者, that is a pretty strong stand, so strong that it may also require certain faith in it ...

I think, one can only say that he is an agnostic, if he is not a believer ... or, if he wants to go a step even further, he can only say that for all intents and purposes, or for all practicality, he is an atheist ... but this is only for the reason of "for all intents and purposes, or for all practicality" ... so, to be a 徹底的 無神論者, I think it is a bit too far fetching ...

Oops ... sorry for dragging on this too long ... don't mean to challenge your belief ... just want to share some viewpoints only ... hope you don't mind ...


[引用] | 作者 cliff | 24th Jun 2006 6:54 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[21] Thanks, Andrew

Andfew,

Thanks very much for letting me use your space to drag on this topic for so long ... really appreciate it ...

I am only a "read-blogger", not a "write-blogger" :) ... that means, I don't have a blog site for myself ... so, I trespass :) ... I come to your site quite often 'cause you do write some good stuff ...

Keep it up ...


[引用] | 作者 cliff | 24th Jun 2006 7:00 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[22]

Cliff & Andrew,
It is fun exchanging viewpoints with different individuals and that is the very spirit of critiquing. We communicate not to dominate but to widen our visions. My appreciation for ur free spirits and this free space.
p.s.: Challenge, on the whole, is not a bad thing. hehe, I like taking challenges, cuz you cannot tell where they may lead you to, well, maybe more possibilities.  emoticon


[引用] | 作者 GingerBread | 24th Jun 2006 9:10 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[23]

Cliff,

I use "IF God doesn't exist, there is no way..." to stress that "God's existence" is a weak hypothesis, because it's somewhat unfair to demand your opponent to debunk your theory in order to support his/her viewpoint. Especially when the opposite theory can accurately describe the physical world, whereas your theory only resides in the realm of spirituality (hence not provable). That's what I mean by "fundamental flaw".

Hehe, you really make me think about why I use the word 徹底. I guess it's more a description of my attitude. On ther other hand, your words "for all intents and purposes, or for all practicality" sounds pretty 徹底 too.

To me, faith is just a concept, with different interpretations. I need faith to believe my mother really gave birth to me, but everyone can see that's just absurd. I accept that there maybe some unexplainable phenomenons in this universe, but I don't leave it to God. If science can explain 99.99% of all observable facts, do I still need "faith" to "believe" it's true? I don't think so. If there's no facts supporting God's exsistence, do I need faith to believe in God? Absolutely.

This kind of discussion is quite cool. It's not my intent or purpose to dominate anyone. 講到尾,都係吹水o者!


[引用] | 作者 orangutan | 24th Jun 2006 10:21 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[24]

Cliff, orangutan, Gingerbread:

哈,大家來了一場好好的討論,我諗我都想再寫下我對無神論的睇法。


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 24th Jun 2006 12:20 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[25]

先講明,我是一個基督徒,中五前是一個理科生,亦很喜歡看科學書,但科學知識始終皮毛,有什麼講錯,請多多原諒!!emoticon

我想說,為什麼奇點不可以是上帝所創造? 為什麼無神論者一定要質疑,奇點之前上帝在做什麼? 為什麼奇點之前一定要有時間? 為什麼時間不可以是上帝創造? 無神論者認為,宇宙可以突然出現,為什麼又要問上帝由誰創造? 上帝為什麼不可以突然出現? 上帝為什麼不可以自古存在,超越時間,直到永遠?

為什麼世界上千千萬萬人都說見過神跡; 千千萬萬人都說感受到神的臨在,感受到神的愛,感受到神的醫治,感受到神的恩典; 千千萬萬人都說見過鬼魂。一些心理學家、科學家或無神論者,可以狂妄自大得可以將他們歸類為心理作用,甚至是心理問題? 是否自己感受不到,見不到,就可以否定?

靈魂又是什麼? 是腦電波? 腦電波為什麼會重廿一克? 進化真的可以進化出靈魂?

甚至外星人的存在,作為基督徒,我亦不會一口否定。為什麼地球是唯一的? 為什麼不能有外星人? 為什麼上帝不可以在另一個星系,創造另一種生物,而一定要話比我地知? 為什麼科學家可以以另一個星球,沒有水及氧氣,就狂妄得說人類是太陽系中唯一的生物? 為什麼外星人一定要以人類型態出現? 為什麼外星人一定要吸氧氣呼二氧化碳、一定是碳水化合物? 為什麼外星人一定要在地表生活? 可以肯定木星內部不能存在其他形式的生物、冥王星的地殼內,不能存在外星人的基地?

科學,可以解釋很多東西,但更多東西,是科學未解釋到的。科學家在解釋不了時,時常會提出一些假設或常數,令他們的理論在數學上得到解釋。為什麼有人可以毫無保留地相信一些未經證實的常數和假設,卻完全不能接受被他們認為是未經證實的創造主?

其實,盲目相信宗教可以解決一切問題,是迷信; 同樣,盲目相信科學可以解釋一切疑團,亦是一種迷信。


[引用] | 作者 小彭 | 26th Jun 2006 5:31 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[26]

小彭,

哈,你的留言很長啊!
我同意你最後所句,過份相信科學也是一種迷信。
或許很多人沒有意識到,科學理論其實是挺兒戲的,其實從來沒有絕對能預測自然現像的理論,所有理論都是在特定的情況也才行得通,若把這些理論所暗示的假設當成真理,就有點不科學了。對我來說,科學理論雖然有用,也只不過是我們的遊戲。


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 27th Jun 2006 1:37 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[27]

首先要向Andrew講聲唔好意思,hijack了你的blog做討論,希望你唔會介意.

跟著是一些對小彭的回應:

1.無神論根本不相信神的存在,所以應該不會問”奇點之前上帝在做什麼”.”上帝由誰創造"等問題

2.「神的愛」「神的恩典」都是很主觀的心理狀態,是不是心理作用,見仁見智.「神跡」「鬼魂」則比較客觀,但說法莫衷一是.至少我個人從未看過客觀,並非道聽途說的鬼魂存在的報導.退一百步,就算真的有所謂神跡和鬼魂,也不過證明了世界有某些未能解釋的現象,和宗教中的”神”,仍有很大的距離.

3.21 gram...是很好的電影題題材,但那是一百年前的錯誤結論(http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp).而且,進化論中沒有靈魂的概念.

4.科學中是有常數和假設,但和「奇點是上帝所創造」不同的是,科學的假設不是憑空捏造,亦絕非未經證實.舉一個例,引力常數(G)是6.67*10^-11,你可以說這是個無厘頭的數目,但這不過是牛頓力學未完善處.
我們不用「毫無保留地相信」G是6.67*10^-11,我們知道G是準確的,因為它能解釋了星體的運行軌跡.若果明天發現了一顆星的軌道是G=1.234567,科學家會努力找出新理論去解釋,不會互罵「我信的G比你信的G更好!」

科學理論的成立,有兩個條件.第一是理論要有「預測」的能力,第二是理論要有被反證的可能,而第二點是很重要的.一個理論,若沒有留一條「有可能是錯」的後路,它不過是等於小朋友「我知道你一個很大的秘密,但有我唔會話俾你知係咩秘密,哈哈哈」一樣的語言遊戲.創造論不符合一和二的條件,因此不適合拿來在科學的層面上討論.

我相信大部份Atheist都和我一樣,自己不信,但也不反對宗教.我反對的是「科學不過也是一種迷信」的無限上剛.宗教在導人向善,令人快樂等心靈層面上,是有其存在價值.但對於怎樣去解釋這個世界,這個宇宙,宗教是完全無能為力的.勉強跳出已知的世界,靠一些不能反證的主觀願望,去強辯造物主的存在,是沒有意思的;也削弱了真正
的科學意義.為甚麼我們不能承認science和spirituality是不同領域?我有我研究奇點和進化論,你有你討論恩典和贖罪?


[引用] | 作者 orangutan | 27th Jun 2006 8:59 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[28]

orangutan,
討論是無論如何都好歡迎,有不同意見先好,唔係就好悶了。
我自己以前也是無神論的,我想寫下我對無神論的看法,同科學的關係,希望你到時能比多d意見!


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 27th Jun 2006 9:11 AM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[29]

挖,回應回到要爆掉了
這算一件好事呢!

其實無論是什麼論,只要追溯到源頭
就只有創造能解釋那個源頭
演化論也是基於有個源頭才能演化
宇宙的生命是爆炸產生,那爆炸未什麼會產生?為什麼爆炸會產生能量?這是誰定的規則?

其實很簡單,只要相信有一個神在創造這一切,單純的相信就好了。問題就在於人總是認為這是個很複雜的問題,不是單單相信有個創造的神這麼簡單而已。


[引用] | 作者 老王 | 28th Jun 2006 10:43 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

[30]

老王,

科學的目的就是要分別清楚什麼是能用理性解釋的,什麼不能,如果把所有事物都歸於神的話,科技就不會進步了。雖然,在哲學上最終也是要歸於一個「創造者」,不管是神還是mother nature。


[引用] | 作者 Andrew | 28th Jun 2006 11:12 PM | [舉報垃圾留言]

Next