20121219

哲學家之墮落

這學期我們的讀書小組看了兩本題旨相關的書,都是當代大名鼎鼎的哲學家寫的,卻兩本都令人相當望:Thomas Nagel Mind and Cosmos 和  Alvin Plantinga Where the Conflict Really LiesNagel 那本還只是野心太大,有點眼高手低,但總算有不少有趣的論點,能刺激思考;Plantinga 那本卻糟透了,囉囉唆唆,論證軟弱無力,跟他早期的 God and Other Minds God, Freedom, and Evil,雖同是護教之作,水準卻有雲壤之別。

Plantinga 此書的主旨是:科學和宗教只是表面上有衝突,實質上是互相支持、水乳交融;科學和自然主義(naturalism)看似互為表裏、二位一體,卻其實是有深層次的矛盾。「自然主義」在這裏的意思很廣,指任何否認有超自然存在物的立場;Plantinga 說自然主義與科學有矛盾已頗聳人聽聞,但還不及他以下這句誇張:『其實,堪稱「科學世界觀」的,是有神論,而不是自然主義。』(“Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview’.”   p.309

Plantinga 在書中不少地方的論調似足陰謀論,很多論點是「估估下」,全書用了 ‘perhaps’ 這個字二百次(電子書一查即知),在哲學書中實屬罕見。然而,最令人失望的,是他不老實(disingenuous)之處。

讓我舉兩個例子。在第二章結尾,Plantinga 談到大部份美國人懷疑或否定演化論時,竟將責任推到一些科學家和無神論者身上,說是因為他們強調演化論與宗教信仰不相容,令民眾認為一定要在兩者擇其一,所以才有那麼多人(大部份是信徒)不接受演化論。Plantinga 豈會不知道那些信徒不接受演化論,大多是因為聽信牧師或傳道人之言?(那些牧師或傳道人也顯然不是受了科學家或無神論者的言論影響,才否定演化論,而是根據他們對《聖經》的理解,早有定見。)他這樣「屈」科學家和無神論者,真是豈有此理!簡直是無賴。

例二:Plantinga 在最末一章批評自然主義時,引了幾個有名的當代哲學家,先點明他們都不接受有神論,然後指出他們都認為自然主義大有問題。他引的其中一位哲學家是我的老師 Barry Stroud,而引用的那篇論文 “The Charm of Naturalism” 湊巧是我熟悉的,所以我一看便知他胡來:Stroud 在那段引文批評的根本不是  Plantinga 說的自然主義,而是 “an extreme naturalist view”,從上下文可以很清楚看出他指的是 physicalism。斷章取義以至於斯,可謂低章之極矣!

本文為何題為「哲學家之墮落」,應該不必解釋了。

34 則留言:

  1. 看來 Plantinga 實在晚哲不保。但王兄開首時提 Nagel ,文中卻沒有談,可否有空也寫一寫?謝謝!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Nagel 那本書難以淺論,講得太專門(例如 probability 和 explanation 的關係)又不適合這個網誌...

      刪除
  2. //那些牧師或傳道人也顯然不是受了科學家或無神論者的言論影響,才否定進化論//

    他很可能真的如此認為。看過他一些作品,一直有感他的empirical knowledge非常目光淺窄。

    當然,也perhaps是如他的大作Warranted Christian Belief所描述的非信徒一樣,因為心理有問題而故意對顯然事實視而不見,自欺欺人。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 在我看來,他有很大的障蔽,兜兜轉轉,還是那個小圈。他竟說 Richard Dawkins 和 Peter Atkins 等著名的無神論者是 "daning on the lunatic fringe",認真吹脹。

      刪除
  3. I haven't read him much, however to my impression, even his earlier writings on religion are significantly worse than his writings on other topics like modality

    回覆刪除
  4. 學者名氣大了就變成學閥,可以出書胡說八道?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 他應該是護教心切,豁出去了。

      刪除
    2. 其實先不說他基督教身份,對人文學科的教授(特別宗教那一堆人),講了大半世,幾乎講到無野好講!你還勉強他嗎?

      更何況一個人最困難就是推翻自己一直堅持的價值觀和世界觀(難保有一天教授你不會這樣子!)

      刪除
    3. 佢出名鑊鑊新鮮,點會冇野好講。

      刪除
    4. 「佢」指Plantinga。

      刪除
  5. Why do some people, especially religious people, care about this science-religion compatibility thingy? Suspicious!
    Whether science and religion are compatible or not, either way, it doesn't affect most scientists in their jobs, no matter if they are religious and no matter how they view this compatibility thing. And they don't have to answer to any religions. --zpdrmn

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Well, some atheists care about this too.

      刪除
    2. True. That's interesting. Maybe it is because atheists (in the US) are minority and feel they are marginalized by Xtians and they need some help from science. I guess atheists in Europe do not care about it as much. But I don't really know.
      Atheists who care about it probably want to find incompatibility. But some (not all) religious people who care about it want to find some compatibility, though some other may want to find the opposite. I have seen (parts of) some religious writing about such compatibility but it is not at all convincing to me. It is quite laughable; the writers don't know much about science, and their reasons or comparisons are usually too simplistic. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    3. 人們往往會關心有神論與無神論,哪個是一個更合理的世界觀,而兩論與現時的科學理論配合的程度,正是其中一個考慮因素。
      他們反而未必太關心科學家如何工作。

      刪除
    4. 問題是正常科學家根本沒有興趣理會有神論與無神論(這一堆某程度是偽命題)

      科學家主要針對可研究,可觀察的"object"進行系統性的研究和測試,從而作出邏輯的結論!

      問題對於"神"這一種什麼東東,都不知道是什麼,應否把這名詞歸類為謠言或傳說都成問題,更別說研究,這簡直有人研究飛天地毯是否合付科學,一樣無聊

      刪除
    5. mendel-paul,
      When scientists do their jobs as scientists, this God stuffs shouldn't be a part of or have anything to do with their jobs. But it doesn't mean that when they are off duty they don't think about these things or that they don't have religious beliefs. After all they are human. Before they became scientists they were no different than most of us. After they have become scientists it doesn't mean that they don't think about these things anymore or give up all together their religious beliefs, if any. In the US about 80% of the people are Christians. Let's say, we don't count scientists who came from other countries (just for convenience because I don't know much about their beliefs), that would probably be around half. The rest were born Americans. So, that's around 40% (80% of half) of all scientists here were raised as Christians. Many of them probably have given up their religious beliefs. But many of them still keep their beliefs after they have become scientists. I have met a whole bunch of them. Maybe (I don't really know) in the church belt (some regions in the USA, the name tells what it means) relatively more such scientists are there. They may not talk about their religions as scientists. But don't be surprise to see a bunch of them in churches. So, some scientists are thinking about religion stuffs, if not 研究飛天地毯是否合付科學, they are, according you(?), 無聊. After all, science cannot answer everything. Especially, science doesn't answer the WHY questions, not the ultimate one. (I said that somewhere before.) Some scientists, with human weakness or with some other ideas, may well look to religions. I'm not saying that religions can really answer the WHY questions but many people think, or hope, so. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    6. 匿名
      又一次基督徒式的文字無賴!
      科學家有信仰又如何?就代表科學家需要用科學解釋信仰問題.或者因為大環境是基督教文化所以要研究這一種問題?煩請搞清楚科學界從事什麼工作!
      "science cannot answer everything. Especially, science doesn't answer the WHY questions, not the ultimate one"

      這麼更加證明宗教人士是訴諸迷信,科學家不能回答就代表無法回答?所以要信基督教的吹牛神話?不能回答純粹是暫時沒有足夠的科技研究問題和還沒有時間完成研究!

      你個宗教點看世界不代表世界就是怎樣!否則我信飛天意粉神就要證明信飛天意粉神什麼什麼?

      就算他們是基督教文化長大就代表他們是基督徒?換了是其他信仰的文化圈,或中國這一種無信仰文化圈,你這一堆和廢話有什麼分別?

      更何況不要說美國,大部分歐美國家的科學界圈中人士都是無神論人士,證明你說受文化影響是多餘,難道別人不會因自己調整自己的看法?

      所以科學家有信仰不代表什麼,這和一個小朋友幻想聖誕老人沒有實質的分別!純粹無聊!

      煩請把個人幻想和客觀現實分開,聖誕節都無面卑

      刪除
    7. mendel-paul,
      I just said something that I saw. Of course it doesn't mean anything when some scientists have their beliefs. Did I say it meant anything? Don't put words in my mouth. Did I say that I'm a Christian? What make you think that? Don't say anything that you don't know about me. If you read the comments I've left on Wong's blog so far, you should know that I am not a Christian. At times I argue against them. My background was in science and that's when I met scientists who had religious beliefs. Again, 1. don't put words in my mouth, and 2. don't say things you don't about me. 煩請把個人幻想和客觀現實分開,聖誕節都無面卑.
      --zpdrmn.

      刪除
    8. don't know about me

      刪除
    9. Scientists don't really ask why questions. When they ask why, it is basically what and how questions.
      Why is there mass and energy in the universe. Even if you can answer that, it is in terms of what and how. Once you can answer that, another why question--Why is it?--can be raised. Again, even if you can answer that, it is in terms of what and how. Once you can answer that, another why question can be raised...
      Why is there life in the universe? Make it a smaller one. Why (not just what and how) is there life on the Earth? Why life forms on the Earth "wants" to survive despite the fact that they have to do work (or put in energy into a system to go against entropy increase) to survive?
      Why was there the Big Bang (assuming it's true)? You can, if you are as smart as Hawking, investigate what happened before that and answer the question, again in terms of what and how. Once you solve that, I can ask: Why? And I would also ask you for empirical evidence. Science is empirical. Just theory isn't the end of it. Now you need to scratch your head to come up an experiment. But Big Bang was billions years ago. So, it isn't easy to come up with an experiment. Let's say, you do. But the experiment shows what and how, it doesn't really answer why. Hmmmm.... Why?
      It is not just a matter of //不能回答純粹是暫時沒有足夠的科技研究問題和還沒有時間完成研究!// when we ask why, not just what and how.
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
  6. Nagel那本書,我暑假時和一個朋友讀,中途放棄。

    Sober最近寫了篇Nagel的書評:

    http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.6/elliott_sober_thomas_nagel_mind_cosmos.php

    cyc

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 此書仍值得一讀,作為反思的材料亦無妨。Sober 的書評早看過了,寫得很精彩。

      刪除
  7. 哲學家竟然也相信有神,那可能應該稱為神學家才是了。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 為何哲學家不能信有神呢?

      刪除
    2. 哲學應該是屬於一種科學(Science),
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
      而神學相信不是一種科學,
      你認為一個人既相信進化論的同時又相信上帝創造一切的可能性有多大?

      刪除
    3. //你認為一個人既相信進化論的同時又相信上帝創造一切的可能性有多大?//

      題外話,Plantinga是智慧設計論組織的成員。

      刪除
    4. 神洲,
      There are some scientists (in physical sciences) who believe in God. Why not some philosophers?

      //你認為一個人既相信進化論的同時又相信上帝創造一切的可能性有多大?//
      100%!! I've heard the argument that God created the Earth such that it looks as if, upon scientific investigation, that 進化論 is right but in fact it isn't. So, one can 相信進化論 in human, secular terms and 相信上帝創造一切 with faith. (My not very good paraphrasing! Hope I get the point across.) Another argument is that the 6 days mentioned in the Bible about the creation are 6 days in heaven, and one day there is many Earth years. If you talk about the # of generations from Adam to today as said in the Bible, they could use some similar twisted arguments. Don't underestimate Xtians' twisted reasoning power. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    5. zpdrmn,
      It's just believing god by mentioning or covering the skin of 進化論,it's not really believing 進化論。

      刪除
    6. zpdrmn & 神洲,

      對於zpdrmn的問題,There are some scientists (in physical sciences) who believe in God. Why not some philosophers? 我不能代神洲答,但可以從另一角度看神洲提出的問題:對,一些科學家信神,但如zpdrmn上面所講,他們的宗教主要是工作以外的私事。但是,像Plantinga,他在作的,是在公事中出論文、出學術書講上帝。

      但是,其實我不同意哲學是科學,相信沒人會認為解構主義是科學吧?如果說哲學家中分析哲學家有很多人與科學走得特別近,不少還唯科學馬首是瞻,這是顯然事實,但不會使哲學成為科學,再講即使是分析哲學家也總有例外,Plantinga是其中表表者,他似乎有把metaphysics置於經驗科學之上的傾向。

      刪除
    7. 神洲,
      whether they do or do //not really believing 進化論//, I can't say. Ask them is the best way to go. Maybe they themselves aren't really sure. The best bet is that some of them do, some of them, like what you said, don't, and some of them aren't sure.
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
  8. 康德不是哲學家

    回覆刪除
  9. 哲學家、科學家、神學家...都不可怕,可怕的是死牛一面頸和利用他們的「有心人」!

    回覆刪除