On the Historical Entanglement of Science and Theology

Looking back on the history of human intellect, when the light of reason and the fog of faith intertwine in the long river of history, science and theology are like two great currents, sometimes running parallel and sometimes converging, profoundly influencing humanity’s understanding and cognition of the world. Their entanglement runs through different stages of civilization and eras, both reshaping each other’s boundaries through conflict and collision, and at certain times influencing one another, presenting a complex and multifaceted situation. As Engels pointed out: “For a religion that conquered the Roman world empire and ruled the vast majority of civilized humanity for eighteen hundred years, it is impossible to solve the problem by simply calling it a collection of nonsense put together by swindlers. To solve the problem, one must explain its origin and development according to the historical conditions under which it arose and achieved dominance.” From Galileo’s astronomical observations to Newton’s theological manuscripts, from quantum superposition to theories of human origins, humanity both observes the stars with telescopes and weaves divine will with myths—the natural sciences discover the warp and weft of the universe, while religious theology disseminates the meaning of existence; together they constitute the ideas through which we understand the world.

回顾人类智识史，当理性的光芒与信仰的迷雾在历史长河中交织纠缠，科学与神学宛如两条时而并行、时而交汇的巨流，深刻影响着人类对世界的认知和理解。二者的纠葛贯穿于人类不同的文明阶段与时代，既在冲突碰撞中推动彼此边界的重塑，也在某些时期相互影响，呈现出复杂多元的态势。正如恩格斯所指出的：“对于一种征服罗马世界帝国、统治文明人类的绝大多数达一千八百年之久的宗教，简单地说它是骗子手凑集而成的无稽之谈，是不能解决问题的。要根据宗教借以产生和取得统治地位的历史条件，去说明它的起源和发展，才能解决问题。”从伽利略的天文观测到牛顿的神学手稿，从量子叠加态到人类起源说，人类既用望远镜观察星空，也用神话编织天意——自然科学发现宇宙的经纬，宗教神学传布存在的意义，它们共同构成我们理解世界的观念。

I. The Historical Trajectory of the Relationship between Science and Theology

一、科学与神学关系的历史轨迹

The American historian Blough believes that science and theology “from the beginning were interdependent, then became independent, each possessing different fields of knowledge and authority, and then evolved into a state of complete hostility.” In the European Middle Ages, science was completely subordinate to theology; in the period of modern science, science developed an independent consciousness of separation from theology, began to stand as an equal with theology and challenge its authority, and entered what Engels called the era of shifting from “science that collects materials” to “science that organizes materials,” establishing various scientific systems; the 20th century was an era of rapid development in modern science, both highly differentiated and highly integrated, in which humanity reflected on the serious threats to scientific civilization, and theology seemed to find a new field of expression.

美国历史学家布洛认为，科学与神学“从一开始二者相互依存，到各自拥有不同的知识领域和权威而相互独立，再演变到处于完全敌对状态”。欧洲中世纪，科学完全从属于神学；近代科学时期，科学具有从神学分离出来的独立意识，开始与神学分庭抗礼、挑战神学权威，进入恩格斯所称的由“搜集材料的科学”转向“整理材料的科学”、建立各门科学体系的时代；20世纪是现代科学既高度分化又高度综合迅猛发展，人类反思科学文明受到严重威胁，而神学又似乎重新找到表达领域的时代。

1. The Ancient World: The Symbiotic Origin of Science and Theology

1.古代世界：科学与神学同源共生

In ancient times, the natural forces that were difficult to conquer brought fear to people, leading the ancients to conceive of gods as supernatural powers. The sprouts of scientific knowledge were closely linked to reverence for the gods; ancient science and theology were homologous cognitive attempts to understand mysterious natural phenomena. The ancient Egyptians formulated a calendar by observing celestial phenomena, used to guide agricultural production and rituals of divine worship. Mesopotamian astrology linked the movements of celestial bodies to human fate, believing that changes in the heavens were manifestations of divine will. The ancient Greek natural philosopher Thales proposed that water was the origin of all things, which was not unrelated to the reverence in Greek mythology for the sea god Oceanus. “The difference and isomorphism between humans and gods, and the complete genealogy of the gods, reflect the objectivity and logic of Greek thought, which are precisely the basic prerequisites for the emergence of natural science.” The development of astronomy in ancient China was intertwined with astrology; constellations were named “heavenly officials” (天官), and both the patterns of celestial phenomena and the interaction between heaven and humanity were recorded, forming a unique hybrid knowledge system. This concept of linking natural phenomena with divine will was both a form of early scientific exploration and an important manifestation of theological thought, reflecting the symbiotic state of scientific exploration and theological concepts in early civilizations.

在古代，难以征服的自然力量带给人们以恐惧感，导致古人产生了崇拜某种超自然力量的神灵概念，科学知识的萌芽与对神灵的敬畏紧密相连，古代科学与神学是对神秘自然现象的同源认知尝试。古埃及人通过观察天象制定了历法，用于指导农业生产和神灵信仰仪式。美索不达米亚的占星术将天体的运行与人类的命运联系起来，认为天体的变化是神灵意志的体现。古希腊自然哲学家泰勒斯提出水是万物的本原，这与古希腊神话中对海洋神俄刻阿诺斯的尊崇不无关系。“人神相异同构和完备的诸神谱系，反映了希腊思想的对象性和逻辑性，这正是自然科学赖以产生的基本前提。”古代中国天文学发展与占星术相互交织，将星座命名为“天官”,同时记录星象规律与天人感应，形成独特的混杂知识体系。这种将自然现象与神灵神意联系起来的观念，既是早期科学探索的一种形式，也是神学思想的重要体现，反映了科学探索与神学观念在早期文明中的共生状态。

2. The Middle Ages: The Faint Light of Science under the Shadow of Theology

2.中世纪：神学笼罩下的科学微光

The European Middle Ages was an era of “theological unification,” where Christian theology became the value system by which everything was measured, attracting almost all intellectual elites. The dominant philosophy was first patristic philosophy, then scholastic philosophy. The theologians of patristic philosophy were only concerned with the relationship between God and humanity, disregarding nature and reality, believing that the end of the world was near and that the existing tangible natural world would soon be destroyed—why study it? The scholastic theologian Aquinas, who synthesized theological thought, inherited the ideas of Greek natural philosophers; Aristotle’s doctrine was the main source of his “rational factor.” He reinforced the role of the Greek scientific tradition in the form of religious theology, believing that understanding nature was a necessary path to understanding God, and that the ultimate goal of scientific research was to prove the existence and omnipotence of God. Ptolemy’s geocentric theory, which was consistent with Christian doctrines such as that humans were created in God’s image and that the place where humans live should be at the center of the universe, was thus incorporated into the system of Christian theological thought. This situation of science under the tight shadow of theology was vividly described by Roger Bacon: “One discipline is the mistress of the others—this discipline is theology, and all other disciplines are necessary for it; without them, it cannot achieve its own purpose.” Therefore, once scientific exploration was inconsistent with theological concepts, it would be suppressed or even persecuted. Roger Bacon used experimental methods to engage in “the study of physics and the laws of the world,” proposing “to adhere to true reasoning and to use mathematics as a tool for the natural sciences,” challenging the authority of the Bible. As a result, scientific exploration brought him not honor but imprisonment; when he was released, he was already 80 years old. “The Middle Ages… this is a valley of shadow through which humanity descended from the peak of Greek thought and Roman rule, and then struggled up the slope of modern knowledge.” [1]1 Source not provided in original; likely a paraphrase of a common observation about figures like Newton, Boyle, and Kepler.

欧洲中世纪是一个“神学大一统”的时代，基督教神学成为衡量一切的价值体系，几乎吸引了所有智力精英，占统治地位的先是教父哲学，而后是经院哲学。教父哲学神学家只关心上帝与人的关系，不重视自然和现实，认为世界末日为时不远，现有的有形自然界不久便会毁灭，为什么还要研究它呢?集神学思想之大成的经院哲学神学家阿奎那，继承了希腊自然哲学家的思想，亚里士多德的学说是其“理性因素”的主要来源，以宗教神学的形式强化了希腊科学传统的作用，认为认识自然是认识上帝的必要途径，科学研究的最终目标是证明上帝的存在与全能。托勒密的地心说，与人是上帝根据自己形象创造的、人居住的地方理应在宇宙中心等基督教义观念相符合，因此被纳入基督教神学思想体系。这种在神学严密笼罩下的科学情形，被罗吉尔·培根形象地描述为：“一个学科是其它学科的女主人——这一学科就是神学，而其他所有学科都是这一学科必需的，没有它们，它就无法实现自己的目的。”因此，一旦科学探索与神学观念不一致就会受到压制甚至迫害。罗吉尔·培根用实验方法从事“物理学和世界规律的研究”,提出“坚持真正的推理，并且把数学作为自然科学的工具”,挑战了《圣经》的权威，结果科学探索带给他的不是荣誉而是被投入监狱，待出狱时已是80岁高龄。“中世纪……这是人类由希腊思想和罗马统治的高峰降落下来，再沿着现代知识的斜坡挣扎上去所经过的一个阴谷。”

3. The Modern Era: The Scientific Revolution Breaking the Shackles of Theology

3.近代：冲破神学桎梏的科学革命

With the rise of the Renaissance, people began to refocus on human value and dignity. Enlightenment thinkers, when attacking the “sacred” ideas of theologians, often opposed scientific rationality to theological superstition. Science began to embark on the path of breaking free from the bonds of theology. The scientific revolution initiated by Copernicus’s heliocentric theory in the 16th century completely changed the power dynamics between science and theology. The tension between science and theology intensified for the first time, and as their conflict deepened, science also ushered in an unprecedented opportunity for independent development.

随着文艺复兴运动兴起，人们开始重新关注人的价值和尊严，启蒙思想家在攻击神学家的“神圣”思想观念时，常常把科学理性与神学迷信对立起来，科学开始走上摆脱神学束缚的道路，而16世纪哥白尼日心说掀起的科学革命，彻底改变了科学与神学的力量格局，科学与神学的张力首次激化，二者冲突加剧的同时，科学也迎来了前所未有的独立发展契机。

Copernicus proposed the heliocentric theory, overthrowing Ptolemy’s geocentric theory and changing the Christian worldview of “the earth at the center of the universe, with heaven above and hell below,” causing an uproar. “The revolutionary act by which natural science declared its independence and, as it were, repeated Luther’s burning of the papal bull, was the publication of Copernicus’s immortal work. With this book (though timidly and, it might be said, only on his deathbed) he challenged the authority of the church in matters of nature. From then on, natural science began to be emancipated from theology.” [2]2 Source not provided in original.

哥白尼提出日心说，推翻了托勒密的地心说，改变了基督教关于“地球在宇宙的中心，上有天堂、下有地狱”的世界图景，引发了轩然大波，“自然科学借以宣布其独立并且好像是重演路德焚烧教谕的革命行动，便是哥白尼那本不朽著作的出版，他用这本书(虽然是胆怯地而且可说只在临终时)来向自然事物的教会权威挑战。从此自然科学便开始从神学中解放出来”。

In modern times, the effect of the scientific activities of many religious scientists often ran counter to their original intentions. Copernicus, caught in the conflict between science and theology, wrote in his work *On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres* (1543), which sparked the scientific revolution: “For this discipline [astronomy] also provides extraordinary joys of the mind. When a person devotes himself to what he considers to be most properly arranged and governed by divine will, would not the contemplation of these things inspire him to pursue the best and to praise the Creator of all things?” Vesalius published the first scientific work on anatomy, *On the Fabric of the Human Body*, in 1543. Through actual dissection, he discovered that men and women have the same number of ribs, which directly conflicted with the Old Testament’s *Book of Genesis*. As a result, Vesalius was sentenced to exile by the Inquisition and died on the way.

近代许多信教科学家从事科学活动的效果常常与其本来动机相反。处于科学与神学相冲突之中的哥白尼，在那部引起科学革命的《天体运行论》(1543年)一书中是这样写的：天文学“这门学科还能提供非凡的心灵欢乐。当一个人致力于他认为安排得最妥当和受神灵支配的事情时，对它们的深思熟虑会不会激励他追求最美好的事物并赞美万物的创造者?”维萨里1543年出版了科学史上第一部解剖学著作《人体的构造》,通过实际解剖发现男人的肋骨和女人一样多的事实，就直接和《旧约·创世记》发生了冲突，由此维萨里被宗教裁判所判处流放并死于途中。

The Italian scientist Galileo had long believed in Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, but it was only after discovering solid evidence supporting it through astronomical telescope observations that he explicitly endorsed Copernican doctrine. The Inquisition warned Galileo that the proposition that the Earth is not the center of the universe was philosophically foolish and absurd and religiously erroneous. Nevertheless, Galileo continued his in-depth astronomical research and published his representative work *Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic and Copernican* (1632), which elicited a huge positive response in the scientific community and strong opposition in theological circles. Faced with the pressure of the Inquisition, although Galileo compromised in his attitude toward heliocentrism, the aged and infirm man, on the verge of blindness, was still sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633 by the thought police of that era—the Inquisition—which became a landmark event in the conflict between science and theology. The grave consequence of the Galileo case was that religiously intolerant Italy ceded the position of world scientific center to England. The conviction of Galileo forced Descartes, who had proposed vortex theory and was about to revolutionize the traditional worldview, to abandon his scientific writing plans, and led many to regard theology as the mortal enemy of science.

意大利科学家伽利略很早就相信哥白尼的日心说，但只有通过天文望远镜的观测发现支持日心说的坚实证据后，才明确支持哥白尼学说。宗教裁判所警告伽利略，认为地球不是宇宙中心的命题在哲学上是愚蠢和荒谬的，在信仰上是错误的。然而，伽利略继续深入地研究天文并出版了其代表作《关于托勒密和哥白尼两大世界体系的对话》(1632),在科学界引起巨大积极反响，而在神学界引起强烈反对。面对宗教裁判所的高压，尽管伽利略在对待日心说态度上做了妥协，年老体衰即将失明的他还是在1633年被那个年代的思想警察——宗教裁判所判处终身监禁——这成为科学与神学冲突的标志性事件。伽利略案件的严重后果，是宗教不宽容的意大利把世界科学中心地位拱手让给了英国。对伽利略的定罪迫使提出漩涡理论、将使传统宇宙观发生革命性变革的笛卡尔放弃了他的科学写作计划,并使许多人把神学视为科学的死敌。

The majesty of theology did not halt the advance of science. Newton’s system of classical mechanics was born in this period, further reducing God’s status in nature and people’s blind worship of it; the Earth came to be seen as an insignificant satellite in the universe. However, “the pioneers of modern science were in fact all devoutly religious, indeed faithful sons of Christianity.” [1]1 Source not provided in original; likely a paraphrase of a common observation about figures like Newton, Boyle, and Kepler. This mindset of attributing scientific discoveries to divine order reveals the symbiotic relationship between science and theology in the pre-Enlightenment era of Europe, such that “Newton’s theory created an excitement for natural theology for a time; in Newton’s theory, the laws of the world were seen as evidence of God’s design of nature… what is today called ‘deism’ was influenced by Newton’s theory.” [2]2 Source not provided in original.

神学的威严并未阻挡住科学前进的步伐。牛顿经典力学体系在这一时期诞生，进一步降低了神在自然中的地位和人们对它的盲目崇拜，地球被看作宇宙中一个地位微乎其微的卫星。然而，“近代科学的先驱者们实际上都笃信宗教，事实上都是基督教的忠实儿子”。这种将科学发现归于神道秩序的思维，揭示了欧洲前启蒙时代科学与神学的共生关系，使得“牛顿学说在一段时间内为自然神学创造了一个兴奋点，在牛顿学说中，世界的规律被视为神对自然的设计的证据……今天所称的‘自然神论’,就是受到了牛顿学说的影响。”

Early modern natural theology sought a balance between believing in the spirit of theological divinity and respecting scientific rationality, acknowledging God as the creator of the world while emphasizing the autonomy of natural science. Yet when Emperor Napoleon of France asked Laplace why his *Celestial Mechanics* made no mention of God, Laplace replied: “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis!” The progress of modern science caused the world of values to become completely separated from the world of facts.

近代自然神学试图在信仰神学神灵与尊重科学理性之间找到平衡，既承认上帝作为世界的创造者，又强调自然科学的自主性。然而，当法兰西皇帝拿破仑询问拉普拉斯的《论天体力学》一书中为什么没有提到上帝时，拉普拉斯回答说：“陛下，我不需要这个假说!”近代科学的进步使得价值世界同事实世界完全分离开来。

The rationalist tide of the 18th-century Enlightenment swept across Europe, and the divide between science and theology grew increasingly pronounced. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau championed scientific knowledge, while the mysticism of traditional theology became a target of attack. Hume and Kant, in different ways, exposed the limitations of theological thought that defended Christianity, arguing that theological arguments from design and arguments based on miracles were circular reasoning, that the universe merely obeyed natural laws, and that divine providence was superfluous. Dalton’s atomic theory posed a genuine threat to religious theology, “because atomic theory does not regard the world as a designed or purposeful rational expression—it is anti-teleological, and therefore it could be atheistic—although one could indeed create a Christian form of atomism. But there is a special, fundamental tension between atomism and Catholicism.” [3]3 Source not provided in original. The most powerful and enduring impact of modern science on theology came with the proposal of biological evolution; before this, biology had been a stronghold of natural theology.

18世纪启蒙时代的理性主义思潮席卷欧洲，科学与神学的分野愈发明显。伏尔泰、卢梭等启蒙思想家推崇科学知识，而传统神学中的神秘主义则成为被攻击对象。休谟和康德用不同方式揭露了为基督教进行辩护的神学思想的局限性，认为神学关于设计论证与基于奇迹的论证是循环论证,宇宙仅仅服从自然规律而神意在此成为多余。道尔顿的原子论对宗教神学构成了真正的威胁，“因为原子论并不认为，世界是一种被设计的或有目的的理性表达——它是反目的论的，因此它可能是无神论的——尽管人们确实可以创造出一个基督教形式的原子论。但原子论和天主教之间存在着特殊的、根本性的紧张关系”。近代科学对神学产生冲击力最强烈和持久的是生物进化论的提出，在此之前生物学是自然神学的重镇。

Upon entering Cambridge University, Darwin had read theologian Paley’s *Natural Theology* and could even recite the entire book. Yet after his global voyage and research led him to the theory of biological evolution, which conflicted with the view that God created all things, he said: “The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.” [4]4 Charles Darwin, *The Autobiography of Charles Darwin* (1887), ed. Francis Darwin. Geologist Lyell described the scene at the time: “Darwin’s work is stirring up a lively discussion in the scientific, literary, and theological worlds.” [5]5 Source not provided in original.

达尔文一进入剑桥大学就读过神学家佩利的《自然神学》一书，甚至可以把全书背下来，而当他通过环球考察与研究，得出与上帝创造万物观点相冲突的生物进化论后便说道：“传统上关于自然现象的设计论证，例如佩利所给出的，以前对我来说如此无可置疑，现在则由于自然选择法则的发现而失效了。”地质学家赖尔叙述当时的情景：“达尔文的著作正在科学界、文学界和神学界激起热烈的讨论。”

At the 1860 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held in Oxford, the Bishop of Oxford, Wilberforce, fiercely attacked Darwin’s theory and Darwin’s friends, while biologists Huxley, Hooker, and others resolutely countered Wilberforce’s remarks. It can be said that Darwin’s theory of evolution had a direct impact on the historical dichotomy that arose in the 19th-century West—it was precisely Darwin’s evolution that led people to view Western history as a war between religious theology and science. Theologians had hoped to distance people from science by attacking it, but the result was the opposite: more people accepted science.

1860年在牛津召开的英国科学促进会年会上，牛津教区主教威尔伯福斯猛烈地攻击达尔文的学说以及达尔文的朋友，而生物学家赫胥黎、胡克等对威尔伯福斯的言论进行了坚决反击。可以说，达尔文进化论对19世纪西方兴起的历史二分论产生了直接影响——正是达尔文的进化论使得人们才将西方历史视为宗教神学与科学的战争史。神学家本想通过对科学的抨击让人们远离科学，结果却适得其反，更多的人接受了科学。

It was not until the 19th century that modern Western science spread to China, mainly through the agency of missionary groups. Beginning in 1873, the missionary Williamson serialized several articles under the natural science title *Ge wu tan yuan* [Inquiry into Things] in the *Church News* and *The Review of the Times*, but the English name was consistently *Natural Theology*, with the aim of bringing the natural order concept of “God” to China along with the dissemination of natural scientific knowledge. Zhang Taiyan, however, severely criticized Tan Sitong’s attempt to equate Confucian ghost-and-spirit theory with the Christian doctrine of the soul, asking rhetorically: “What kind of being is God?” [6]6 Zhang Taiyan (1868–1936) was a Chinese philologist, philosopher, and revolutionary nationalist. Tan Sitong (1865–1898) was a reformist thinker executed after the failed Hundred Days’ Reform. Clearly, the Chinese were more willing to accept natural science and medical knowledge than theological thought. The first Chinese anatomy work, *Quan ti tong kao* [Complete Survey of the Body], published in 1886, contained no theological content whatsoever.

直到19世纪，西方近代科学才在中国传播，主要还是借助于传教士群体而进行。从1873年开始，在《教会新报》和《万国公报》以自然科学的题目《格物探原》连载传教士韦廉臣的几篇文章，但英文名称却一直是NaturalTheology(自然神学),其目的是在传播自然科学知识的同时，也将“上帝”的自然秩序观念带到中国。章太炎则严厉批驳了谭嗣同将孔教鬼神说与基督教灵魂说相通约的观点，曾设问“上帝为何者哉”?显然，中国人更愿意接受自然科学和医学知识而不是神学思想。1886年出版的第一部中文解剖学著作《全体通考》就没有掺杂任何神学内容。

The British philosopher Russell summarized the relationship between modern science and theology as follows: “What distinguishes the modern age from the Middle Ages is the decline of ecclesiastical authority and the rise of scientific authority… The authority of science, which is recognized by most philosophers of the modern era, is different from that of religion in the following respects: it is intellectual rather than governmental; no one is punished in this world for acknowledging or rejecting it; it relies on rational judgment; its conclusions are characterized by probability, not by claims to absolute truth.” [7]7 Bertrand Russell, *A History of Western Philosophy* (1945), Book Three, Part I, Chapter VI. Even Western missionaries in 19th-century China had to admit that “science is gradually breaking away from religion.” Considering science’s impact on national wealth and power, “even people like Williamson, to some extent, approved of the development of science divorced from religion.” [8]8 Source not provided in original.

英国哲学家罗素是这样总结近代科学与神学的关系：“近代不同于中世纪之处，在于教会威信的衰落和科学威信的上升……近代大多数哲学家都承认的科学的威信在下述方面是不同于宗教威信的：它是理智的而非统治的威信；人们无论承认它与否，都不会受到现世的惩罚；它依靠理性的裁断；它的结论是以或然性为特征的，而不宣称绝对的真实。”连19世纪在中国的西方传教士，也不得不承认“科学正渐渐地脱离宗教”,考虑到科学对于国富民强的影响，“连韦廉臣这样的人，也在某种程度上赞成脱离宗教的科学的发展了”。

4. Modern Era: Pluralistic Interaction and Boundary Reshaping

4.现代：多元互动与边界重塑

Entering the 20th century, science achieved unprecedented great successes, from the subversion of micro- and macro-cosmic cognition by quantum mechanics and relativity, to the exploration of the mysteries of genes in the life sciences—science has penetrated nearly every corner of human life and cognition. Against this backdrop, the relationship between science and theology has taken on a more complex and pluralistic态势 [situation].

进入20世纪，科学取得前所未有的巨大成就，从量子力学和相对论对微观与宇观世界认知的颠覆，到生命科学领域对基因奥秘的探索，科学几乎渗透到人类生活与认知的各个角落。在这种背景下，科学与神学的关系呈现出更为复杂多元的态势。

First, conflicts and debates between science and theology continue unabated. On certain frontier scientific issues, scientific theories and theological doctrines still exhibit significant conflict; for example, the Big Bang theory’s explanation of the origin of the universe is entirely different from the doctrine of divine creation.

首先，科学与神学的冲突事件和论战依然持续不断。在一些前沿科学问题上，科学理论与神学教义仍存在显著的冲突，如宇宙大爆炸理论对宇宙起源的解释与上帝创世说截然不同。

The forces opposing the theory of evolution began new operations in the 20th century, and this is most representative in the United States, the country with the most advanced science and technology. The U.S. state of Tennessee passed the Anti-Evolution Act in 1925, and high school biology teacher John Scopes was taken to court for violating the Anti-Evolution Act. Scientists and the American Association for the Advancement of Science expressed support for the defendant through speeches and articles in newspapers. However, the defendant ultimately lost the case, largely because ordinary people firmly believed in the cultural authority of theology, and most American biologists were theistic evolutionists. In 1965, the Epperson case [9]9 *Epperson v. Arkansas* (1968), a U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down an Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. successfully challenged the constitutionality of state laws opposing evolution. Yet theologians defending classical creationism in the 1970s and 1980s put forward various so-called "scientific creationism" proposals to counter evolution, to the point that two state legislatures in 1981 passed bills granting "scientific creationism" and evolution equal status in biology teaching — known as "balanced treatment acts." A sustained appeal by 72 Nobel laureates and other scientific organizations comprehensively exposed that so-called "scientific creationism" was merely disguised religious theology rather than science, and it was not until 1982 and 1987 that federal courts successively struck down these two "balanced treatment acts." Forty-four percent of Americans advocate giving creationism or "scientific creationism" equal status, and the proportion rejecting evolution is the highest among developed countries. Even in 2005, then-U.S. President George W. Bush expressed support for introducing the theological "intelligent design" theory into classrooms. An American scholar commented: "From a fairly rough measure, American public attitudes toward evolution are disappointing. Distrust of evolution is almost an American phenomenon; we have placed ourselves in an awkward position."

反对进化论的势力在20世纪又开始了新的运作，这在科技最为发达的美国最具代表性。美国田纳西州于1925年通过《反进化论》法案，而中学生物教师斯科普斯因违反《反进化论》法案被告上法庭，科学家与美国科学促进会通过演讲和给报刊写文章等方式表达了对被告方的支持。然而，最终被告方败诉，这在很大程度上是因为普通民众对神学文化权威地位的坚信不疑，而大部分美国生物学家是有神论的进化论者。1965年埃珀森状告美国各州反对进化论的法案违宪胜诉。然而，维护经典创世论的神学家在20世纪七八十年代又提出了各种各样的所谓“科学创世论”提案来对抗进化论，以至于美国两个州议会在1981年通过了赋予“科学创世论”和进化论在生物学教学中具有同等地位的法案——被称为“平衡法案”。包括72位诺贝尔奖获得者及其他科学组织团体的持续上诉，全方位地揭露所谓的“科学创世论”等只不过是经过伪装的宗教神学而非科学，直到1982年和1987年联邦法院才先后取消了这两项“平衡法案”。44%的美国人主张给创世论或“科学创世论”以同等的地位,否定进化论的比例是发达国家中最高的。甚至2005年时任美国总统布什表示赞同将神学的“智能设计论”引入课堂。美国学者评价说：“从相当粗略的比例看美国公众对进化论态度是令人失望的。对进化论的不信任几乎是一种美国人现象，我们自己把自己置于尴尬的处境。”

Second, some scholars have reexamined the real history of the relationship between science and theology. A study of Galileo's 20 volumes of works and letters surprisingly reveals that the previous conclusion that Galileo was a devout Christian is unreliable, as no evidence has been found of him praying, listening to sermons, or reading the Bible or the works of Church Fathers. "Galileo was actually a heretic; but worse (because his heretical words and deeds were far more than historians knew), he was disloyal to religion and ungrateful." [10]10 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text; it appears to be a scholarly assessment of Galileo's religious attitudes. Through an examination of Newton's scientific works and extensive theological writings, it is not difficult to see that Newton strove to break free from the influence of religious theology on his scientific theories. For example, in the first editions of his two most representative scientific works, *Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy* and *Opticks*, there was not a single mention of God; it was only later, under pressure from the Church and other quarters, that he was forced to add discussions of God in subsequent editions. In an era when religious theology still powerfully controlled all aspects of society, it became an expedient for scientists to emphasize the theological function of science in order to gain broader social acceptance.

其次，有学者重新审视历史上科学与神学关系的真实历史。通过对伽利略的20卷作品及书信的研读就令人惊异地发现，以往认为伽利略是虔诚的基督徒的结论是不可靠的，因为没有发现过他做祈祷、听布道，或者阅读圣经和教会神父的著作的迹象。“伽利略实际上是个异端者；但更糟糕的是(因为他的异端言行比历史学家知道的要多得多),他对宗教是不忠的，也无感恩之心。”通过对牛顿科学著作和大量神学著作的考察，不难发现牛顿努力想挣脱宗教神学对他科学理论的影响，如在他的《自然哲学的数学原理》和《光学》这两本最有代表性的科学著作的初版中只字未提上帝，后来是出于教会等方面的压力才不得不在后续版本中加上了关于上帝的论述。在一个宗教神学仍然强有力地控制着社会各个方面的时代，科学家通过强调科学的神学功能以达到更多社会认同成为一种权宜之计。

Third, some scientists and theologians have attempted to examine issues in their own fields from the other's perspective, seeking a new construction of human knowledge and value systems, and seeking dialogue and communication between science and theology. "The ecological crisis has made it evident that theology, science, and many other disciplines share a common fate." "Under the pressure of the ecological crisis and the search for new directions that both theology and science must strive for, theology and science have become partners in adversity." [11]11 The sources of these two quotations are not identified in the original text. One change in American theological seminaries is that ecology has become a fruitful entry point for discussions of the relationship between science and theology, giving rise to ecological theology as a way to reflect on human destruction of nature. Theologians have proposed that the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics provides a basis for the existence of "free will"; that genetic engineering and cloning technology are a continuation of God's creation of humanity; and that superstring theory, because of its unobservability, increasingly approaches the realm of metaphysical speculation. Some theologians believe this bears a certain resemblance to the mystical experiences and supernatural existence in theological doctrine, and it has even been labeled "new theology" by some theologians. The U.S. John Templeton Foundation, with millions of dollars in prizes, has attracted people to engage in research on "science and religion cooperation," establishing the "Global Perspectives on Science and Spirituality" program.

再次，一些科学家和神学家尝试从对方的视角审视自身领域的问题，寻求人类知识与价值体系的新建构，寻求科学与神学的对话和沟通。“生态危机使人们明显地看到，神学和科学以及许多其它学科，有着共同的命运。”“在生态危机和寻求神学与科学二者都必须为之奋斗的新方向的压力下，神学与科学成了患难中的伙伴。”美国神学院的一个变化是，生态成为进入科学与神学关系讨论的很好层面，提出生态神学观来反思人类对自然的破坏。神学家提出量子力学的测不准原理为“自由意志”的存在提供了基础，基因工程、“克隆”技术是上帝创造人类的延续，超弦理论因其不可观测性而愈发接近形而上学的思辨范畴，一些神学家认为这与神学教义中的神秘体验和超自然存在有一定相似之处，甚至被有些神学家指认为是“新神学”。美国邓普顿基金会以数百万美金的奖励，吸引人们从事“科学与宗教合作”的研究，设立了“科学与灵性全球视野”计划。

Prominent scientists with a strong interest in theology have intensified dialogue activities between science and theology. American biologist Paley [12]12 Likely a reference to Kenneth R. Miller, a prominent American biologist and Catholic who has written on evolution and religion; the name "Paley" may be a mis-transcription or a reference to William Paley, the 18th-century theologian associated with the argument from design. believes: "Scientists themselves often break down the boundary between science and religion... In an effort to bridge the differences between science and religion, some claim that science supports religious scriptures, and can even muster evidence for the existence of God." [13]13 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text. Even some domestic scientists [14]14 "Domestic scientists" refers to scientists in China. believe that the end of science is Buddhism; in the process of understanding the nature of the universe, modern science and Buddhism coincide, both concluding that the nature of the universe is a non-material, non-energy void. "Science has not yet answered what the non-material nature of the universe actually is; Buddhism has answered it: it is the unity of mind and matter." [15]15 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text.

对神学有浓厚兴趣的著名科学家强化了科学与神学的对话活动。美国生物学家帕莱维茨认为：“科学家自身经常瓦解科学与宗教间的界线……为努力弥合科学与宗教间的差异，有人声称科学支持了宗教经文，甚至能召集起上帝存在的证据。”甚至国内有科学家认为，科学的尽头是佛学，在对宇宙本体的认识过程中，现代科学与佛学不谋而合，都得出了宇宙本体是非物质、非能量的虚空的结论，“科学还没有回答没有物质的宇宙本体究竟是什么，佛学回答了，就是心物一元”。

Einstein's view can represent the inner thoughts of some Western scientists: "I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." [16]16 Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion" (1941), in *Out of My Later Years* (1950). Heisenberg, a key founder of quantum mechanics, believed that on the one hand, scientific truth is beyond doubt; on the other hand, reflecting on the relationship between science and theology is a necessary choice for scientists. Collins, former director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, argued: "Science is not the only way of knowing. The religious worldview offers us another way of discovering truth." [17]17 Francis S. Collins, *The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief* (2006).

爱因斯坦的观点能够代表西方一部分科学家的内心想法：“我不能设想真正的科学家会没有这样深挚的信仰。这种情况可以用这样一个形象来比喻：科学没有宗教就象瘸子，宗教没有科学就象瞎子。”量子力学重要奠基人海森堡认为，一方面科学真理是不容置疑的，另一方面思考科学与神学之间的关系也是科学家必须的选择。原美国国立卫生研究院院长柯林斯认为：“科学并非唯一的认知方法，宗教世界观提供给我们另一种发现真理的方法。”

II. A Realistic Examination of the Relationship between Science and Theology

二、科学与神学关系的现实审视

In the corridors of the Vatican Museums, Michelangelo's *Creation of Adam* ceiling fresco echoes in the distance with the fragments of Galileo's telescope at the end of the hall. The moment when God reaches out his finger to touch Adam and the scientist uses lenses to capture the trajectories of the stars constitute the most profound metaphor of human civilization. "After all, if science is too weak to coexist with religion, religion will indeed incorporate into its sphere of influence things that in modern times are considered to belong to the realm of natural science... If certain questions find no answers at the scientific level, they inevitably fall into the realm of religion (however uncomfortable and inappropriate this may be). No one willingly gives up their own territory. When science later began to grow and gradually reclaim the territory temporarily taken over by religion, some conflicts and struggles did arise. The tension between science and religion has indeed intensified in certain historical periods." [18]18 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text.

在梵蒂冈博物馆的长廊里，米开朗基罗的《创世纪》天顶画与走廊尽头的伽利略望远镜残片遥相呼应，上帝伸出手指触碰亚当的瞬间与科学家用镜片捕捉星辰的轨迹，构成了人类文明最深刻的隐喻。“毕竟，如果科学弱到无法与宗教共存时，宗教确实会将一些在现代被认为属于自然科学领域内的东西纳入其势力范围……如果某些问题从科学层面上找不到答案，它们便无可避免地落入宗教的领域(尽管这一点让人感到不舒服也不合适)。没有人会自愿让出自己的地盘。科学后期开始发展壮大，渐渐开始夺回暂时被宗教接管的领域，那时确实掀起了一些冲突与斗争。科学与宗教之间的紧张态势在某些历史时期确实有加剧的情况。”

A survey of the evolution of the relationship between science and theology in human history shows that science and theology have developed from simple to complex, from linear to nonlinear, from unitary to pluralistic, from stable to dynamic, and from conflict and competition to dialogue and coexistence. Scientists with religious beliefs often waver and struggle between science and theology. Galileo himself lamented: "I entreat all theologians to note that when you attempt to make propositions about the sun being stationary and the earth moving into matters of faith, there is a danger that one day you will condemn as heretics those who claim the earth is stationary and the sun changes position. I mean, one day it will be proven in physics or logic that the earth moves and the sun is stationary." [19]19 This is a paraphrase of Galileo's argument in his *Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina* (1615). In 1979, the Roman Catholic Church publicly acknowledged that the 1633 trial of Galileo was unjust. In 1980, the Galileo case was reopened, investigated by an interfaith commission of scientists including Nobel laureates Chen Ning Yang and Samuel C.C. Ting. In 1992, Galileo's "heresy" charge was formally revoked, finally rehabilitating Galileo.

纵观人类历史上科学与神学关系的演变可知，科学与神学呈现由简单到复杂、由线性到非线性、由一元到多元、由稳态到动态、由冲突竞争到对话共存的发展关系。有宗教信仰的科学家常常会在科学与神学之间彷徨和拉扯，伽利略就发出这样的感叹：“请各位神学家注意，在你们企图把关于太阳不动和地球不动的命题看成是关系到信仰的问题时，这就存在着一种危险，即总有一天你们会把那些声称地球不动而太阳在改变位置的人判为异端，我是说，终究会有一天在物理学上或在逻辑上证明：地球在运动，而太阳则是静止的。”1979年罗马教廷公开承认1633年对伽利略的审判不公正，1980年重审伽利略案，并由杨振宁、丁肇中等诺贝尔奖得主参加的跨信仰科学家委员会负责调查，1992年正式撤销伽利略的“异端”罪名，最终给伽利略平反。

As social institutions and cultural phenomena, the relationship between science and theology—especially their disputes—is often influenced by social factors such as politics, economics, philosophy, education, and culture. The continuous progress of science can, to a certain extent, damage the trustworthiness and economic interests of theologians, thereby incurring their displeasure. Galileo’s persecution by the Inquisition reflected that science was no longer willing to be subordinate to theology and demanded autonomy, which was precisely what the Roman Curia least wished to see. Some argue that certain secular historians and writers bear responsibility for the formation, among the American public in the early twentieth century, of the perception that Christians and evolutionists were hostile to each other.

作为社会建制和文化现象存在的科学与神学，它们之间的关系特别是它们之间的争论，往往会受到政治、经济、哲学、教育和文化等社会因素的影响。科学持续取得进步一定程度上会使神学家的受信赖程度、经济利益等方面受损，从而招致神学家的不满。伽利略受到宗教裁判所迫害，反映了科学已不愿依附于神学，而且要求得到自主，这是罗马教廷最不愿意看到的。有人认为，导致20世纪初美国公众把基督徒与进化论者看成敌对双方这一观念的形成，一些世俗的历史学家和作家负有责任。

People have explored the relationship between science and theology through various approaches, employing comparative research, historical textual research, biographical research, textual analysis, functional analysis, linguistic analysis, and other methods, as well as disciplinary perspectives from the sociology of religion, the sociology of science, cultural studies, and anthropology. A large body of research has been published, with typical viewpoints including conflict theory, integration theory, and independence theory.

人们对科学与神学的关系进行了各种探讨，采取了比较研究法、史学考证研究法、传记研究法、文本研究法、功能研究法、语言学研究法等诸种研究方法以及宗教社会学、科学社会学、文化学、人类学等不同学科研究方法，发表了大量研究成果，比较典型的是冲突论、整合论和独立论等观点。

The first viewpoint is conflict theory, which holds that science is grounded in objective facts, aiming to correctly reflect the objective laws of nature through observation, experimentation, and reasoning, thereby obtaining a weapon for freedom from nature. Theology, by contrast, proceeds from illusory concepts, focusing on attaining eternal truth and spiritual comfort through faith, regarding devout prayer as the sole method of moving the gods to grant knowledge, and as a rope enslaving the human soul. Upholding the authority of theological classics, suppressing or even attempting to extinguish knowledge that conflicts with them, is a necessary condition for theology to maintain its existence and prestige, and is also the fundamental cause of conflict between theology and science.

第一种观点是冲突论，认为科学立足于客观事实，旨在通过观测实验和推理来探索正确反映自然界的客观规律，从自然界中求得自由的武器；神学则从虚幻的观念出发，关注的是通过信仰获得永恒的真理和心灵的安慰，把虔诚的祈祷看成是感动神灵以获得知识的唯一方法，是奴役人类灵魂的绳索。维护神学经典权威，压制甚至设法扑灭与神学经典冲突的知识，是神学保持自己存在与威信的必要条件，也是神学和科学冲突的基本原因。

Theology puts forward many more subtle and universally appealing arguments, such as “science and theology should respect each other,” “theology and science must join hands to explore the foundations of the real world,” “theology and science share a common domain,” and “theology and science must together seek better conditions for human life.” Yet, when linking a supernatural theology with science at the epistemological level, theology rejects science, because scientific method doubts divine design and plan. Scientific authority is naturally formed, relative, limited in effect, and non-worshipful; theological authority is self-proclaimed, absolute, unlimited in effect, and worshipped by believers.

神学提出许多更微妙且具有普遍吸引力的论调，诸如“科学与神学应当相互尊重”“神学与科学必须联手探寻真实世界的基础”“神学与科学有共同的领域”“神学与科学必须一起探寻人类生活更好的条件”等，但在认识论层面将超自然力的神学与科学相联系时，神学就会拒绝科学，因为科学方法怀疑神灵的设计和计划。科学权威是自然形成的、相对的、作用有限的、非崇拜的，神学权威是自封的、绝对的、作用无限的、受信徒崇拜的。

The Austrian philosopher-scientist Ernst Mach depicted the prevailing view of his era: “The only suppression of intellectual development comes from the clergy; if they did not interfere, the burgeoning science would flourish at an astonishing rate.” The American anthropologist M. S. A. Pandian argued that supernaturalist theology and science have nothing to do with each other—one is “the god-making movement of all humanity,” the other “the analytical activity of all humanity, which produces precise patterns to approach, interpret, and utilize nature.” The American scientist Michael Goran concluded: “Whether monarchy or democracy, whether autocratic or free, all states need science; only religion does not need science. The conflict between science and religion affects the overall progress of science more seriously than the conflict between science and government.”

奥地利哲人科学家马赫描绘了他所处时代的流行观点：“对智力发展的唯一压制来自教士；如果他们不插手的话，那么正在成长的科学便会以惊人的速度蒸蒸日上。”美国人类学家潘迪安认为，超自然主义的神学和科学之间没有任何关系，一个是“全人类的造神运动”,而另一个是“全人类的分析活动，此种活动产生精确性模式来接近、解读和利用自然”。美国科学家戈兰总结说：“不管是君主政体还是民主政体，不管是专制的还是自由的国家，都需要科学，只有宗教不需要科学。科学与宗教的冲突比科学与政府的冲突更严重地影响科学的全面进步。”

The second viewpoint is integration theory, which holds that theology and science can neither replace each other nor conflict with each other; rather, they can complement each other and jointly address the various problems faced in human social life. “Science can remove the errors and superstitions of religion; religion can remove the idolatry and false absolutes of science. Each can lead the other into a broader world, in which both can flourish abundantly.”

第二种观点为整合论，认为神学与科学既不可能相互替代，也不会相互冲突，而且可以相互补充，共同解决人类社会生活中所面临的种种问题。“科学可以除去宗教的错误和迷信，宗教可以除去科学的偶像崇拜和虚妄绝对。各自都可以将对方带入一个更宽广的世界，在这个世界中，两者都可以得到繁茂的发展。”

The American sociologist Robert K. Merton argued that seventeenth-century Puritanism played a significant role in promoting Britain’s development into the world’s scientific center. In the view of the American educator Andrew Dickson White, “a great part of the honor of science’s victory belongs to men who were originally trained as theologians.” The scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne believed that science and theology are friends, not enemies; they concern different aspects of truth—science focuses on impersonal truth, while theology focuses on the truth of a suprapersonal reality.

美国社会学家默顿认为，17世纪清教主义对英国发展成为世界科学中心起了巨大的促进作用。在美国教育家怀特看来，“科学胜利之荣誉的很大一部分，属于一些曾经被当作神学家来培养的人”。科学-神学家波金霍尔认为，科学与神学是朋友而非敌人，它们关注了真理的不同层面，科学关注的是非人格化的真理，而神学关注的是超位格的实在的真理。

A group of Western missionaries represented by Matteo Ricci, in the process of the Eastern dissemination of Western learning, transmitted a large amount of modern scientific knowledge to China. “Between 1600 and 1773, approximately 1,600 different Jesuits contributed about 6,000 scientific works.” Between 1679 and 1680, the Belgian Jesuit Ferdinand Verbiest, who served in the Imperial Astronomical Bureau of the Great Qing dynasty, stated: “More missionaries entered China precisely under the pretext of astronomy.” “With what benevolence and joy did the emperors receive the gifts we gave them—geometry, arithmetic, cosmology, and geodesy.”

以利玛窦为代表的一批西方传教士在西学东渐的过程中，向中国传播了大量的近代科学知识。“在1600年到1773年之间，大约1600个不同的耶稣会贡献了约6000部科学著作。”1679年至1680年之间，在大清王朝钦天监任职的比利时耶稣会士南怀仁认为：“更多的传教士，就是以天文学的借口同时进入中国的。”“皇帝们在接受我们送给他的礼物——几何学、算术学、宇宙学和测地学的时候，表现出怎样的仁慈和快乐。”

Post-foundationalism holds that the boundary between science and theology is constantly shifting, and the two overlap in the epistemological domain. New theologians emphasize the need for both science and theology: “Theological theories can serve as a source of inspiration for the ‘context of discovery’ in science. One example is the influence of religious ideas on the pioneers of quantum theory, such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger.”

后基础主义认为，科学与神学之间的界线在不断移动，两者在认识论领域发生重叠。新神学家强调要科学也要神学，“神学理论可以充当科学的‘发现语境’的灵感源泉。一个例子就是宗教理念对量子理论的先驱者的影响，如普朗克、爱因斯坦、玻尔和薛定谔”。

Einstein opposed setting science and theology in opposition, arguing that the emotional source of the pursuit of scientific truth comes from religion: “I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.” Planck believed that moral and religious experience are in harmony with the physicist’s view of the world. Richard Feynman argued that “science is the art of uncertainty, while faith is the poetry of certainty; humanity needs to listen to both voices at the same time.” Paul Davies said: “Science has actually progressed to the point where it can seriously address problems that formerly belonged to religion.” Chen Ning Yang believed: “When the structure of nature contains so many inconceivable mysteries, the feeling at that moment, I think, is very close to the most sincere religious faith.” George Smoot described the cosmic microwave background radiation as “the handwriting of God”; Leon Lederman titled a book about the Higgs boson *The God Particle*.

爱因斯坦反对将科学与神学对立起来，认为追求科学真理的感情源泉来自宗教，“我不能设想一位真正科学家会没有这种深挚的信仰”。普朗克认为，道德经验和宗教经验与物理学家对世界的看法相协调。费曼认为“科学是不确定性的艺术，而信仰是确定性的诗篇，人类需要同时聆听这两种声音。”戴维斯说：“科学实际上已进展到这一地步，它可以认真地解决从前是属于宗教的问题了。”杨振宁认为：“自然的结构有这么多的不可思议的奥妙，这个时候的感觉，我想是和最真诚的宗教信仰很接近的。”斯姆特将微波背景辐射说成是“上帝的手迹”,莱德曼将一本关于希格斯玻色子的书取名为《上帝粒子》。

The third viewpoint is independence theory, which holds that science and theology, as different domains of human spiritual life, are neither opposed and in conflict nor interdependent and mutually reinforcing. As long as each sticks to its own territory and does not interfere with the other, they can coexist independently and peacefully. Science explores the laws of nature; theology pursues the good of the will. They are like two parallel lines that never intersect; there is a discontinuity between scientific cognition and theological cognition. “Kant and Schleiermacher, through efforts at demarcation, made science belong to science and religion belong to religion. Hegel, on the other hand, regarded science and religion as different expressions of the same thing. Therefore, studying science will not be influenced by the Bible, but when one asks about the basis of humanity, God becomes necessary.”

第三种观点为独立论，认为科学与神学作为人类精神生活的不同领域，既不相互对立和冲突，也不彼此依存和促进，只要二者固守自己的领地，互不干涉，是可以彼此独立自处，相安无事。科学探求自然规律，神学追求善的愿望，就如同两条永不相交的平行线一样，科学认知与神学认知之间存在着不连续性。“康德和施莱尔·马赫，通过划界的努力，使得科学的归科学，宗教的归宗教。黑格尔则把科学与宗教看成同一个东西的不同表现。所以，研究科学不会被《圣经》所影响，但当追问人类根据时，上帝就成为必要的了。”

The historian of science George Sarton believed that science and theology are separate from each other; opposing them or confusing them both create equal confusion. Pierre Duhem held that science is unaffected by religious theology, and religious theology is entirely unaffected by science. John Hedley Brooke explicitly stated: “Many works on science and religion are constructed according to preconceptions of conflict or harmony. If one wishes to understand the richness and fascination of the interaction between religion and science, it is necessary to go beyond these constraints.” Alfred North Whitehead believed that the events dealt with by theology and science are of different natures: science is engaged in observing certain general conditions that govern physical phenomena, while religious theology is wholly immersed in the metaphysical contemplation of moral and aesthetic values.

科学史家萨顿认为，科学和神学彼此分立，把它们对立起来或混为一谈都同样会造成混乱。迪昂认为，科学不受宗教神学影响，宗教神学一点也不受科学影响。布鲁克明确说：“论述科学和宗教的许多论著都是按照冲突或和谐的先入之见而建构的。如果想要理解宗教与科学相互作用的丰富性和迷人魅力，那么就有必要超越这些束缚。”怀特海认为，神学与科学所处理的事件性质各不相同，科学从事于观察某些控制物理现象的一般条件，宗教神学则完全沉浸于对道德价值与美学价值的玄思中。

Critical realism holds that the conclusions of both theology and science are partial and provisional, and both are situated in a context interwoven with history—this is their commonality. However, the experience of theology and the data of science are of different types, and especially their formation processes are vastly different.

批判实在论认为，神学和科学的结论都是部分的和暂时的，都处在一种语境与历史交织的背景中，这是它们的共同之处。然而，神学的经验与科学的数据类型是不同的，特别是二者的形成是大不相同的。

The relationship between modern science and theology shows a clear trend of institutional separation. The separation of science education from theological education in the educational system, the formation of professional scientific communities, and the self-consistent development of scientific methodology have all enabled science to increasingly free itself from the influence of theological discourse. Making no appeal to supernatural causes when explaining natural phenomena has become a basic norm of the scientific profession. Mainstream theology has also undergone a "liberal turn," no longer insisting on the literal inerrancy of theological scriptures but instead emphasizing the ethical and spiritual dimensions of the divine, thereby effectively ceding the realm of nature to science.

现代科学与神学的关系呈现出明显的制度化分离趋势，教育体系中科学教育与神学教育的分离，专业科学共同体的形成以及科学方法论的自洽性发展，都使科学日益摆脱神学话语的影响，在解释自然现象时不诉诸超自然原因成为科学职业的基本规范。主流神学也经历了“自由主义转向”,不再坚持神学经典的字面无误，而是强调神灵的伦理和精神维度，从而在事实上将自然领域让渡给科学。

III. The Boundary and Distinction between Science and Theology

三、科学与神学的边界和区别

The scalpel of science and the rosary of theology represent two entirely different cognitive paths. This divergence becomes even more pronounced in the era of quantum mechanics: while scientists debate whether "Schrödinger's cat" exists in a superposition of life and death, theologians ponder whether the soul exists in quantum-level fluctuations of consciousness. Science takes factual judgment as primary, theology takes value judgment as primary; the two belong to incommensurable paradigms and find it difficult to reach consensus at the hard core of a research program. Science is defined within the civilizational category of human rationalism and the sustained progress of human society, while theology is relegated to the cultural category of fideism and the social normative systems of specific historical periods. "Aristotle's idea of the eternity of the world set him against monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam... Among all the questions involving natural philosophy and theology, the question of whether the world is eternal posed the greatest threat to faith and was the most difficult to resolve." [26]26 The original source of this quotation is not provided in the text. In essence, science and theology are fundamentally different paradigms in worldview, values, epistemology, and conception of truth, with clear boundaries distinguishing them.

科学的手术刀与神学的玫瑰经，代表着两种截然不同的认知路径，这种分野在量子力学时代愈发明显：当科学家争论“薛定谔的猫”是否同时处于生死叠加态时，神学家则在思考灵魂是否存在于量子层面的意识波动中。科学以事实判断为第一性，神学以价值判断为第一性，二者属于难以通约的两种范式，很难在研究纲领的硬核层面达成共识。科学被界定在人类的理性主义和维系人类社会持续进步的文明范畴，而神学则被划归到信仰主义和特定时期社会规范体系的文化范畴。“亚里士多德关于世界的永恒思想使得他与犹太教、基督教和伊斯兰教等一神论宗教对立起来……在涉及到自然哲学和神学的所有问题中，世界是否永恒的问题对信仰威胁最大，也最难解决。”从本质上看，科学和神学在世界观、价值观、认识论和真理观上是根本不同的范式，有明确的边界加以区别。

In terms of worldview, science, as a system of knowledge for understanding the objective world, regards all objects of study as objective realities that exist independently of any human spirit or divine will. It holds that the generation of the objective world is based on natural causes rather than divine creation, embodying the basic stance of materialism. Theology, founded on supernatural forces, attributes the origin of the universe and all natural phenomena to the transcendent will and manifestation of a deity. An omnipotent deity rules the world, embodying a thoroughgoing idealist stance.

在世界观上，科学作为人类认识客观世界的知识体系，把一切研究对象都视为不依任何人的精神或神的意志而存在的客观实在，认为客观世界的产生基于自然原因而非神的创造，体现了唯物主义的基本立场。建立在超自然力量基础之上的神学，把宇宙的产生和一切自然现象归结为神的超验意志与表现，万能神灵主宰着世界，体现了彻底的唯心主义立场。

In terms of values, science possesses rich spiritual connotations, embodying rational spirit, skeptical spirit, and critical spirit, and exhibiting value norms such as simplicity, unity, and rationality. It transcends class, nationality, and region, forming a unified knowledge system for all humanity. "Science plays an important role in decision-making... Many people mistakenly believe that without a religious foundation, people cannot be moral. This is a false assumption, because since the Renaissance, the secularization of morality and the realization of naturalistic values have existed and developed independently of religious precepts." [27]27 The original source of this quotation is not provided in the text. Niels Bohr, a founder of quantum mechanics, clearly stated: "The starting points of science and religion are fundamentally different. The aim of science is to develop a universal method for organizing human experience; the root of religion lies in the effort to promote harmony of views and actions within society." [28]28 The original source of this quotation is not provided in the text.

在价值观上，科学具有丰富的精神内涵，蕴含着理性精神、怀疑精神、批判精神，表现出简单性、统一性、合理性等价值规范，超越了阶级性、民族性和地域性，是全人类统一的知识体系。“科学在决策中扮演着重要的角色……有许多人错误地认为如果没有宗教信仰为基础人是不道德的。这是一个错误的假设，因为自从文艺复兴以来，道德的世俗化以及自然主义价值观的实现仍然不依存于宗教的戒律而存在和发展。”量子力学奠基人玻尔明确表示：“科学和宗教采取的出发点是根本不同的，科学的目的在于发展一种普遍方法来整理人类经验，宗教的根源则在于在社会内部推进见解和行为的和谐性的那种努力。”

In terms of epistemology and methodology, science insists on empirical verification and relies on experiments to explore the mysteries of nature. Science's explanation of nature is a developing, open, and progressive cognitive system. Scientific thinking has no forbidden zones and no fixed frameworks; it is thinking based on the premise of nature's regularity and comprehensibility. Theology understands the world through prayer and confession, establishing a spiritual communication and exchange between believers and the divine. It employs speculative, symbolic, metaphorical, and "miraculous" methods, forming a self-enclosed and uncritical cognitive system. Heisenberg believed: "Science tries to give its words objective meaning. But religious language must avoid this division of the world into its objective and subjective aspects." [29]29 The original source of this quotation is not provided in the text.

在认识论和方法论上，科学坚持实证和依靠实验探索自然奥秘。科学对自然的解释是发展的、开放的和进步的认知体系，科学思维无禁区、无框架，是基于自然的合规律性和可理解性前提下的思维。神学通过祈祷和忏悔等认知世界，使信仰者与神灵之间建立一种心灵的交流和沟通，运用的是思辨的、象征的、隐喻的、“奇迹”的方法，是自我封闭的和非批判的认知体系。海森堡认为：“科学试图赋予自己的词以客观的意义。但宗教语言却必须避免把世界分为它的客观方面和主观方面的这种区分。”

In terms of the conception of truth, "there are two existing claims to truth: one is scientific truth, which is verified by empirical accumulation and logical reasoning; the other is religious truth, which is established beyond experience and reasoning." [30]30 The original source of this quotation is not provided in the text. The criterion for the truth of scientific theories lies in whether they are consistent with experimental data and logically self-consistent; the criterion for the truth of theological theories comes from divine revelation and scriptural doctrine. "The methods used by science and religion to seek truth are completely different, such as reason versus faith. Moreover, science is based on facts, while religion is based on values. Science is objective, religion is subjective. Science can be falsified, while religion cannot. Scientific language describes the way things exist in the world, while religious language uses language to describe our feelings, hopes, and beliefs." [31]31 The original source of this quotation is not provided in the text.

在真理观上，“现存的有两种对真理的主张：一种是科学的真理，这是由经验积累和逻辑推理所证实的；另一种是宗教，这是超越经验和推理而确立的”。科学理论的真理性标准在于是否与实验数据相符和逻辑自洽；神学理论的真理性标准来源于神灵的启示和典籍教义。“科学与宗教所使用的探求真理的方法完全不同，如理性与信仰相对。而且，科学以事实为基础，而宗教以价值为基础。科学是客观的，宗教是主观的。科学可以被证伪，而宗教则不能。科学语言所描述的是事物存在于世界上的方式，而宗教则利用语言描述我们的感情、希望和信仰。”

Since the 20th century, the emerging discipline of philosophy of science has developed rapidly. It focuses on in-depth exploration of issues such as the nature of science, the validity of scientific methods, and the boundary between science and non-science. Among these, logical positivism proposed the verification principle of science, emphasizing that scientific facts and laws should be capable of universal and repeatable verification. Any language that did not meet the verification principle set for science was dismissed as meaningless; thus, theological language was undoubtedly meaningless, thereby separating science from theology. [32]32 Logical positivism, a school of philosophy prominent in the early 20th century, held that a statement is meaningful only if it is empirically verifiable or analytically true. These doctrines in the philosophy of science have enriched and strengthened the theory of demarcation of science, providing more persuasive criteria for distinguishing science from non-science. At the same time, they have prompted people to rethink the relationship between science and theology, further clarifying the boundary between science and theology. From this, the differences between science and theology can be summarized as shown in Table 1.

自20世纪以来，新兴学科科学哲学得到了迅速发展，它专注科学的本质、科学方法有效性以及科学与非科学之间的界限等问题的深入探讨，其中逻辑实证主义提出科学的实证原则，强调科学事实与规律应该能够被普遍重复证明，未满足为科学设定的实证原则的语言都被斥为无意义的，因而神学语言无疑是无意义的，这样就把科学和神学分离了开来。这些科学哲学学说丰富和加强了科学划界理论，为区分科学和非科学提供了更具说服力的标准，同时也促使人们重新思考科学与神学的关系，进一步明晰了科学与神学的界限，由此可以把科学与神学的区别概括为表1所示。

Table 1 Differences between Science and Theology

表1科学与神学的区别

Dimension

维度

Science

科学

Theology

神学

Philosophical Stance

哲学立场

Scientific Materialism

科学唯物论

Theological Idealism

神学唯心论

Direction of Cognition

认识方向

Objectivity and the Objective World

客观性与客观世界

Subjectivity and the Subjective World

主观性与主观世界

Method of Cognition

认识方法

Experiment, Observation, and Rational Thought

实验、观察和理性思维

Meditation, Insight, and Revelation

冥想、顿悟和启示

Mode of Engagement

介入方式

This-worldly, concerned with actual society; engages with the impersonal objective realm, producing an "I-It" relationship

入世关注现实社会；介入的是非人格的客观王国产生的“我-它”关系

Other-worldly, concerned with the transcendent realm; engages with the personal realm of the self, producing an "I-Thou" relationship

出世关注彼岸世界；介入的是人格性的自我王国中产生的“我-你”关系

Basis for Explaining Natural Phenomena

解释自然现象基础

Natural Factors and Natural Forces

自然因素与自然力量

Divine Revelation and Supernatural Power

神灵启示与超自然神力

Scope of Explanation

解释范畴

Laws of the Material World

物质世界规律

Interpretation of Meaning, Morality, and Ultimate Concern

意义、道德与终极关怀的诠释

Truth

真理性

Theories are relative truths; opposes the idea of exhaustive knowledge

理论是相对真理，反对认识的穷尽论

Divine doctrine is eternal truth; advocates the absoluteness of knowledge

神道是永恒真理，主张认识的绝对性

Criterion of Truth

真理标准

Based on observational and experimental facts

以观测和实验事实为准绳

Based on theological scriptures and authoritative divine doctrine as the ultimate basis

以神学经典和权威神道为最终依据

Cognitive Foundation

认知基础

Repeatable empirical verification, falsifiability, logical self-consistency

可重复实证、可证伪性、逻辑自洽

Emphasizes self-consistency of faith; believes that sincerity works miracles and that the transcendent exists and is unfalsifiable

强调信仰自洽性，相信心诚则灵与超验存在且不可证伪

Cognitive Path

认知路径

Iteratively updates cognition through paradigm revolutions; cognitive boundaries expand with technological progress

通过范式革命迭代更新认知，认知边界随技术进步扩展

Contextual interpretation while maintaining the eternity of the core of divine doctrine

在保持神道核心永恒性的前提下进行语境化解读

Use of Language

语言使用

Spectator language: factual statements containing scientific terms, logical reasoning language, rational discourse language, and even mathematical language

观众语言：包含科学术语的事实陈述语言、逻辑推论语言、理性论述语言乃至数学语言

Actor language: aphorisms, poetic language, mythical language, and theological language with strong emotional overtones and metaphors

演员语言：带有强烈感情色彩与隐喻的箴言、诗意语言、神话语言和神学语言

System Attribute

系统属性

Open and progressive knowledge system

开放与进步的知识系统

Closed and dogmatic belief system

封闭与教条的信仰系统

Loyalty to Idols

偶像忠诚

Does not require idol worship or loyalty

不要求偶像崇拜与忠诚

Requires worship of and loyalty to the divine

要求对神灵崇拜与忠诚

Criticality

批判性

Accepts rational criticism and critique

接受理性批评批判

Rejects all criticism and critique

拒绝一切批评批判

Value Orientation

价值取向

Transcends class, nationality, and region

超越阶级性、民族性和地域性

Driven by class, national, cultural, and regional interests

受阶层、民族、文化和地域利益驱动

Social Function

社会功能

Its effect is conditional and has its limitations

作用是有条件的且有其无能为力之处

Divine power is infinite and omnipotent

神功无限、无所不能

Social Role

社会角色

Promotes the development of productive forces and the extension of human lifespan

推动生产力与人类寿命提升

Provides spiritual order and ethical framework

提供精神秩序与伦理框架

With its rigorous empirical methods and remarkable technological achievements, science has increasingly become an important force driving social development and civilizational progress. Although a large number of people worldwide are deeply influenced by theological beliefs, theology has not had a substantial impact on the mainstream direction and methods of scientific research, while the great achievements of science have greatly improved the quality of human life and survival. It is in this sense that Engels profoundly pointed out: "God fares worse among the natural scientists who believe in him than anywhere else." [33]33 This is a paraphrase of a remark by Friedrich Engels, likely from his later writings on natural science and dialectics.

科学凭借严谨的实证方法与显著的技术成果，日益成为推动社会发展和文明进步的重要力量。尽管全球有大量人口深受神学信仰影响，但神学并未对科学研究的主流方向与方法产生实质性影响，而科学取得的巨大成就极大地改善了人类的生活质量和生存质量。正是在这个意义上，恩格斯深刻地指出：“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。”

When people smugly lament that “the end of science is theology,” Russell had already made a penetrating summary of human cognition eighty years ago: philosophy is the no-man’s-land between science and theology. “All definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science; all dogma concerning what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.” Some have summarized this as “the end of theology is science, and the starting point of science lies in theology.” And Comte, the founder of positivist philosophy, had already proposed in 1844: “The development of human cognition has successively passed through the theological stage, the metaphysical stage, and the positive stage; these three stages exhibit an evolutionary trend. Although theological and philosophical thinking were necessary for humanity’s infancy, they are inevitably destined to be replaced by experimental science.”

当人们在为所谓“科学的尽头是神学”而得意地发感慨时，罗素早在80年前就对人类认知做出了精辟概括：哲学是位于科学和神学之间的无主之域,“一切确切的知识——我是这样主张的——都属于科学；一切涉及超乎确切知识之外的教条都属于神学”。有人把这概括为“神学的尽头是科学，而科学的起点则在于神学。”而实证主义哲学创始人孔德早在1844年就提出：“人类认识的发展先后经过了神学阶段、形而上学阶段和实证阶段，这三个阶段呈现出一种进化的趋势，而神学和哲学的思维对于人类的童年虽然是需要的，却不可避免要为实验科学所取代。”

Even Einstein, who harbored religious sentiments, confronted the opposition between science and theology, stating: “The mystical tendencies of our age manifest themselves in the rampant spread of so-called theosophy and spiritualism, and in my view, this tendency is merely a symptom of weakness and confusion.” Soviet cosmonaut Gagarin, after returning from the moon, remarked, “I didn’t see any heaven there” [34]34 Gagarin’s remark is often cited in Chinese discourse as evidence that space exploration disproves religious claims about heaven, though the historical accuracy of the quote is disputed.; that is, the foundation of religious theology cannot exist in nature or science; at most it can only seek its foundation in the depths of morality. Physicist Hawking believed that science is increasingly capable of answering questions that once belonged to the domain of religion; scientific explanations are already complete, and theology is unnecessary.

即便具有宗教情怀的爱因斯坦，面对科学与神学的对立，认为“我们这个时代的神秘主义倾向表现在所谓的通神学和唯灵论的猖獗之中，而在我看来，这种倾向只不过是一种软弱和混乱的症状。”苏联宇航员加加林在从月球返回地球之后感慨道，“我没看见那里有天堂”,亦即宗教神学的根基不可能存在于自然界和科学之中，它最多只能在道德深处寻求根基。物理学家霍金认为，科学愈来愈足以回答过去一向属于宗教领域的问题，科学的说法就很完整了，神学是没有必要的。

As to why scientists who adhere to materialism in the scientific realm fall into religious and theological superstition outside the scientific world, Engels profoundly pointed out: “The surest road from natural science to mysticism … is the shallowest empiricism, which despises all theory and distrusts all thought … Even the most sober empiricists fall into the most absurd superstition, into modern spiritualism.” [35]35 Engels, “Natural Science and the Spirit World,” in *Dialectics of Nature*.

对于在科学领域坚持唯物主义的科学家为什么在科学之外的世界会陷入宗教神学迷信中，恩格斯深刻地指出：“从自然科学走向神秘主义的最可靠的道路……是蔑视一切理论、怀疑一切思维的最肤浅的经验论……连某些最清醒的经验主义者也陷入最荒唐的迷信中，陷入现代唯灵论中去了。”