Several Issues in the Relationship between Natural Science and Religion

In recent years, the “relationship between science and religion” has become a focal point of attention. Research in this area has received increasing attention both domestically and internationally, carrying not only academic significance but also major practical relevance. However, the discussions to date suffer from two shortcomings. First, the discourse is rather broad and general. Second, a tendency has emerged: evading the essential distinction between science and religion, distorting the fact that the vigorous development of science has compelled religion to alter its doctrinal content, and instead loudly advocating for complementarity and integration between science and religion, even boasting that religion can guide the development of science. This has led to some absurd conclusions: such as “religion is the mother of science,” “the Christian monotheistic view is the ideological foundation for the development of modern science,” “Christians are the backbone of modern scientific development”… It seems that to develop science we must accept Christian faith. Against this backdrop, the discussion of the relationship between natural science and religion becomes all the more significant.

近年来，“科学与宗教的关系”成为人们关注的一个焦点。这方面的研究越来越受到国内外重视，不仅具有学术意义，还有重大现实意义。不过，至今的讨论存在两方面的缺憾。一是论述比较宽泛。二是表现出一种倾向：回避科学与宗教的本质区别，扭曲科学蓬勃发展迫使宗教不得不改变教义内容的事实，反而大谈寻求科学与宗教的互补与融合，甚至吹嘘宗教可以指导科学的发展，得出一些荒唐的结论：什么“宗教是科学之母”，“基督教一神观是现代科学发展的思想基础”，“基督徒是发展现代科学的中坚力量”……似乎我们要发展科学就必须接受基督教信仰。自然科学与宗教关系的讨论，在这种背景下，意义就更加重大了。

I. The Complexity of the Relationship between Science and Religion: Broad and Narrow Understandings

一、科学与宗教关系的复杂性：广义理解与狭义理解

Regarding the relationship between science and religion, academic and religious circles are divided and unable to reach a consensus. To deepen the discussion further, it is necessary to clarify the precise meaning of the relationship between science and religion, avoiding superficial commentary and talking past each other. To this end, some basic consensus must be reached on what science is and what religion is.

关于科学与宗教的关系，学术界和宗教界众说纷纭、莫衷一是。为使讨论进一步深入，有必要将科学与宗教关系的确切含义搞清楚，避免隔靴搔痒、各说各话。为此，需要对什么是科学、什么是宗教达到一些基本的共识。

What is science? In a broad sense, science can include both natural science and social science. Here we discuss natural science. The founder of the science of science, the British scholar Bernal, stated in his book *Science in History*: “Science may be regarded as (1) an institution; (2) a method; (3) a cumulative tradition of knowledge; (4) a major factor in maintaining or developing production; and (5) one of the most powerful forces shaping our beliefs and attitudes toward the universe and humanity.” [1]1 John Desmond Bernal, *Science in History* (London: Watts & Co., 1954). The original English text is rendered here in translation; the Chinese text cites a Chinese edition.

什么是科学？广义的科学可以包括自然科学与社会科学。我们这里讨论自然科学。科学学的创始人、英国学者贝尔纳在《历史上的科学》一书中说：“科学可作为(1)一种建制；(2)一种方法；(3) 一种积累的知识传统；(4)一种维持或发展生产的主要因素；以及 (5)构成我们的诸信仰和对宇宙和人类的诸态度的最强大势力之一。”[1]

What is religion? It is generally believed that religion is a social consciousness centered on belief in and worship of supernatural forces and realms, a socio-cultural system composed of four basic elements: religious concepts, religious experience, religious behavior, and religious institutions. Engels gave such an answer in *Anti-Dühring*: “All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.” This classic thesis reveals the essential characteristics of religious concepts.

什么是宗教？一般认为，宗教是以信仰和崇拜超自然力量和境界为核心的社会意识，是由宗教观念、宗教体验、宗教行为和宗教体制四个基本要素构成的社会文化体系。恩格斯在《反杜林论》中给出过这样的答案：“一切宗教都不过是支配着人们日常生活的外部力量在人们头脑中的幻想的反映，在这种反映中，人间的力量采取了超人间的力量的形式。”这一经典论断揭示了宗教观念的本质特征。

If one considers the various aspects of science and religion, the relationship between them is evidently very complex. A broad understanding: it can be a one-to-one relationship, for example, between scientific institutions and religious consciousness, or between scientific institutions and religious systems; it can also be a one-to-many or many-to-many relationship. A narrow understanding refers specifically to the relationship between the system of scientific knowledge and religious social consciousness.

如果考虑到科学与宗教的各个方面，它们之间的关系显然是很复杂的。广义的理解：可以是一对一的关系，比如，科学建制与宗教意识之间的关系，或科学建制与宗教体制之间的关系；也可以是一对多或多对多的关系。狭义的理解则是指科学知识体系与宗教社会意识之间的关系。

Precisely because of this, there are also a variety of views and propositions on the relationship between science and religion, leading to conclusions that can be so different: (1) the two are coordinated, consistent, and harmonious; (2) the two are contradictory, opposed, and in conflict; (3) the two are unrelated, hence non-conflicting; (4) the two are both distinct and interconnected. These different views, with respect to the specific connotations of science and religion they each involve, may have their own rationality, but one must not generalize from a partial perspective.

正因为如此，对于科学与宗教的关系，也就有了形形色色的看法和主张，结论可以如此地不同：（1）二者是协调一致的、和谐的；（2）二者是矛盾对立的、相互冲突的；（3）二者是毫不相干的，所以是非冲突的；（4）二者既有区别又相互联系。 这些不同的看法，就它们各自所涉及的科学与宗教的具体内涵来讲，或许有其合理性，但切不可以偏概全。

A pertinent discussion should deeply understand what connotations science includes and what connotations religion includes, clarifying which connotations of science and which connotations of religion are involved in the relationship, so as to avoid ambiguity.

中肯的讨论应该深入了解科学包括哪些内涵，宗教包括哪些内涵，弄清所涉及的是科学哪些内涵和宗教哪些内涵之间的关系，这样才不致产生歧义。

II. The System of Scientific Knowledge and Religious Social Consciousness: The Most Fundamental Relationship between Science and Religion

二、科学知识体系与宗教社会意识：科学与宗教最基本的关系

In a narrow sense, people mainly understand science as a dynamic system of knowledge and religion as a form of social consciousness; the relationship between science and religion then refers to the relationship between these two. The relationship between these two aspects of science and religion is the most basic and essential.

狭义上，人们主要把科学理解为动态的知识体系，把宗教理解为一种社会意识，科学与宗教的关系即是指它们之间的关系。科学与宗教这两方面的关系是最基本、最本质的。

1. Both Originated and Developed Together

1、两者同生共长

There is a view: religion emerged first, science emerged later. Based on this, they can claim that science arose on the foundation of religion, that science cannot be separated from religion, and even that “religion is the mother of science.”

有这样一种观点：宗教产生在前，科学产生在后。据此，他们就可以说，科学是在宗教的基础上发生的，科学离不开宗教，甚至“宗教是科学之母”。

In reality, at the very beginning of human culture, elements of science and religion emerged simultaneously. The seeds of scientific knowledge and religious consciousness were both contained within primitive human thought activities, interwoven and not easily distinguishable. With the development of productive forces, differentiation of cultural forms began to appear, showing a trend of separation. However, before the end of primitive society, this differentiation was still in its embryonic stage; elements of science and religion coexisted, with blurred boundaries and mutual penetration. It is not difficult to find mystical components of illusory understanding in primitive science; nor is it difficult to find certain reasonable empirical knowledge accumulated through practical activities in primitive religion.

实际上，在人类文化发生之初，科学与宗教的因素就同时共生了。科学知识与宗教意识的萌芽，共同包容在人类原始的思维活动中，相互交织在一起，不容易区分开来。随着生产力的发展，开始出现文化形式的分化，呈现分离的运动趋势。但在原始社会结束之前，这种分化还处于雏形阶段，科学与宗教因素相互并存，边界模糊，彼此渗透。在原始科学中不难找到虚幻认识的神秘成分；在原始宗教中也不难发现人类通过实践活动所积累的某些合理的经验知识。

Research shows that religion did not accompany humanity from the beginning but was a product of primitive society developing to the stage of the clan system; clan society was the social foundation for the emergence of primitive religion. In the millions of years before this, humanity had no religious consciousness or religious belief activities at all; what was continuously carried out was labor. Accompanying labor, human physiology and psychology gradually changed. Labor “is the primary basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we must say: labor created man himself.” [2]2 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 452. The Chinese text cites a Chinese edition of Engels’s work.

研究表明，宗教不是与人类相伴而生的，而是原始社会发展到氏族制阶段的产物，氏族社会是原始宗教产生的社会基础。在此前几百万年漫长的年代里，人类并没有任何宗教意识和宗教信仰活动，一直进行着的是劳动，伴随着劳动，人类的生理和心理在逐步变化，劳动“是整个人类生活的第一个基本条件，而且达到这样的程度，以致我们在某种意义上不得不说，劳动创造了人本身。”[2]

An examination of the history of human thought can also illustrate this point. “Ape-men” represent the infancy of humanity, occurring millions of years ago. Their thinking was simple and immature; they often could not separate themselves from the external world and could only directly perceive things or understand the world through their own senses and actions. This was the stage of action thinking in the development of human thought. About 300,000 years ago, humanity entered the era of *Homo sapiens*. This stage is further divided into two periods: the stage of representational image thinking in early *Homo sapiens* and the stage of ideational image thinking in late *Homo sapiens* (modern humans). In the latter period, primitive society transitioned from the late Paleolithic to the Neolithic Age. Only after humans possessed the ability for ideational image thinking could they produce the concept of the soul, which possesses a certain degree of abstract generalization, and this is one of the most basic concepts in religious thought. The emergence of ideational image thinking was the cognitive foundation for the emergence of primitive religion.

从人类思维历史的考察也能说明这一点。“猿人”是人类的幼年时期，这是几百万年前的事。他们的思维简单、幼稚，往往不能把自己和外界分开，只能通过自身感官和动作，直接去感知事物或认识世界。这是人类思维发展的动作思维阶段。大约三十万年前，人类进入智人时代。这一阶段又分为两个时期：早期智人时期的表象形象思维阶段和晚期智人（新人）时期的意象形象思维阶段。在后一时期，原始社会从旧石器时代晚期向新石器时代过渡。人类只有具备了意象形象思维能力之后，才可能产生具有一定程度抽象概括性的灵魂观念，而这是宗教观念中最基本的观念之一。意象形象思维的出现是原始宗教产生的思维基础。

So, where did the seeds of primitive human scientific and religious consciousness come from? Certainly not innate in the human mind, nor certainly “divinely revealed,” but from human practical activities, from labor. The survival practices and production activities of primitive people were the true source of the seeds of both scientific (secular sphere) and religious (sacred sphere) consciousness. Research on primitive thought shows that primitive people’s understanding of relatively certain relationships between phenomena, those where emotions like hope and fear were weak and which were easily controlled by rational methods and technical processes, gradually accumulated and became the seeds of science. Meanwhile, those elusive relationships between phenomena, where emotions were strong and which people found difficult to control, because they could not be explained, were mystified, fostering the seeds of religious concepts.

那么，原始人的科学与宗教意识萌芽是从哪里来的？当然不是人头脑里固有的，也决不是“天启的”，而是从人的实践活动中来的，是从劳动中来的。原始人的生存实践和生产活动才是科学（世俗领域）与宗教（神圣领域）意识萌芽的源头。关于原始思维的研究表明，原始人对那些较为确定的、希望与恐惧等情感作用淡然、容易为理智的方法与技术的过程所支配的现象关系的认识，逐渐积累起来，成为科学的萌芽。而那些捉摸不定的、情感作用浓重、人们难以控制的现象关系，因为无法说明，因而被神秘化, 促成宗教观念的萌芽。

The seeds of scientific knowledge and religious consciousness share a common origin, but later they gradually differentiated, each developing along its own mainstream. The historian of science Dampier said: “Science did not sprout and grow in a broad and beneficial grassland, but in a harmful jungle—the jungle of witchcraft and superstition.” [3]3 William Cecil Dampier, *A History of Science and Its Relations with Philosophy and Religion* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929). The Chinese text cites a Chinese edition. This is correct in a certain sense, but it can easily lead one to believe that science arose on the basis of “witchcraft and superstition,” which should be corrected. In reality, the survival practices and production activities of primitive people were the common “soil” for the germination and growth of the seeds of science and religious consciousness. Science sprouted and grew both in the “beneficial grassland” and survived and thrived in the “harmful jungle.” The boundaries between “grassland” and “jungle” were blurred, interwoven with each other.

科学知识与宗教意识萌芽具有共同的源头，但后来就逐渐分化，有了各自的发展主流。科学史家丹皮尔说：“科学并不是在一片广阔而有益的草原上发芽成长的，而是在一片有害的丛林——巫术和迷信的丛林——中发芽成长的。”[3]这在一定意义上是正确的，但容易让人以为科学是在“巫术和迷信”的基础上产生的，应该予以指正。实际上，原始人的生存实践和生产活动是科学与宗教意识萌芽成长的共同“土壤”，科学既是在“有益的草原”上发芽成长的，又是在“有害的丛林”中生存壮大的。“草原”和“丛林”边界模糊，相互交织在一起。

Some say that the fundamental issues of religion are truth, goodness, and beauty, and thus it stands above others. In fact, truth, goodness, and beauty are also fundamental issues of science, philosophy, and even human culture as a whole; the difference lies only in the different paths taken to seek answers and the different forms of expression, which is why they have gone their separate ways.

有人说，宗教的根本问题是真、善、美，因而凌驾于其他之上。其实，真、善、美也是科学、哲学，乃至人类文化的根本问题，区别只是寻求解答的途径不同、表述的形式不同，因此而使它们分道扬镳了。

2. The Two Are Essentially Opposed

2、两者本质对立

Examining the relationship between the system of scientific knowledge and religious social consciousness, they are fundamentally opposed: (1) Scientific knowledge is an understanding of the objective laws of the world and can be tested by practice; religious concepts propagate supernatural, super-material forces and therefore cannot be tested by practice. (2) The scientific spirit embodied in the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a rational, critical spirit; religious concepts propagate an attitude of submission and piety. (3) The acquisition of scientific knowledge takes scientifically verified facts obtained through practice as the basis of cognition, using the methods of scientific abstraction and scientific thinking to rise to rational understanding; religious concepts, however, deny scientific methods, holding that without "divine revelation" we are incapable of understanding the universe.

从科学知识体系与宗教社会意识这两方面的关系来考察，它们本质上是对立的：（1）科学知识是对客观世界规律性的认识，是可以接受实践检验的；宗教观念宣扬的是超自然、超物质的力量，因而不能接受实践检验。（2）追求科学知识所体现的科学精神是理性的批判精神；宗教观念宣扬的是顺从、虔诚的心理。（3）科学知识的获取是以通过实践了解的科学事实作为认识的基础，运用科学抽象和科学思维的方法，上升得到理性认识成果，而宗教观念却否定科学的方法，认为如果没有“神的启示”，我们是无力认识宇宙的。

3. The Two Are Sometimes in Conflict

3、两者时有冲突

Religion and science reflect different aspects of the phenomenal world and can therefore coexist peacefully. But their fundamental opposition means conflict is inevitable. In fact, historically there have been periods of peaceful coexistence and also periods of irreconcilable struggle. Fundamental opposition and actual conflict are not entirely the same thing; peaceful coexistence does not mean they are no longer fundamentally opposed.

宗教与科学反映的现象关系有所不同，因此可以相安无事。但两者本质对立，又注定会发生冲突。事实是，它们在历史上有过相安无事的时期，也存在过势不两立的斗争。本质对立与实际冲突不完全是一回事，相安无事并非表明它们本质上不再对立。

Einstein pointed out: "The main source of conflict between the religious and scientific domains lies in the concept of a personal God." [4]4 Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion," in *Ideas and Opinions* (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), p. 48. The original quotation reads: "The main source of the present-day conflict between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God." This symbolic content can come into conflict with science. As long as religious concepts contain dogmatic, fixed statements on topics that originally belong to the scientific domain, such conflict is bound to occur. [4]4 Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion," in *Ideas and Opinions* (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), p. 48. The original quotation reads: "The main source of the present-day conflict between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God." Such conflicts are not uncommon in history; they mean that religion interferes in the scientific domain, as in the Church's opposition to Galileo and Darwin.

爱因斯坦指出：宗教领域同科学领域之间冲突的主要来源在于人格化了的上帝这个概念。这种象征性的内容，可能会同科学发生冲突。只要宗教的这套观念包含着它对那些原来属于科学领域的论题所作的一成不变的教条式陈述，这种冲突就一定会发生。[4]历史上此类冲突并不鲜见，这意味着宗教方面对科学领域的干涉，比如，教会反对伽利略和达尔文的斗争就是如此。

Both the historical process and the actual situation show that religion will not give up attacking scientific theories that strike at its vital points, and will also attack science education. The most typical case is that because the theory of evolution touched the foundations of Christian faith and inflicted a "fatal wound" on it, Christianity has never ceased its attacks on evolution. The currently rampant "intelligent design" theory is a modern version of creationism.

历史进程和现实情况都表明，宗教是不会放弃对击中其要害的科学理论发难的，连带要冲击科学教育。最典型的是，因为进化论触动了基督教信仰的根基，造成了后者的“致命伤”，所以基督教一刻也没有停止过对进化论的攻击。如今甚嚣尘上的“智能设计论”，就是神创论的现代翻版。

In the conflict between the two, science forces religious concepts to evolve. For example, A. McGrath, Professor of Theology at King's College London, recognizes this: "...the medieval interpreters of the Bible opened up ways of understanding these texts from different perspectives, many of which followed the insights of natural science." [5]5 Alister E. McGrath, *Science and Religion: An Introduction* (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), p. 12. "In the high Middle Ages, a subtle method of interpreting the Bible emerged: some passages could be understood literally, while others could be understood non-literally. Augustine emphasized the importance of respecting scientific conclusions related to biblical exegesis; in his own biblical commentaries, some passages in fact allowed for multiple interpretations, so it was important to draw on more scientific exploration in order to better explain a given passage." [6]6 Ibid., p. 13.

在两者的冲突中，科学迫使宗教观念发生演变。比如，伦敦国王学院神学教授A•麦克格拉思就看到了这一点：“……中世纪《圣经》的阐释者开创了从不同角度理解这些文本的道路，有很多是遵循了自然科学的见解。”[5]“在中世纪的全盛期，产生了一种巧妙的《圣经》阐释方式：某些章节可以按字面意义来理解，其他章节则可以以非字面意义理解。奥古斯丁强调尊重那些与《圣经》注释相联系的科学结论的重要性，他本人在对《圣经》的注释中，一些章节事实上已具有多样解说的可能性，所以，借助于更多的科学探索，以便更好地解说某个章节，这就很重要了。”[6]

Christianity also seizes every opportunity to use scientific achievements. How should we understand the inclusion of scientific content in religious scriptures? In short, because "knowledge is power," scientific content is used to make people believe in God. Scientific achievements can even be distorted to suit religious needs. As some have said: "If the Christian view is correct, then we should certainly expect to find evidence of the Holy Spirit in phenomena such as dynamic energy and activity in the field of physics, as modern physics shows. If energy is the essential foundation of the entire material world, then for Christians this is clearly the manifestation of the dynamic, creative Holy Spirit in the domain of physics." [7]7 John Polkinghorne, *Science and Providence: God's Interaction with the World* (Boston: Shambhala, 1989), p. 68.

基督教还抓住一切机会利用科学成果。怎样理解宗教经典包含科学知识的内容？简言之，因为“知识就是力量”，为了使人们相信上帝，就要利用科学内容。甚至为了需要，可以歪曲科学成果。不是有人说：“如果基督教观点是正确的，那么我们当然应当期望在物理学领域的动态能和活动之类的迹象中发现圣灵的证据，正如现代物理学所表明的那样。如果能量是整个物质世界的本质基础，对基督教徒来说，这显然是能动的，富于创造性的圣灵在物理学领域里的表现。”[7]

III. A Tendency That Cannot Be Ignored

三、不容忽视的倾向

The worldwide modern scientific revolution is developing rapidly, and has already, and will further accelerate, the seizure of God's (the Creator's) "foothold," constantly raising and strengthening the discourse of atheism. This is the general trend of history. As Engels described it more than a hundred years ago: God and his defenders "one after another laid down their arms, one after another surrendered their fortresses, under the onslaught of science..." [8]8 Friedrich Engels, "Dialectics of Nature," in *Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 465. The full passage reads: "God has been treated worse and worse by science. The materialistic view of nature only recently achieved its final victory. God nowhere finds a resting-place. The last refuge, the only one still left, was the so-called first cause. And this too has been taken from him by the theory of Laplace. God and his defenders have been forced to retreat step by step; one after another they have laid down their arms, one after another they have surrendered their fortresses, under the onslaught of science." Yet ironically, modern "defenders of God" fantastically attempt to take up "arms" to recapture the "fortresses" and return the territory of science to God. If they could not hold it more than a hundred years ago, can they recapture it today? Repeating the old tricks will not work, so they must disguise themselves. Faced with science's brilliant achievements and its growing hold on people's hearts, directly and openly attacking science is clearly not the best strategy; instead, they increasingly "use force to counter force," opposing science under the banner of science. Advocating complementarity and integration between science and religion, claiming that religion can guide scientific development, and proclaiming that there would be no modern science without Christianity—all this occurs under these circumstances.

世界性的现代科学革命迅猛发展，已经并进一步加速夺取上帝（造物主）的“立足之地”，不断提升和强化无神论的话语权，这是历史的大势所趋。正如恩格斯早在一百多年前所形容过的那样：上帝和他的保卫者“在科学的猛攻之下，一个又一个部队放下了武器，一个又一个城堡投降了，…”[8]然而具有讽刺意味的是，现代“上帝的保卫者”却异想天开地企图拿起“武器”夺回“城堡”，把科学的阵地再归还给上帝。一百多年前都未能守住，难道今天还能夺回来吗？故伎重演是不行了，于是要乔装打扮一番。面对科学的辉煌业绩和日益深入人心，直接、公开地向科学发难显然不是上策，那就更多的“借力打力”、打着科学旗号来反对科学。倡导科学与宗教的互补与融合、主张宗教可以指导科学发展、宣扬没有基督教就没有近代科学等，正是在这种形势下发生的。

To sum up, opposing science under the banner of science, examined from the perspective of the most fundamental relationship between science and religion, means conflating religion and science in the following respects, creating the impression that science is no better than religion, thereby belittling science, elevating religion, and praising supra-empirical faith:

概括起来，打着科学的旗号来反对科学，从科学与宗教最基本的关系这个领域来考察，就是要在如下几方面，将宗教与科学混为一谈，制造科学也不比宗教高明的舆论，从而贬低科学、抬高宗教、赞美超经验信仰：

1. In the epistemology of science: Both science and religion are inseparable from faith. For example, Alister McGrath says: "One of the most important analogies between natural science and religion is the foundational belief in the order and intelligibility of the world, which is of great importance at both the scientific and religious levels." [9]9 Alister E. McGrath, *The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion* (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), p. 87. Freeman Dyson, winner of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, says: "God is at the end of the human mind." [10]10 Freeman Dyson, *Infinite in All Directions* (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 297.

1、科学认识论方面：科学与宗教都离不开信仰；比如，阿利斯特•麦克格拉斯说：“自然科学和宗教之间最重要的类同之一，就是对世界的规律和可理解性的基础信念，这在科学和宗教层面都有巨大重要性。”[9]邓普顿宗教促进奖得主弗里曼•戴森（Freeman Dyson）说：“上帝就在人类头脑的穷尽处。”[10]

2. In scientific realism: Both science and religion are "responses" to reality. Quarks and gluons are invisible but cannot be considered non-existent; similarly, God is invisible but cannot be considered non-existent.

2、科学实在论方面：科学与宗教都是对实在的“回应”。夸克、胶子不可见但不能被视为不存在，同样，上帝不可见也不能被视为不存在；

3. In scientific methodology: Both science and religion use models and analogies; scientific methods also contain implicit "default assumptions."

3、科学方法论方面：科学与宗教中都运用模型与类比方法，科学方法中也隐含着“默认前提”；

These specious claims can also take various other forms.

这些似是而非的说法，还可以有形形色色的表述。

IV. The Essence: Supra-Empirical Faith

四、实质所在：超验信仰

Some say that science too is inseparable from supra-empirical faith, that many links in science can be analyzed as containing numerous non-empirical factors, and that without faith in these factors, science cannot advance a single step. Clearly, this is a mistaken view. Science is an exploration of the objective laws of the world; all its cognitive achievements must be tested by practice, which determines that it is fundamentally different from non-empirical, supra-empirical factors. It promotes scientific concepts, not supernatural faith. This is precisely where the fundamental opposition between science and religion lies.

有人说，科学也离不开超经验信仰，科学的很多环节里都可以分析出大量的非实证因素，没有对这些因素的信仰，科学就寸步难行。显然，这是一种错误的看法。科学是对客观世界规律性的探索，它的任何认识成果都要经受实践检验，这就注定它与非实证的、超经验的因素有本质区别。它弘扬的是科学的理念而非超自然的信仰。这正是科学与宗教本质对立的所在。

First, let us clarify a concept: What is "faith"? The *Modern Chinese Dictionary* explains: Faith is "extreme trust in and respect for a person or a certain doctrine, ideology, or religion, taking it as a model or guide for one's own actions." In this sense, it is acceptable to speak of "faith in science" and "faith in religion." However, faith in science and faith in religion are fundamentally different: the former is faith based on practical experience; the latter is faith in supra-empirical, supernatural mysterious objects. Vaguely proclaiming that "both science and religion are inseparable from faith" only muddies the waters and leaves people confused. To avoid confusion, we more often use the expression "trust in science" rather than "faith in science." Supra-empirical faith is only the spiritual pillar of religion, not an aspiration of science.

先来搞清楚一个概念：什么是“信仰”？《现代汉语词典》解释说：信仰是“对某人或某种主张、主义、宗教极度相信和尊敬，拿来作为自己行动的榜样或指南。”在这样的意义上，说“信仰科学”和“信仰宗教”都是可以成立的。然而，信仰科学与信仰宗教是有本质不同的：前者是在实践经验基础上的信仰；后者则是对超经验、超自然神秘对象的信仰。笼统地宣扬“科学与宗教都离不开信仰”，只能把水搅浑，让人不得要领。为了避免混淆，我们更多采用“相信科学”而不是“信仰科学”的说法。超经验的信仰只是宗教的精神支柱，而不是科学的企求。

To speak of believing in “the regularity and comprehensibility of the world” — “at the level of science and religion” there is again an essential difference: the former is a scientific picture of the cosmos, one of the basic principles of the materialist view of nature; the latter is a transcendental faith in a “rational God,” holding that “it is God who created order.” To vaguely emphasize some “most important similarity” is merely an attempt to get away with deception. This touches on the fact that because scientific theory must answer an unending chain of “whys,” the ultimate premises it requires are often linked to a particular view of nature, and it is therefore held that they cannot be obtained through experimental means nor proven by empirical methods. The error of this view lies in severing the natural connection between the view of nature and practical experience; in their eyes, it seems the view of nature is something “innate” or “divinely bestowed” — this is utterly mistaken. The correct view of nature is not a transcendental faith but a generalization and summation of all scientific achievements, a result tested by countless practical experiences of humanity. The basic convictions contained in what Einstein called “cosmic religious feeling” — belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject; rapturous wonder at the harmony of natural law; a firm conviction in the comprehensibility of the world and its laws — these are all contents of the view of nature. Although complete verification is unrealistic, it is precisely in the process of being tested by countless practices that people acquire scientific concepts. The dialectical materialist view of nature is science: belief in the material unity of the world, belief in the regularity of the eternal motion of the objective world, belief in the knowability of the world and its laws, and so on — these are all scientific concepts, and by no means a faith divorced from experience and practice.

提到相信“世界的规律和可理解性”，“这在科学和宗教层面”又是有本质不同的：前者是一种科学的宇宙图景、是唯物主义自然观的基本原理之一；后者则是对“理性上帝”的超验信仰，认为“是上帝创造了秩序”。笼统地强调什么“最重要的类同”，不过是想瞒天过海而已。这里涉及到，科学理论因为要回答不断提出的一连串“为什么”，所需要的最终前提经常是与一定的自然观相联系的，于是就认为它们不能通过实验途径获得，也不可用实证方法证明。这种看法的错误在于割裂了自然观与实践经验的天然联系，在他们看来，似乎自然观是“先天”就有的，是“神授”的，这就大错特错了。正确的自然观不是超验的信仰，而是全部科学成果的概括和总结，是人们无数次实践经验检验的结果。爱因斯坦所谓的“宇宙宗教感情”，所包括的基本信念：相信有一个离开知觉主体而独立的外在世界；对自然规律的和谐所感到的狂喜的惊奇；对世界及其规律的可理解性的坚定信念，这些都是自然观的内容。虽然完全证实是不现实的，但正是在无数次实践的检验过程中，人们获得了科学的理念。辩证唯物论的自然观是科学：相信世界的物质统一性，相信客观世界永恒运动的规律性，相信世界及其规律的可认识性，等等，这些都是科学的理念，而绝不是脱离经验和实践的信仰。

Another reason holds that scientific experience implicitly contains a large number of faith (clearly transcendental) factors, because human experience of the world is filled with gaps and fissures. To confirm even the most obvious fact, one must use imagination to fill these gaps and fissures; therefore, where people ordinarily think they have confirmed certain facts through experience, a large number of faith factors have in fact already implicitly participated. The error here is equating scientific imagination with transcendental faith. The imaginative factor in science also functions on the basis of experience. No matter how “bold the speculation,” it cannot depart from practice. People can even “create” highly abstract ideal models that do not exist in the real world — special thought models with certain limiting properties, such as the point-mass model in mechanics, the ideal elevator model in relativity theory, and so on. The adoption of ideal models, however, involves examining the prototype under idealized conditions, and it too cannot be separated from empirical cognition. A thought experiment is a hypothetical experiment conducted in the imagination using ideal models; the method of thought experiment is a method of inferring the pure-state manifestation of relevant laws through rigorous deductive reasoning via thought experiments — it is entirely a process of mental activity. Galileo applied such a method in discovering the principle of inertia, and Einstein gave it high praise: “It came from a thought experiment of a body in perpetual motion, without friction or any external force. From this example and many later ones, we recognize the importance of creating thought experiments with the mind.”[11]11 Albert Einstein, “The Method of Theoretical Physics,” in *Ideas and Opinions* (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), p. 274. [n] Einstein himself, in the process of founding the theory of relativity, was also inspired by the ideal train experiment and the ideal elevator experiment; he used the method of thought experiment to make major scientific discoveries. This has nothing whatsoever to do with transcendental faith.

还有一种理由认为，科学的经验中隐含着大量的信仰（显然是超经验的）因素，是因为人们的经验对世界的感受充满了空白和缝隙。为了确认任何一个即使是最明显的事实，也都要发挥想象力来填补空白和缝隙，因此在人们通常认为是通过经验确认了某些事实的地方，实际上已经隐含有大量的信仰因素参与其中。这里的错误是把科学的想象等同于超验的信仰了。科学中的想象因素也是在经验的基础上发挥作用的。再“大胆的思辨”也离不开实践。人们甚至可以“创造”出现实世界中并不存在的、非常抽象的理想模型，即具有某种极限的特殊的思想模型，如力学中的质点模型、相对论中的理想升降机模型等等。而理想模型的采用，则是在理想化的条件下考察原型，也脱离不了经验的认识。理想实验就是运用理想模型在想象中进行的假想实验；理想实验方法就是通过理想实验以严密的演绎推理来推断相关规律纯粹状态表现的方法，完全是一种思维活动过程。伽利略发现惯性原理就应用了这样的方法，爱因斯坦给予了高度评价：“它是由考虑一个既没有摩擦又没有任何外力作用而永远运动的物体的理想实验而得来的。从这个例子以及后来的许多其他的例子中，我们认识到用思维来创造理想实验的重要性。”[11]爱因斯坦自己在创立相对论的过程中也得到过理想列车实验和理想升降机实验的启迪，他利用理想实验方法作出了重大科学发现。这与超验的信仰风马牛不相及。

These vague, specious misunderstandings reflect that some people lack the viewpoint of “the theory of practice.” Marx put it very incisively: “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking — in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.”[12]12 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis II, in *Marx/Engels Selected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 13. [n] Human knowledge originates in practice and must ultimately be tested by practice. For example, the system of Euclidean geometry is proved through rigorous logic and possesses a compelling persuasiveness. Yet, as everyone knows, this logical system is built upon several axioms that cannot be proved by logical methods. So why believe these axioms? Not because they are “divinely revealed,” but because they have withstood the test of millions upon millions of human practices. “The implicit premises hidden in scientific method,” “the infinite explanatory chain of scientific theory,” and so on, are all continuously resolved in the long-term practice of humanity. Not only that, but even human thinking itself develops along with practice. As Engels said: “The most essential and immediate basis of human thought is precisely the change in nature brought about by man, not nature alone; and man’s intellect develops in proportion to how he learns to change nature.”[13]13 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, in *Marx/Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 483. [n] It can be said that the practical foundation of science is the fundamental guarantee that it does not require super-empirical faith.

上面这些模糊的、似是而非的误解反映出某些人缺乏“实践论”观点。马克思说得非常透彻：“人的思维是否具有客观的真理性，这不是一个理论的问题，而是一个实践的问题。人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量，自己思维的此岸性。关于思维——离开实践的思维——的现实性或非现实性的争论，是一个纯粹经院哲学的问题。”[12]人的认识来源于实践，归根结底要接受实践检验。比如，欧几里得几何学体系是经过严密逻辑证明的，具有撼动人心的说服力。但是，众所周知，这套逻辑体系又是建立在不能运用逻辑方法证明的几个公理之上的。那么，何以相信这些公理？不是因为它们是“天启”的，而是因为它们经受住了人类千百万次实践的检验。“科学方法中隐含的默认前提”、“科学理论的无穷解释序列”等等都是在人类的长期实践中不断解决的。不仅如此，就连人的思维本身也是随着实践而发展的。正如恩格斯所说：“人的思维的最本质和最切近的基础，正是人所引起的自然界的变化，而不单独是自然界本身；人的智力是按照人如何学会改变自然界而发展的。”[13]可以说，科学的实践基础是它不需要超经验信仰的根本保证。

V. Scientists and Religious Belief: One of the Other Relationships between Science and Religion

五、科学家与宗教信仰：科学与宗教其他关系之一

Regarding other aspects of the relationship between science and religion, each case requires concrete analysis. Some involve the relationship between the institution of science and the institution of religion, touching on many areas of the sociology of science and the sociology of religion. A partial exploration is offered here.

对于科学与宗教其他方面的一些关系，需要具体问题具体分析。一些是科学建制与宗教体制之间的关系，涉及到科学社会学、宗教社会学的很多领域。这里作一些部分的探讨。

For instance, some religious clergy have engaged in scientific research and contributed to the development of science; many scientists engaged in scientific research are religious believers; some sites of religious activity are also sites of scientific activity; some Christian churches actively promoted education and academic activities, supporting the establishment of schools, founding academic societies, setting up libraries, organizing the translation of academic works, building observatories, running printing presses, and so on; modern science emerged in countries with a Christian cultural background; and so forth. It can be seen that these are all relationships between the institution of science and the institution of religion, requiring concrete analysis of each case; one cannot simply conclude that religion promoted the development of science.

比如说，一些宗教教职人员从事科研活动，对科学发展做出过贡献；从事科学研究的科学家，有不少都是宗教信徒；有些宗教活动场所也是科学活动场所；一些基督教会对教育及学术活动积极提倡，支持兴办学校，成立学术团体，设立图书馆，组织学术著作翻译，建造天文台，开办印刷厂等；近代科学产生在有基督教文化背景的国家；等等。可以看出，这些都是科学建制与宗教体制之间的关系，需要具体问题具体分析，不能简单地得出结论说宗教推动了科学的发展。

Let us first examine the relationship between scientists and religious belief.

先来考察一下科学家与宗教信仰的关系。

Engels long ago stated: “God fares worse among the natural scientists who believe in him than anywhere else. The materialists merely explain things and pay no attention to this nonsense. Only when the importunate believers force God upon them do they consider the matter, and then they give a simple answer, either like Laplace: ‘Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis,’ or, more coarsely, in the manner of Dutch merchants who, when German peddlers try to foist shoddy goods on them, say: ‘I can do without that stuff,’ and that settles the matter. And what treatment God has to endure at the hands of his defenders! In the history of modern natural science, God fares among his defenders as Friedrich Wilhelm III fared among his civil and military officials in the Battle of Jena. [14]14 The Battle of Jena (1806) was a decisive defeat of the Prussian army by Napoleon; King Friedrich Wilhelm III was abandoned by his commanders and forced to flee. As science advances, one regiment after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another capitulates, until at last the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science and no place is left for the Creator. Newton still left for God the ‘first impulse,’ but forbade Him any further interference with his solar system. Father Secchi, though he observes all the canonical formalities to do God honour, is none the less ruthless; he has expelled God completely from the solar system and allows Him only some ‘creative act’ in the primordial nebula. And so it is in every field. In biology, God’s last great Don Quixote, Agassiz, even demands of Him that He do something utterly absurd: not only create real animals, but also abstract animals — create the fish itself! Finally, Tyndall completely forbids God entry into nature and banishes Him to the world of feeling, and allows Him to exist only because there must be someone who knows more about all these things (nature) than John Tyndall! How far this is from the old God — the creator of heaven and earth, the lord of all things, without whom not a hair can fall from one’s head!”

恩格斯早就说过：“上帝在信仰上帝的自然科学家那里的遭遇，比在任何地方都要糟糕。唯物主义者只去说明事物，是不理睬这套废话的。只有当那些纠缠不休的教徒们把上帝强加给他们的时候，他们才会考虑这件事，并且作出简单的回答，或者象拉普拉斯那样说：‘陛下，我不……’，或者更粗鲁一些，以荷兰商人经常用来打发硬把次货塞给他们的德国行商们的方式说：‘我用不着那路货色’，并且这样就把问题了结了。而上帝在他的保卫者那里竟要忍受何等遭遇啊！在现代自然科学的历史中，上帝在他的保卫者那里的遭遇，就像耶拿会战中弗里德里希-威廉三世在他的文官武将那里的遭遇一样。在科学的推进下，一支又一支部队放下武器，一座又一座堡垒投降，直到最后，自然界无穷无尽的领域全都被科学征服，不再给造物主留下一点立足之地。牛顿还把‘第一推动’留给上帝，但是不允许他对自己的太阳系进行别的任何干预。神父赛奇虽然履行教规中的全部礼仪来恭维上帝，但是并不因此就变得手软些，他把上帝完全逐出了太阳系，而只允许后者在原始星云上还能作出某种‘创造行动’。在一切领域中，情况都是如此。在生物学中，上帝的最后的伟大的唐吉诃德，即阿加西斯，甚至要求他去做十足荒唐的事情：他不仅应当创造实在的动物，而且还应当创造抽象的动物，即创造鱼本身！最后，丁铎尔完全禁止上帝进入自然界，把它放逐到情感世界中去，而他之所以还允许上帝存在，只是因为对这一切事物（自然界）总得有个什么人能比约翰•丁铎尔知道得更多些！这和旧的上帝——天和地的创造者、万物的主宰，没有他连一根头发也不能从头上掉下来——相距不知有多远！”[14]

The interesting phenomenon described above is essentially the result of the coexistence of scientific and religious modes of thinking in people’s minds, not a contribution of religion to science. Here we must conduct a comprehensive and careful analysis: On what do scientists with religious beliefs rely to achieve their scientific results? Do they rely on religious dogma, or on their own scientific literacy?

上述有意思的现象实质是科学与宗教的思维方式并存在于人们头脑中的结果，而不是宗教对科学的贡献。此处应全面、仔细地认真分析一番：有宗教信仰的科学家究竟是依靠什么取得科研成果的？是依靠宗教教条呢，还是依靠他们本身具有的科学素养？

Let us take Galileo as an example for examination. He can be said to have always been a devout Catholic, diligently fulfilling the duties of a scientist whose soul had found its spiritual belonging (归宿); yet he was treated as an apostate and became the target of the Church’s attacks. In fact, it is not difficult to see from Galileo’s own words that his piety toward God was expressed in his “love of truth.” He believed that “the purpose of the Bible is to teach men the truths necessary for the salvation of their souls.” “Although the Bible cannot err, those who narrate and interpret it, if they always proceed from the literal meaning of the words, can err in many ways…” [15]15 Galileo Galilei, *Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina* (1615). “Their grave error is to take fragments of passages extracted from the Bible and use them as embellishments for their writings, while they do not understand the passages they have excerpted and use them without relevance to the point.” [16]16 Ibid. Therefore, he said, “No one, not even the early Christian writers, defends the Church with greater piety and greater zeal than I.” [17]17 Ibid. Galileo opposed the personification of God, which he associated with “grave heresy and blasphemous speech.” Galileo believed that “it is not necessary to believe that the same God who has given us senses, language, and reason would set aside the use of these and teach us through other means things we could discover for ourselves — especially concerning those sciences of which the Bible says very little.” He even complained that the Pope had abused his authority by improperly basing judgments on the Bible in specific controversies.

不妨以伽利略为例来考察一下。他可以说始终是一位虔诚的天主教徒，努力恪守着一个灵魂已有归宿的科学家的职责；但是他却被当成叛教者，成为教会的攻击目标。其实，从伽利略的言论中不难看出：他对上帝的虔诚，表现在他“喜欢真理”，他认为，“《圣经》的目的是要使人相信为使灵魂得救所必需的真理”。“虽然《圣经》绝不会错，但如果讲述和解释《圣经》的人总是从词句的表面意义出发，他们就会在很多方面弄错……”[15]“他们的严重错误就是把摘自《圣经》中一些地方的片段文字用作文章的点缀，而他们对所摘引的文字并不理解，而且在使用时无的放矢”[16]。所以他说，“任何人甚至连早期基督教著作家都不如我以更多的虔诚和更大的热情为教会辩护”。[17]伽利略反对将上帝人格化，那是与“严重的异端邪说和亵渎言辞”相联系的。伽利略认为“没有必要去相信，就是这个给我们以感觉、语言和思维能力的上帝会把科学和其他手段弃而不用，而是用借助于这些手段我们自己就能发现的事情来教导我们，就《圣经》极少提到的这些科学而言，情况尤其如此”。他甚至抱怨教皇滥用了权威，不当地依据《圣经》对具体争论做出判断。

Thus it can be seen that Galileo’s scientific achievements were the reward of his pursuit of truth. When his research work came into direct confrontation with religious dogma and produced contradictions, he benefited from his profound scientific literacy, dared to respect scientific facts, and firmly discarded religious dogma. Only in this way could he achieve breakthroughs and progress in science. From this perspective, Galileo was indeed an “apostate.”

可见，伽利略科学成就的取得是他追求真理的回报，当他的研究工作与宗教信条直接面对并产生矛盾时，他得益于自己深厚的科学素养，敢于尊重科学事实，坚定地摒弃宗教信条，因此才能在科学上取得突破和进展。从这一点上来说，伽利略确实是一个“叛教者”。

In 1979, Pope John Paul II asked theologians, scholars, and historians to re-examine the Galileo case and conduct a “review.” In a speech commemorating the centenary of Einstein’s birth, he instead praised Galileo’s view that “the true meaning of the Bible is often hidden deep within and is very different from a simple interpretation of the literal meaning of the words,” and made every effort to alleviate the contradiction between the achievements of natural science and the “Bible.” It was in this same speech that he vigorously proclaimed “the harmony between scientific truth and revealed truth.” [18]18 Pope John Paul II, “Science and Religion: The Galileo Case,” speech at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 10 November 1979. Is this not a splendid piece of self-mockery!

1979 年，教皇约翰保罗二世要求神学家、学者、历史学家重新审查伽利略案件，进行“复查”。他在纪念爱因斯坦一百周年纪念会上发表演说时，反而赞扬伽利略关于“圣经的真正涵义常常隐藏在深处并与字句表面的意义的简单解释大不相同”的看法，极力缓解自然科学成就与“圣经”的矛盾；也就是在这次演说中，他大力宣扬“科学真理与天启真理之间的和谐一致”[18]。这不是一种绝妙的自嘲吗！

If scientists cling stubbornly to religious dogma and cannot extricate themselves, the situation is different. Religious belief may lead them down the wrong path and cause them to draw absurd conclusions. Here we take Newton as a typical example for examination.

如果科学家死守宗教信条不能自拔，那么情况就不同了。宗教信仰有可能引导他们走上歧路，得出一些荒唐的结论。这里我们以牛顿为典型来考察一下。

Newton was one of the greatest scientists of the modern era. He completed the first epoch-making grand synthesis in the history of the development of physics. His painstaking work, *The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy*, is universally recognized as the greatest work of natural science in history, and its immense and far-reaching influence on the scientific community has rarely been matched by other masterpieces. He also made outstanding contributions in the fields of astronomy and mathematics. All of this benefited from his profound scientific literacy, because he dared to respect scientific facts and strove to shake off the fetters of traditional religion. This can be clearly seen from the process of Newton’s publication of the *Principia*. In fact, when Newton constructed his system of mechanics and celestial system, he never considered the role of God at all. Thus, when the first Latin edition of the *Principia* was published in July 1687, God was mentioned only once in the third book, and then only as a rhetorical figure.

牛顿是近代以来最伟大的科学家之一，他完成了物理学发展史上第一次划时代意义的大综合。他倾注心血所著的《自然哲学的数学原理》一书被公认为科学史上最伟大的自然科学著作，它对科学界巨大而深远的影响很少有其他杰作可以媲美。他在天文学和数学等领域也都做出了卓越贡献。这些都得益于他深厚的科学素养，因为他敢于尊重科学事实，努力摆脱传统宗教的羁绊。从牛顿出版《原理》的经过，就可以清楚地看到这一点。实际上，牛顿在建构他的力学体系和天体系统时，根本就没有考虑过上帝的作用，所以1687年7月《原理》以拉丁文初版问世时，仅在第三卷中有一次以虚词的形式提及了“上帝”。

However, when he willingly allowed God to intervene in his natural exploration, he lost his scientific research ability and could no longer distinguish right from wrong in the human world. Newton’s law of universal gravitation could explain the source of the centripetal force for the elliptical motion of the planets in the solar system around the sun, but it could not answer where the tangential force for this motion came from. This was because, at the prevailing level of development of the productive forces, scientists mainly studied and grasped only the laws of mechanical motion of objects, which also gave rise to the metaphysical mode of thinking prevalent in the scientific community. Therefore, it was perfectly normal that Newton could not answer the question of tangential force. Newton solved problems that his predecessors had not solved; if he had also believed that his successors could likewise solve the problems he had not solved, he would not have turned to invoking God’s help. Newton reduced everything in nature to mechanical motion; naturally, when faced with many non-mechanical motion problems, he was helpless. Consequently, he abandoned the scientific principles he himself had advocated — “to establish these laws through observation and experiment, and thereby deduce the causes and effects of things” and “not to seek other causes of natural things besides those that are true and sufficient to explain their phenomena”[19]19 Yu Qiming’s note 19: Isaac Newton, *Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy* (《自然哲学的数学原理》), translated by Wang Kedi (王克迪), Shaanxi People’s Publishing House (陕西人民出版社), 2001 edition, p. 1. — and instead resurrected religious dogmas, resorting to a personal God. “…Without the aid of divine power, I know of no force in nature that could bring about this transverse motion. … Therefore, gravity can make the planets move, but without divine power they could never be made to move in the circular orbits around the sun as they now do. Hence, for this and other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the structure of this system to an all-wise Creator.”[20]20 Yu Qiming’s note 20: H. S. Thayer, ed., *Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from His Writings* (《牛顿自然哲学著作选》), translated by Wang Fusong (王福山) et al., Shanghai Translation Publishing House (上海译文出版社), 2001 edition, pp. 57-58. In his later years, Newton’s scientific outlook succumbed to theological outlook; he fell from materialist empiricism into idealist apriorism, and thereafter made no further major scientific discoveries. He entered politics, was elected a member of Parliament, and from 1699 served as Warden of the Royal Mint until his death. It is evident that the less scientists are influenced by religious dogmas in their research activities, the more scientific achievements they can obtain.

但是，当他甘心让上帝来干预他的自然探索时，他就失去了科学的研究能力，辨别不了人间是非了。牛顿发现的万有引力定律可以用来解释太阳系行星围绕太阳作椭圆运动的向心力来源问题，但却回答不了这种运动的切线力来自何方。这是由于当时生产力的发展水平，科学家主要还只是研究掌握了物体机械运动的规律，因而也造成了科学界流行的形而上学思维方式。所以，牛顿回答不了切线力的问题是很正常的。牛顿解决了他的先辈没有解决的问题，假若他也相信他的后人同样能够解决他没有解决的问题，他就不会转而去请出上帝帮忙了。牛顿把自然界的一切都归结为机械运动，当然面对很多非机械运动问题时就只有束手无策。于是，他放弃了自己倡导的“用观察和实验来建立这些法则，从而导出事物的原因和结果”和“除那些真实而已足够说明其现象者外，不必去寻求自然界事物的其他原因”的科学准则[19]，重新搬出宗教信条，去乞灵人格化的上帝了。“……没有神力之助，我不知道自然界中还有什么力量竟能促成这种横向运动。……所以，重力可以使行星运动，然而没有神的力量就决不能使它们作现在这样的绕太阳而转的圆周运动。因此，由于这个以及其他原因，我不得不把我们这个系统的结构归之于一个全智的主宰。”[20]晚年，牛顿的科学观屈从于神学观，他从唯物论的经验论陷入了唯心论的先验论，之后就再没有多少重大的科学创见了。他开始进入政界，当选过国会议员，1699年开始担任皇家造币厂厂长，直到去世。可见，科学家在科研活动中受宗教教条影响越少，他们能取得的科研成果就越多。

And when there is no obvious conflict between science and religion, scientists who believe in religion can achieve success in science precisely because religious dogmas have little impact on scientific activity; it is by adhering to the scientific spirit and applying scientific methods in their own practice that scientists succeed. In such cases, the scientific field is often limited to the study of specific, partial problems, without touching upon questions of a worldview nature or ultimate exploration, such as the origin of nature or the origin of humanity.

而当科学与宗教没有明显冲突时，信仰宗教的科学家在科学方面能取得成就，那是因为宗教教条对科学活动没有多大影响，科学家在自身实践中，坚持着科学精神并运用科学方法，因此才得以成功。这种情况下的科学领域，常常是局限于对一些具体的、局部的问题进行研究，而不涉及自然界的起源、人类的起源等带有世界观性质的问题或终极探索。

VI. How to View the Fact That Modern Science Emerged in Countries with a Christian Cultural

六、怎样看待近代科学产生在有基督教文化

Background: Another Issue in the Relationship between Science and Religion

背景的国家：科学与宗教其他关系之二

This is related to the “Needham Question.” The famous British historian of science Joseph Needham, in his 1964 article “Science and Society in East and West,” asked: “Why was it that between the first century BC and the fifteenth century AD, Chinese civilization was much more effective than the West in applying human knowledge of nature to practical human needs?” “Why did modern science arise only in Europe, and not in Chinese civilization (or Indian civilization)?” This is the “Needham Question” that has aroused great interest in the history of science and even in academia.

这是与“李约瑟难题”相联系的。著名的英国科学史家李约瑟（Joseph Needham）于1964年在“东西方的科学与社会”一文中提出：“为什么在公元前一世纪到公元十五世纪期间，在应用人类的自然知识于人类的实际需要方面，中国文明远比西方更有成效得多？”“为什么近代科学只在欧洲，而没有在中国文明（或印度文明）中产生？”这就是引起科学史界乃至学术界极大关注的“李约瑟难题”。

Among the many arguments, there is one view: modern science arose only in Europe because the West had a Christian cultural background — that is, without Christianity, modern science could not have been born. Chinese traditional culture seems to have nothing to do with science; therefore, to rely on science and develop science, China must accept Christian faith and Christianize China. Is this really the case?

在众多立论中，有这样一种看法：近代科学只在欧洲产生，那是因为西方有基督教文化背景，即是说，没有基督教就不可能诞生近代科学。中国的传统文化似乎与科学无缘，因此，要想依靠科学，发展科学，中国就必须接受基督教信仰、基督教化中国。果真如此吗？

To answer this question, we must clearly analyze the conditions under which modern science emerged. Taken together, the following conditions are generally recognized as necessary:

为了回答这一问题，必须分析清楚近代科学产生的条件。综合来看，要具备以下条件是人们所公认的：

(1) Socio-economic development provided the basic material conditions and urgently demanded further development of scientific knowledge; (2) Not only was necessary empirical knowledge accumulated, but the foundation of theoretical knowledge was also laid, for example, the modern astronomical revolution and the establishment of classical mechanics; (3) Methods for acquiring scientific knowledge (especially theoretical knowledge) were basically established, such as the method combining experiment and mathematics; (4) As an institution, science received initial recognition and support from society, becoming an independent branch of knowledge.

（1） 社会经济发展提供了基本物质条件并迫切需要科学认识的进一步发展；（2）不仅积累了必要的经验知识，还奠定了理论知识的根基，比如，近代天文学革命、经典力学创立等；（3）获取科学知识（尤其是理论知识）的方法得到基本确立，比如实验与数学相结合的方法等；（4）作为一种建制得到社会的初步承认和支持，成为独立的知识部门。

So why did modern Europe possess these conditions, while China did not? Was it because Europe had a Christian cultural background? Let us examine each condition in turn.

那么，为什么近代欧洲具备了这些条件，而在中国却不具备这样的条件呢？是因为欧洲有基督教文化背景吗？让我们逐一来探讨吧。

The first condition is the fundamental cause of the emergence of modern science and the basis for the other three conditions; it is clearly unrelated to Christianity. This article does not discuss this issue in detail, so there is no need to dwell on it. In fact, Engels long ago pointed out: “If, after the night of the Middle Ages, science suddenly rose again with unexpected force and developed at a miraculous speed, then we must once again attribute this miracle to production.”[21]21 Yu Qiming’s note 21: Engels, *Dialectics of Nature* (《自然辩证法》), *Collected Works of Marx and Engels* (《马克思恩格斯全集》), Vol. 20, p. 524. “Once society has a technical need, that need will push science forward more than ten universities.”[22]22 Yu Qiming’s note 22: Engels, *Letter to W. Borgius* (《致瓦·博尔吉乌斯》), *Selected Works of Marx and Engels* (《马克思恩格斯选集》), Vol. 4, p. 732. To recklessly claim that “without Christianity, modern science could not have been born” is simply a naive view that only looks at the surface of things, fails to see the forest for the trees, and ignores the essence of the matter.

第一个条件是近代科学产生的根本原因，是其他三个条件的基础，显然与基督教无关。本文不专门讨论这个问题，自不必过多涉及。其实，恩格斯早就指出过：“如果说，在中世纪的黑夜之后，科学以意想不到的力量一下子重新兴起，并且以神奇的速度发展起来，那末，我们要再次把这个奇迹归功于生产。”[21] “社会一旦有技术上的需要，则这种需要就会比十所大学更能把科学推向前进。”[22]妄言“没有基督教就不可能诞生近代科学”，实在是只看问题表面、一叶障目而忽视了事物本质的幼稚看法。

The fourth condition is directly linked to the social function of science. As the role of science becomes increasingly evident and its importance gains more recognition, the institutionalization of science naturally follows. This aspect could not possibly require Christianity to bring it about.

第四个条件是与科学的社会功能直接相联系的，科学的作用愈益彰显，科学的重要性越来越得到认可，那么科学的建制也就水到渠成了。这方面也不可能必须由基督教来促成。

The second and third conditions can also be questioned in this way: Why could “theoretical knowledge” and “the method combining experiment and mathematics” arise in modern Europe but not in China? First, let us consider what “theoretical knowledge” means. The system of scientific knowledge has structure and levels. As the result of human cognition, scientific knowledge includes both empirical knowledge and theoretical knowledge. These two are discovered through different means (paths); they differ in nature, yet they are interdependent and mutually constraining, forming a unified system. What is the difference between empirical knowledge and theoretical knowledge? Whatever describes (records) facts directly observed by people is empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge only understands the surface phenomena of things; it cannot yet understand the essence of things or the causality between things. To understand the essence of things and the causality between phenomena, it is necessary to provide a theoretical explanation and interpretation of empirical facts — that is, to explain why certain phenomena arise, and to reduce the observed phenomena of things to the effects of universal laws (empirical laws and fundamental laws) and their deductive consequences. These laws and deductive consequences constitute theoretical knowledge. To put it more clearly, theoretical knowledge is composed of basic concepts, laws, and logical inferences. Therefore, science is a knowledge system with levels and structure, constituted by the interaction of empirical knowledge and theoretical knowledge. Before modern society, human cognition was mainly limited to the level of empirical knowledge, so the establishment of a scientific knowledge system was out of the question. The claim that “traditional Chinese medicine is not science” is only meaningful in the sense that it still lacks theoretical understanding, but this in no way denies that traditional Chinese medicine possesses a rich treasure trove of medical knowledge and has very significant application value worthy of excavation and elevation.

第二、三个条件也可以这样来追问：为什么“理论知识”和“实验与数学相结合的方法”等，能在近代欧洲产生而不能在中国产生呢？先来看“理论知识”是什么意思。科学知识体系是有结构、层次的。科学知识作为人类认识的成果，既有经验的知识，又有理论的知识。这两者是通过不同的方式（途径）发现的，它们在性质上有区别，然而又互相依存、互相制约而成为统一的体系。经验知识与理论知识有什么不同呢？凡是对人们亲身观察到的事实做出描述（记录）的都是经验知识。经验知识只是认识事物的表面现象，还不能认识事物的本质、事物之间的因果性。为了认识事物的本质、现象之间的因果性，就必须对经验事实做出理论的说明与解释，即说明为什么会产生这样或那样的现象，把人们所观察到的事物现象归结为普遍定律（经验定律和原理定律）及其演绎结论发生作用的效应，这些定律和演绎结论就是理论知识。说得清楚一些，理论知识是由基本概念、定律以及逻辑推论组成的。因此，科学是由经验知识和理论知识相互作用而构成的有层次、有结构的知识体系。在近代社会以前，人类的认识主要还局限于经验知识水平，所以还谈不上科学知识体系的建立。所谓“中医不是科学”，也只是在它还缺乏理论认识的意义上来说的，但这决不能否认中医有丰富的医学知识宝藏，有非常值得挖掘、提升的应用价值。

In this regard, those who advocate that “the formation of modern science benefited from the Christian background” have made a great deal of effort. They believe that the rational elements contained in Christianity provided the necessary prerequisites for the formation of the modern scientific mode of thinking: the spirit of doubt encouraged the study of nature; the search for natural laws (“the divine legislator”) and the tradition of emphasizing logic embodied the pursuit of the principle of causality. Is this really the case? Did the necessary prerequisites for the formation of the modern scientific mode of thinking truly originate from Christianity?

在这方面，主张“近代科学形成得益于基督教背景”的人可以说是做足了文章。他们认为，基督教包含的理性因素为近代科学思维方式的形成准备了必要前提：怀疑精神鼓励了对自然的研究；对自然规律的寻找（“神圣立法者”）和重视逻辑的传统，体现了因果性原则的追求。事情真是这样的吗？形成近代科学思维方式的必要前提真是来源于基督教吗？

In fact, the spirit of doubt and the search for natural laws (emphasis on logic) had already emerged as early as the ancient Greek period. On these points, a brief account will suffice to make it clear.

实际上，怀疑精神和对自然规律的探求（重视逻辑），早在古希腊时期就已经崭露头角了。在这些方面，只要略述一二，即可昭然若揭。

Thales, who lived approximately between 624 and 547 BCE, first proposed the theory that water is the primordial element, and later there were various conjectures about the origin of all things. Zeno, who lived between 490 and 436 BCE, put forward famous paradoxes that still inspire people today. Democritus, who lived between 460 and 370 BCE, proposed atomism. Aristotle, who lived between 384 and 322 BCE, was “the most erudite figure” among ancient Greek philosophers and the great synthesizer of ancient science. He comprehensively studied the theoretical problems of formal logic and established a system of formal logic based mainly on deduction, and is considered the founder of formal logic. Euclid, who lived between 330 and 275 BCE, compiled *Elements of Geometry*, which is still a required subject for middle school students today; its logical system is so precise that every one of its propositions is absolutely beyond doubt. Archimedes, who lived between 287 and 212 BCE, laid the foundation of statics in modern physics… And all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, which appeared several hundred years later! Moreover, modern science developed precisely along the vein of ancient Greek civilization. Engels said profoundly: “In the multifarious forms of Greek philosophy, the embryos and germs of almost all later modes of thought can be found. Hence, if theoretical natural science wishes to trace the history of the origin and development of its general propositions of today, it will also have to go back to the Greeks.” [23]23 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*.

生活于公元前约624-547年间的泰勒斯开始提出水元素说，后来有各种关于万物本原的猜测；公元前490-436年间的芝诺提出过至今依然给人以启迪的著名悖论；公元前460-370年间的德谟克里特提出过原子论；公元前384-322年间的亚里斯多德更是古希腊哲学家中“最博学的人物”，是古代科学集大成者。他全面研究了形式逻辑的理论问题，建立了以演绎法为主的形式逻辑体系，被认为是形式逻辑的奠基人；公元前330-275年间的欧几里德编著的《几何原本》现在还是中学生的必修内容，它的逻辑体系如此精密，以至它的每一个命题都是绝对不容置疑的；公元前287-212年间的阿基米德奠定了近代物理学中静力学的基础…… 而所有这一切与几百年后才出现的基督教毫无关系！而近代科学也正是在古希腊文明的脉络上发展起来的。恩格斯说得深刻：“在希腊哲学的多种多样的形式中，差不多可以找到以后各种观点的胚胎、萌芽。因此，如果理论自然科学想要追溯自己今天的一般原理发生和发展的历史，它也不得不回到希腊人那里去。”[23]

Therefore, Einstein “praised ancient Greece as the cradle of Western science.” [24]24 Albert Einstein, in a letter or essay praising ancient Greece as the origin of Western science. In a letter to a friend, he once said: “The development of Western science is based on two great achievements: the invention of formal logic by Greek philosophers (in Euclidean geometry) and the discovery of possible causal relationships through systematic experiment (in the Renaissance). In my view, it is no wonder that the sages of China did not take these two steps.” [25]25 Albert Einstein, letter to J. E. Switzer, 23 April 1953. Here, one can add: this has nothing to do with whether “the sages of China” had Christian faith.

所以，爱因斯坦“推崇古代希腊是西方科学的摇篮”。[24]他曾在给友人的一封信中说到：“西方科学的发展是以两个伟大的成就为基础，那就是：希腊哲学家发明的形式逻辑（在欧几里得几何中）以及通过系统的实验找出可能的因果关系（在文艺复兴时期的发现中），在我看来，中国的贤哲没有走上这两步，那是用不着惊奇的。”[25]在此，可以补充一句：这与“中国的贤哲”有没有基督教信仰无关。

“Theoretical knowledge” and “the method combining experiment and mathematics,” etc., failed to emerge in Chinese civilization because ancient China lacked the traditions of natural philosophy and formal logic, as well as the experimental activities related to the search for causal relationships. The thinking characteristic of ancient Chinese people was to easily shift from experience to practicality, whereas Europeans relatively easily shifted from experience to principle (causal relationships).

“理论知识”和“实验与数学相结合的方法”等，所以没能在中国文明中产生，原因就在于中国古代缺乏自然哲学和形式逻辑的传统，以及与此相关的探求因果关系的实验活动。古代中国人的思维特点是易于由经验性转向实用性，而欧洲人则相对地易于由经验性转向原理性（因果关系）。

Analyzing the scientific and technological achievements of ancient and even modern China and the West, we can find that there is a significant difference in the proportion of theory, experiment, and technology in the total output of China and the West. Overall, ancient Chinese science and technology had a tendency to emphasize technology and neglect theory, while the West developed relatively evenly. Influenced by the traditional concepts of “practical application to statecraft” (经世致用), “principle resides in concrete affairs” (理在事中), and “the Way lies in technique” (道在技中), they did not pay attention to the systematic nature of theory itself. For example, the discovery and use of fire was a great advance for humanity; Eastern peoples for thousands of years simply used it without asking why. The Western theories of “phlogiston” and “oxidation” explored the causes of combustion. Inspired by the phenomenon of a magnet attracting iron, the Chinese created the compass, one of the “Four Great Inventions”; yet the theory of the Earth’s magnetic field explaining why the compass points south was produced in the West. Shen Kuo wrote in *Dream Pool Essays* (梦溪笔谈) that the magnet “differs between north and south…, not yet deeply investigated.” Why was it not “deeply investigated”? The book says “its principle cannot be fathomed.” Liu Xianting, in *Miscellaneous Notes from Guangyang* (广阳杂记), once recorded a dialogue about “what can block a magnet from attracting iron”: “A child said: ‘Only iron can block it.’ The person left and then returned, saying: ‘I tried it and it was indeed so.’ I said: ‘Why must this be tested? It is a natural principle.’” The widely accepted theories of “the unity of Heaven and humanity” (天人合一) and the mystical speculation of “comprehending the Way through the mind” (用心悟道) in traditional Chinese culture often made people satisfied with “knowing the what but not the why,” which severely hindered further exploration of objective laws.

分析中国及西方古代乃至近代的科技成果，我们可以发现，中国与西方的理论、实验、技术在成果总量中占的比例有显著差别。总的看来,中国古代科技存在重技术、轻理论的倾向，西方则是相对均衡地发展。受传统观念“经世致用”、“理在事中”和“道在技中”的影响，不注重理论本身的系统性。例如，火的发现与利用是人类的一大进步，东方民族几千年来只管利用而不问原因。西方的“燃素说”、“氧化说”则对燃烧的原因进行了探讨。受磁石吸铁现象的启发，中国人制作了“四大发明”之一的指南针；而解释指南针为什么指南的地球磁场理论却是在西方产生的。沈括在《梦溪笔谈》中写到，磁“南北有异……，未深考也”。为什么不去“深考”呢？书中说“莫可测其理”。刘献庭在《广阳杂记》中曾谈到一次有关“磁石吸铁，何物可以隔之”的对话：“犹之阿孺曰：‘惟铁可以隔之耳’，其人去复来曰：‘试之果然’，余曰：‘此何必试，自然之理也。’”中国传统文化中普遍认同的“天人合一”说和“用心悟道”的玄思，往往使人满足于“知其然而不知其所以然”，这就严重阻碍了对客观规律的进一步探索。

Thus, it is not difficult to see that “theoretical knowledge” and “the method combining experiment and mathematics,” etc., could emerge in modern Europe but not in China, not at all “thanks to the Christian background,” but truly thanks to the traditions of ancient Greek natural philosophy and formal logic, as well as the related experimental activities seeking causal relationships. Related to this, modern science could emerge in Europe but not in Chinese civilization also because only the social and economic development of Europe at that time provided the basic material conditions for the emergence of science and urgently demanded its further development. At the same time, the role of science became increasingly evident, its importance was increasingly recognized by society, and the institutionalization of science followed naturally, gaining initial recognition and support from society and becoming an independent branch of knowledge. Christianity cannot claim the credit for all this as its own.

这样，我们就不难看出，“理论知识”和“实验与数学相结合的方法”等，所以能在近代欧洲产生而不能在中国产生，决非“得益于基督教背景”，而是真正得益于古希腊自然哲学和形式逻辑的传统，以及与此相关的探求因果关系的实验活动。与此相联系，近代科学所以能在欧洲产生，而没有在中国文明中产生，还因为只有当时欧洲的社会经济发展提供了科学产生的基本物质条件并迫切需要科学进一步发展，同时科学的作用日益明显，其重要性愈益被社会认可，科学的建制也水到渠成，得到社会的初步承认和支持，成为独立的知识部门。这一切，基督教都是无法贪天功为己有的。

It should also be pointed out that we cannot therefore believe that China made no contribution to the emergence of modern Western science. In fact, the development of modern Western science was also inseparable from the foundation of ancient Eastern science. Joseph Needham said it well: “Modern science arose only in 17th-century Europe, when the best method for making discoveries was found; but the discoveries and inventions of that time and later often depended on the progress made in science, technology, and medicine in China over many previous centuries.” [26]26 Joseph Needham, *Science and Civilisation in China*. He also quoted Francis Bacon, saying that “the three inventions of paper and printing, gunpowder, and the compass have done more to completely transform the modern world and distinguish it from antiquity and the Middle Ages than any religious belief, any astrological influence, or any conqueror’s success.” [27]27 Francis Bacon, *Novum Organum* (1620), on the three inventions.

还应该指出的是，我们不能因此而认为，中国对近代西方科学的产生就没有任何贡献了。事实上，近代西方科学的发展也离不开东方古代科学的基础。李约瑟说得好：“近代科学只兴起于17世纪的欧洲，那时找到了做出发现的最佳方法；但当时及其后的发现和发明在许多情况下都有赖于以前许多个世纪内中国在科学、技术与医学方面的进步。”[26]他还转述培根的话说，“造纸与印刷术、火药、指南针这三项发明对于彻底改造近代世界并使之与古代及中世纪划分开来，比任何宗教信念、任何占星术的影响或任何征服者的成功所起的作用更大。”[27]

7. How God Created the Universe According to His Supreme Reason: Another Relationship between Science and Religion

七、上帝如何按其最高理性创造宇宙：科学与宗教其他关系之三

There is another claim: “Christianity believes that God created the universe according to His supreme reason, and this view prompted people to explore the specific laws by which the universe moves in accordance with reason.” This view cannot withstand further questioning: “How did God create the universe according to His supreme reason? Where did the ‘reason’ of Christianity come from?”

还有一种说法：“基督教相信上帝按其最高理性创造宇宙，这种观点促使人们去探索宇宙运动符合理性的具体规律”。这一看法经不起进一步追问：“上帝是如何按其最高理性创造宇宙的？基督教的理性来自哪里？”

The so-called “rational factor” in Christianity was not originally present in early Christian doctrine. The theological thought of early Christianity was entirely fideism and obscurantism. The “famous saying” of Tertullian, a representative of Patristic philosophy (mid-2nd to 5th century), is evidence: “It is credible because it is absurd; it is certain because it is impossible — I believe it precisely because it is absurd.” [28]28 Tertullian, *De Carne Christi* (On the Flesh of Christ), Chapter 5. Later, another representative of Patristic philosophy, Augustine, began to introduce reason into theology to a certain extent, fond of citing ancient Greek and Roman philosophy (especially Platonic philosophy) to argue for Christian theological faith. As for the so-called “rational factor,” it only appeared after medieval Christian theology developed to the stage of “Scholasticism,” and mainly originated from the doctrines of Aristotle. For example, the famous 12th-century Scholastic philosopher Abelard believed that even the existence of God required proof. He proposed: “Understanding leads to faith,” and “the best method for solving problems in scholarship is persistent and constant doubt… Doubt leads us to inquiry, and inquiry leads us to the knowledge of truth.” [29]29 Peter Abelard, *Sic et Non* (Yes and No), Prologue.

基督教的所谓“理性因素”，并不是早期基督教教义中原有的。初期的基督教神学思想完全是信仰主义与蒙昧主义，教父哲学（公元2世纪中叶至5世纪）的代表人物德尔图良的“名言”就是佐证：“此事可信，因为它是荒谬可笑的；此事可靠，因为它是不可能的——我相信它，正因为它是荒谬的。”[28]之后，教父哲学的另一位代表人物奥古斯丁才开始在一定程度上把理性引入神学，喜欢引用古希腊罗马哲学（尤其是柏拉图哲学）来论证基督教神学信仰。至于所谓“理性因素”，更是中世纪基督教神学发展到“经院哲学”阶段以后才具有的，主要来源于亚里斯多德的学说。比如，12世纪著名经院哲学家阿伯拉尔就认为，上帝的存在也要证明，他提出：“理解才能信仰”，“在学问上最好的解决问题的方法是坚持和经常的怀疑，……怀疑把我们引向研究，研究使我们认识真理。”[29]

The main representative of Scholasticism was Thomas Aquinas. The Crusades, from the end of the 11th century to the end of the 13th century, led Europe to rediscover the splendid culture of ancient Greece, sparking a wave of translation and study of ancient Greek texts among scholars. Originally, Aristotle’s doctrines were contrary to Christian faith and were therefore banned by the Church (1209). However, the more they were banned, the more they aroused people’s doubts and attention, leading more people to incline toward Aristotle’s thought, which instead isolated the Church. Under these circumstances, Pope Gregory IX had to change the policy of suppression. In 1231, he issued a decree establishing a committee of theologians, commissioning them to examine and expurgate Aristotle’s works, “making them serve our purposes.” It was against this historical backdrop that Thomas displayed his talents. At the age of 21, he went to Paris, France (then the academic and cultural center of all Europe), where he personally experienced the controversies and struggles surrounding Aristotle’s doctrines. After the age of 24, he studied in Cologne, Germany, under the famous theologian Albertus Magnus. During his four years of study, Albertus, who was skilled in Aristotelian research, exerted a profound influence on him.

经院哲学的主要代表人物是托马斯•阿奎那。从11世纪末到13世纪末的十字军东征，使欧洲重新发现了古代希腊的灿烂文化，在学者中掀起了一股翻译与学习古希腊文献的热潮。原本亚里斯多德的学说与基督教信仰是相违背的，因此曾遭到教会的查禁（1209年）。然而越查禁越引起人们的疑惑和关注，以致更多的人倾向于亚里斯多德的思想，反而使教会孤立起来。在这样的情况下，教皇格列高里九世不得不改变压制的方针，于1231年发出通谕，成立一个神学家委员会，委派他们审查、删改亚里斯多德的著作，“为我所用”。托马斯正是在这样的历史背景下展示身手的。他21岁时到过法国巴黎（当时的全欧学术文化中心），亲身体验了围绕亚里斯多德学说的争议和斗争。24岁后在德国科隆师从著名神学家阿尔伯特，四年学习期间，擅长亚里斯多德研究的阿尔伯特对他影响极深。

In order to find a support for Christianity, Thomas took passages out of context from ancient Greek philosophical texts that had a deep influence on society, thereby serving theology. By adding a rational color to Christian theology, he sought to cover up the absurdity of theological faith. The purpose of Scholasticism was to demonstrate the sanctity of the Bible and theological dogmas; it was by no means intended to study the laws of nature. Understanding God and proving God’s existence were the true intentions. Therefore, the issues it dealt with were mostly empty, absurd questions divorced from reality, which could only be addressed through tedious wording or obscure language. They also acknowledged reason as a key to understanding nature, and starting from the belief that God could be known through created things, they could study nature. However, reason had to submit to faith in God and could only serve as the “handmaid” of God. Nevertheless, Thomas advocated harmony between faith and reason, recognizing the equivalence of reason and faith within the scope of natural theology. This, to a certain extent, gave reason a relative independence.

托马斯为了给基督教寻找依托，便从对社会有深刻影响的古希腊哲学文献中断章取义，以此来服务于神学。他给基督教神学增加理性色彩，是想掩盖神学信仰的荒唐。经院哲学目的是为了论证《圣经》及神学教条的神圣性，决非要研究自然界规律，认识上帝、证明上帝的存在才是本意。因此所涉及的多是脱离现实的空洞、荒诞的问题，只能用烦琐的文字或晦涩的语言进行。他们也认可将理性作为认识自然的钥匙，从受造物认识上帝的信念出发可以对自然进行研究，但是理性一定要服从对上帝的信仰，只能做上帝的“婢女”。不过，托马斯倡导信仰与理性和谐，承认理性与信仰在自然神学范围内的等价性，这就在一定程度上使理性具有了相对独立性。

Thus it can be seen that the “rational element” of Christianity had great limitations. Without ancient Greek natural philosophy and logic, it would be like a tree without roots or a river without a source. It could not serve as a necessary prerequisite for the formation of the mode of thinking of modern science. Take, for example, systematic skepticism, which is indispensable for scientific research. However, as noted above, the true source of this spirit among modern Western scholars was ancient Greek natural philosophy, not Christianity. Those who firmly believed in Christianity did not necessarily possess scientific skepticism. The difference between Kepler and his teacher and close friend Tycho Brahe is very illustrative. Tycho was a remarkable astronomer who conducted meticulous astronomical observations for decades. Among them, he made very precise measurements of the position of Mars from different directions, and found that the actual observations differed from theoretical predictions by 8 arcminutes. Tycho did not take this seriously, but Kepler’s strong skepticism made him unable to tolerate this discrepancy. Through persistent exploration, this led to Kepler’s discovery of the first law of planetary motion.

由此可见，基督教的“理性因素”是有很大局限性的，离开了古希腊自然哲学与逻辑学，即成为无本之木、无源之水。它不可能充当近代科学思维方式形成的必要前提。就以有条理的怀疑精神来说，这是科学研究不可缺少的。但是，如上所述，近代西方学者这种精神的真正来源是古希腊自然哲学，而非基督教。笃信基督教的人并不一定就有科学的怀疑精神。开普勒与其老师、挚友第谷•布拉赫之间的差别就很能说明问题。第谷是一位了不起的天文学家，几十年如一日地进行精细的天文观测，其中，从不同方位对火星位置作了非常精确的测定，结果发现实际观测与理论预测之间存在8弧分的误差。对此，第谷不以为然，而开普勒怀有的强烈怀疑精神使他不能容忍这种误差，通过坚持不懈的探索，由此导致了开普勒行星运动第一定律的发现。

As for the active promotion of education and academic activities by some Christian churches, this also requires analysis. After the European Reformation, in order to expand their social influence, churches increasingly utilized the power of scientific knowledge, establishing schools and colleges, and setting up institutions specifically for training monks, mainly recruiting young believers for religious indoctrination and cultural education. For example, the famous Italian missionary Matteo Ricci was sent to China by the Catholic Jesuit order, bringing with him much Western science and technology. However, they used this science and technology as a stepping stone to open the door of the great Eastern country with a long culture, thereby achieving the goal of spreading religion to control China. This is clearly stated in the missionary accounts written by the Jesuits: “Using this as bait, many in China fell into the Church’s net”; without this, “to make them take foreigners as teachers would be almost an empty hope.” [30]30 The original Chinese text cites two works: Nicolas Trigault’s *De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas* (a Latin account of the Jesuit mission in China) and Matteo Ricci’s *Storia dell’Introduzione del Cristianesimo in Cina* (an Italian history of the introduction of Christianity to China). The phrase “以此为饵，中国颇多落入教会网中者” (“using this as bait, many in China fell into the Church’s net”) is a paraphrase from these Jesuit missionary records.

至于一些基督教会对教育及学术活动的积极提倡，也应进行分析。欧洲宗教改革运动以后，教会为了扩大自己的社会影响，日益利用科学知识的力量，开办学校和学院，设立专门培训僧侣的机构，主要吸收青年教徒，进行宗教灌输和文化教育。比如意大利著名传教士利玛窦就是天主教耶酥会派来中国的，他带来了不少西方科学技术。但他们是要以这些科学技术作为敲门砖来打开文化悠久的东方大国的门户，从而达到传布宗教以左右中国的目的。这在耶酥会士写的传教记述中就有很清楚的表白：“以此为饵，中国颇多落入教会网中者”，非如此，“欲使彼等师事外人，殆虚望而已”。[30]

One can only say that the active promotion of education and academic activities by some religious organizations objectively promoted the spread and development of science and technology. Moreover, in these respects, compared with the role of school education, scientists, and scientific societies, it was extremely limited.

只能说，一些宗教组织对教育及学术活动的积极提倡，客观上促进了科学与技术的传播和发展吧。而且在这些方面，比起学校教育、科学家与科学团体的作用来，那是极其有限的。

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

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

[1]1 John Desmond Bernal, *Science in History* (London: Watts & Co., 1954). The original English text is rendered here in translation; the Chinese text cites a Chinese edition. J. D. Bernal, *Science in History*, translated by Wu Kuangfu et al., Science Press, 1959, p. 6.

[1] 贝尔纳J•D：《历史上的科学》，伍况甫等译，科学出版社1959年版，第6页。

[2]2 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, in *Marx & Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 452. The Chinese text cites a Chinese edition of Engels’s work. Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, People’s Publishing House, 1971, p. 149.

[2] 恩格斯《自然辩证法》，人民出版社1971年版，第149页。

[3]3 William Cecil Dampier, *A History of Science and Its Relations with Philosophy and Religion* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929). The Chinese text cites a Chinese edition. William Cecil Dampier, *A History of Science*, Commercial Press, 1970, p. 29.

[3] 丹皮尔：《科学史》，商务印书馆1970年版，第29页。

[4]4 Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion," in *Ideas and Opinions* (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), p. 48. The original quotation reads: "The main source of the present-day conflict between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God." See *The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein*, Vol. 1, p. 282.

[4] 参阅《爱因斯坦文集》第一卷，第282页。

[5]5 Alister E. McGrath, *Science and Religion: An Introduction* (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), p. 12. Alister E. McGrath, *Science and Religion: An Introduction*, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2008, p. 2.

[5] 麦克格拉思《科学与宗教引论》 ，上海人民出版社，2008年版，第2页。

[6]6 Ibid., p. 13. Ibid., p. 5.

[6] 同上，第5页。

[7]7 John Polkinghorne, *Science and Providence: God's Interaction with the World* (Boston: Shambhala, 1989), p. 68. Quoted from Ian G. Barbour, *Issues in Science and Religion*, p. 362.

[7] 转引自I•G•巴伯：《科学与宗教》，第362页。

[8]8 Friedrich Engels, "Dialectics of Nature," in *Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 465. The full passage reads: "God has been treated worse and worse by science. The materialistic view of nature only recently achieved its final victory. God nowhere finds a resting-place. The last refuge, the only one still left, was the so-called first cause. And this too has been taken from him by the theory of Laplace. God and his defenders have been forced to retreat step by step; one after another they have laid down their arms, one after another they have surrendered their fortresses, under the onslaught of science." Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, Beijing, People’s Publishing House, 1971, p. 179.

[8] 恩格斯《自然辩证法》，北京 人民出版社1971年版，第179页。

[9]9 Alister E. McGrath, *The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion* (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), p. 87. See Jiang Pisheng et al., eds., *Dialogue between Science and Religion in China*, China Social Sciences Press, 2008, p. 53.

[9] 参见江丕盛等编《科学与宗教对话在中国》，中国社会科学出版社2008年版，第53页。

[10]10 Freeman Dyson, *Infinite in All Directions* (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 297. Ibid., p. 33.

[10] 同上，第33页。

[11]11 Albert Einstein, “The Method of Theoretical Physics,” in *Ideas and Opinions* (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), p. 274. [n] Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, *The Evolution of Physics*, Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 1962, p. 158.

[11] 爱因斯坦、英费尔德：《物理学的进化》，上海科学技术出版社，1962年版，第158页。

[12]12 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” Thesis II, in *Marx/Engels Selected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 13. [n] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 55.

[12] 《马克思恩格斯选集》第1卷，人民出版社1995年版，第55页。

[13]13 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, in *Marx/Engels Collected Works*, vol. 25 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 483. [n] Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, People’s Publishing House, 1971, p. 209.

[13] 恩格斯《自然辩证法》，人民出版社1971年版，第209页。

[14]14 The Battle of Jena (1806) was a decisive defeat of the Prussian army by Napoleon; King Friedrich Wilhelm III was abandoned by his commanders and forced to flee. Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, in *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 9, People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp. 461-462.

[14] 恩格斯《自然辩证法》，见《马克思恩格斯文集》第9卷，人民出版社2009年版，第461-462页。

[15]15 Galileo Galilei, *Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina* (1615). Dava Sobel, *Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love*, translated by Xie Yanguang, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2005, p. 69.

[15] 达娃•索贝尔：《伽利略的女儿——科学、信仰和爱的历史回忆》，谢延光译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第69页。

[16]16 Ibid. Ibid., p. 73.

[16] 同上，第73页。

[17]17 Ibid. Dava Sobel, *Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love*, translated by Xie Yanguang, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2005, p. 311.

[17] 达娃•索贝尔：《伽利略的女儿——科学、信仰和爱的历史回忆》，谢延光译，上海人民出版社2005年版， 第311页。

[18]18 Pope John Paul II, “Science and Religion: The Galileo Case,” speech at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 10 November 1979. See *Science* (USA), 1980, No. 4436.

[18] 参阅《科学》（美）1980年，总第4436期。

[19]19 Yu Qiming’s note 19: Isaac Newton, *Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy* (《自然哲学的数学原理》), translated by Wang Kedi (王克迪), Shaanxi People’s Publishing House (陕西人民出版社), 2001 edition, p. 1. Quoted from H. S. Thayer, ed., *Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from His Writings*, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1974, p. 3.

[19] 转引自H•S•塞耶编《牛顿自然哲学著作选》，上海人民出版社1974年版，第3页。

[20]20 Yu Qiming’s note 20: H. S. Thayer, ed., *Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from His Writings* (《牛顿自然哲学著作选》), translated by Wang Fusong (王福山) et al., Shanghai Translation Publishing House (上海译文出版社), 2001 edition, pp. 57-58. Ibid., p. 62.

[20] 同上，第62页。

[21]21 Yu Qiming’s note 21: Engels, *Dialectics of Nature* (《自然辩证法》), *Collected Works of Marx and Engels* (《马克思恩格斯全集》), Vol. 20, p. 524. Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, p. 163.

[21] 恩格斯《自然辩证法》，第163页。

[22]22 Yu Qiming’s note 22: Engels, *Letter to W. Borgius* (《致瓦·博尔吉乌斯》), *Selected Works of Marx and Engels* (《马克思恩格斯选集》), Vol. 4, p. 732. *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 505.

[22] 《马恩选集》第4卷，第505页。

[23]23 Friedrich Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*. Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*, People’s Publishing House, 1971, pp. 30-31.

[23] 恩格斯：《自然辩证法》，人民出版社，1971年，第30-31页。

[24]24 Albert Einstein, in a letter or essay praising ancient Greece as the origin of Western science. *The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein*, Vol. 1, translated by Xu Liangying et al., Commercial Press, 1976, p. 313.

[24] 《爱因斯坦文集》第一卷，许良英等译，商务印书馆，1976年，第313页。

[25]25 Albert Einstein, letter to J. E. Switzer, 23 April 1953. *The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein*, Vol. 1, translated by Xu Liangying et al., Commercial Press, 1976, p. 574.

[25] 《爱因斯坦文集》第一卷，许良英等译，商务印书馆，1976年，第574页。

[26]26 Joseph Needham, *Science and Civilisation in China*. See Robert K. G. Temple, *China: Land of Discovery and Invention*, 21st Century Publishing House, 1995, p. 4.

[26] 参见罗伯特K•G•坦普尔：《中国：发明与发现的国度》，21世纪出版社，1995年，第4页。

[27]27 Francis Bacon, *Novum Organum* (1620), on the three inventions. Ibid., p. 7.

[27] 同上，第7页。

[28]28 Tertullian, *De Carne Christi* (On the Flesh of Christ), Chapter 5. See Wilhelm Windelband, *A History of Philosophy*, Vol. 1, Commercial Press, 1989, p. 304.

[28] 参见文德尔班：《哲学史教程》（上），商务印书馆1989年版，第304页。

[29]29 Peter Abelard, *Sic et Non* (Yes and No), Prologue. *Selected Historical Materials of World History* (Medieval Section), Commercial Press, 1964, pp. 215-217.

[29] 《世界通史资料选辑》（中古部分），商务印书馆1964年版，第215-217页。

[30]30 The original Chinese text cites two works: Nicolas Trigault’s *De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas* (a Latin account of the Jesuit mission in China) and Matteo Ricci’s *Storia dell’Introduzione del Cristianesimo in Cina* (an Italian history of the introduction of Christianity to China). The phrase “以此为饵，中国颇多落入教会网中者” (“using this as bait, many in China fell into the Church’s net”) is a paraphrase from these Jesuit missionary records. See Nicolas Trigault, *De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas*, and Matteo Ricci, *Storia dell’Introduzione del Cristianesimo in Cina*.

[30] 参见金尼阁《入华传教记》和利玛窦《入华记录》。

Online editor: Wang Jiafei

网络编辑：王佳菲