科學與宗教的客觀主觀   

余創豪

向來關心人類前途,所以最近看了一本關於未來的書,名為《未來五十年)(Next Fifty Years),這本書由多位科學家合著,他們就電腦工程學、天文學、物理學、數學、遺傳基因學、心理學……等各方面的發展,檢討過去,展望將來。

不過,不同作者卻隱含著矛盾的說法,例如一位天文學家指出:地球無非是太陽系其中一個行星,太陽系無非是銀河系裡面眾多星系之一,在浩瀚宇宙裡面則有無數類似銀河系的星集,所以,地球在宇宙中並沒有特殊地位。可是,另一位科學家在討論有沒有外太空文明時卻說:在無限宇宙中,極少星球好像地球那樣,可以有海洋、大氣層……等承托生命的環境,換言之,地球十分特別。

在書中,一些生物學家認為:根據進化論,人類由低等動物演化而成,當我們比較人類與動物的遺傳基因時,就可以發覺到,人類與其他生物在性質上十分接近,故此,人在地球中並沒有特殊位置。但是,研究電腦和心理學的學者卻指出:人工智能研究已經進行了近半個世紀,無奈現在仍沒有多大突破,即使是當今最頂尖的電腦系統,仍沒法跟人類的智慧相提並論,更遑論低等動物。換句話說,人的確很特別。

其實,科學只能告訴我們事實,例如太陽系有多少個行星、地球大氣層有甚麼構成元素、人類的遺傳基因怎樣排列、人腦擁有多少個腦細胞……,但是,科學本身不能給予我們價值判斷,到底地球、人類有沒有特殊地位,是價值判斷的問題。

上個世紀,法國科學家杜咸(Duhem)與美國哲學家奎因(Quine),以「杜咸奎因理論」(Duhem-Quine thesis)而震驚科學哲學界。什麼是「杜咸奎因理論」呢?我嘗試簡單地介紹一下:所有科學理論並非只是單一理論,而是一連串理論(a web of theories)組合而成,科學家往往並沒有清楚答案,可以絕對地推翻或者証明那些理論,因為當一連串理論被視為整體(holistic)時,縱使資料跟理論不能吻合,科學家不能清楚指出整體理論中那一個部份有問題。

基於同一理論,杜咸與奎因推演出兩套對宗教完全不同的見解。杜咸是天主教徒,他認為既然科學理論並非絕對,那麼宗教與科學應該沒有衝突。另一方面,奎因卻十分反對宗教,他認為理論的複雜性質,讓自己有自由去選擇相信無神論。當然,以上只是簡化的描述,杜咸與奎因的學說遠比上述複雜。

最近自己鑽研或然率,或然率是一門數學,用來推算事件發生之可能性,有趣的是,有神論者(如 Dembenski)與無神論者(如 Sober)都援引或然率,來支持世界由上帝創造或者由自然生成。事實上,或然率有很多門派,在數學史上,或然率的發展經歷了不同「世界觀」的鬥爭。現今統計學裡面受普遍採納的或然率推論方法,是英國學者費沙(Fisher)的一套,費沙並非是「純數學家」,他亦是生物學家,他相信優生學和進化論,所以其大前提是發展一套「客觀」的或然率,來証明其優生學與進化論的主張。吊詭的是,當費沙發展「客觀」的或然率理論時,自己卻充滿了主觀願望、甚至偏見,其他科學家對自己的批評,如 JeffreysNeymanPearson……等,他全聽不入耳。科學家,亦有執著的「宗教」精神!

世間事物是必然還是偶然,自古人們已爭辯不休。常識是:社會現像比較傾向偶然性,因為人有自由意志可以選擇,而物理現像比較傾向必然性,因為物質沒有意志,它們必須遵循自然律。在十九世紀末至二十世紀初,社會科學家、自然科學家都應用或然率和統計學作為研究方法,有趣的是,社會科學家、自然科學家由或然率和統計學而得到兩套對「命運」完全不同的詮釋。社會科學家指出:統計數字顯示,任何良好的社會環境都會人自殺、犯罪,任何良好的教育制度下,都會有人教而不善,這分佈線正說明了人沒有自由意志!總一部份人命中注定是失敗者!由此來看,彷彿上帝並不公平。

但是,自然科學家卻對統計學有不同理解,電磁學家兼數學家馬克士威(J. Maxwell)是基督徒,他認為或然率告訴我們:牛頓力學的機械世界觀已受到挑戰,物理現象並非絕對,例如氣體粒子的活動就十分隨機。由事物之隨機性,他推論自然科學的局限性,因而更加推崇信仰之肯定性。

總括來說,在科學中,描述與判斷、客觀與主觀的界線十分模糊。面對以科學挑戰基督教的朋友,我們必須先細心分析其內容,往往在仔細檢查之下,我們就知道其結論並非如他們想像中那般肯定。

 2002.11.3

(有關或然率的爭議,請參考

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/hps/probability.pdf


This article was published in “Christian Times” on Novemeber 8, 2002. A friend of mine posted the article on the “Chinese University Fellowship Newsgroup.” Several people gave me comments and the following is my response to those comments (The Chinese senetences in blue are comments from CU Fellowship Newsgroyp):

Hi, I am the author of the article concerning the objectivity and subjectivity of science and religion. After seeing some responses in this newsgroup, I would like to give my feedback to the group. I am not intended to win my argument here. Please accept my sincere and honest sharing in the hope that my opinions can be helpful to your spiritual quest and academic inquiry.

First, someone may wonder whether I have the expertise to discuss the topics of philosophy of science and probability.

據聞作者是很有來頭的… Well... 那種"odd"的感覺,就正如吳宣倫去講進化論… 人家無錯是科學家,但他是電腦權威,而不是生物權威,用來去應付layman還可以,對一些稍為有腦的,就已經知道錯愕之處

I have a Ph.D. in Measurement and Statistics, and thus probability is my expertise. I also have a certificate in History and Philosophy of Science. Currently I am pursuing a second Ph.D. in Philosophy of Science.

I will not give feedback to every posting in the group, because most comments result from “expansion” of my points. I highlight a few examples:

通常要證明自己的信仰有多麼的合理,客觀,某些人就喜歡用盡一切方法指出對方不合理,不客觀...卻不發現,自己批評對方時,本身的方法就是很不合理,不客觀...

Did I say that the other side (science) is “unreasonable”?

就算這些形上學的解釋有矛盾,不代表科學本身就是任意

Did I say “science is arbitrary”?

正如人不在於飛,你強調人不能飛這個事實,有甚麼意思呢?能否就此能貶低人呢?當然不能,教徒自己要預先加入價值判斷,才能判斷科學是低價值的

Did I say “science has low value?” I am a Psychometrician who conducts scientific research everyday.

你只能插人幾刀,人家卻能在基督教中找出更多難題的例子...這樣自己一早死了很久啦..

How did my article “stab others”? The difference between Duhem and Quine, and the diversity of probability are discussed in many non-religious scholarly papers. By the way, phrases like “stabbing others, you have been dead long ago…” are not admissible in serious academic discussion.

都是那句,為何總是喜歡「正視」/「細心分析」別人的理論,卻完全不願意檢討自己內部的問題?相信這是不少信徒的心結...

How could you know that I didn’t write articles to examine the problems of Christianity? Here are some examples:

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/essays/on_special/two_side.html

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/essays/religion/horse.html

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/essays/religion/human.html

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/essays/religion/helio.html

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/hps/galileo.html

如果那麼不準確,不可靠,你仲敢用電器?你對電器的信心,一定多過上帝,不是嗎?你有沒有聽過信徒說:「我最近對科學技術產品沒有信心,請為我祈禱?」 

Using electronics is an argument used by some philosopers regarding ontological comittment. You can still trust an instument within an acceptable range of precision. Did I say that I don’t use electronics? I progam computers every day.

When I discuss a paper, I have to pinpoint the main theme of the article rather than “elaborating” the points that are not there. If someone discusses Duehm-Quine thesis, logical empiricism, the status of humankind, Fisherian likeihood, Bayesian inference, von Mises frequeny theory, Neyman alternate hypothesis… I had better to comprehend those theories inside out before saying anything. Spiritually speaking, a Christian life is a humbling experience. I will not say more than what I know. And I should be willing to learn from others. Also, when I give a point, I had better collected substantive information as my back up, rather than giving some blank statements. I sincerely hope that we can all grow in Christ.

For more info about probability and apologetics, please consult:

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/hps/creationism.pdf

http://www.creative-wisdom.com/education/hps/behe.pdf

Thank you for your attention. God bless you.


Navigation

Essay Menu

Poem Menu

Short Story Menu

On Cultures and Nations

On Study and Education

On Relationship and Psy

On Writing

On Art

Other Essays

Special Topics

Main menu

Other Authors

Simplified Navigation

Table of Contents

Search Engine

Credit/Copyright ©

Contact Dr. Yu