[XI] 知识论的对立THE ANTITHESIS IN EPISTEMOLOGY (30-33)
我在前文已说过：《圣经》对智慧，知识，悟性（理解），愚拙，有很丰富的教导。
As I indicated earlier, the Bible has much to say about wisdom, knowing, understanding, foolishness.
《圣经》的（人类）知识论，乃源自《圣经》的整个世界观。
The biblical doctrine of human knowledge comes out of the general biblical worldview.
上帝的主权，对知识论有多方面的涵义。
God’s lordship has clear epistemological implications.
[1] 上帝的掌控和人类的知识
GOD’S CONTROL & MAN’S KNOWLEDGE
[1.1] 知识的可能性POSSIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE
上帝既然是万物的掌控者，人类能否获得知识，在什么条件下获得，都由祂来决定。
Since God is the controller of things, it is for him to determine whether or not we gain knowledge, and under what conditions.
[1.2] 知识的对象：我们会知道什么OBJECT(S) OF KNOWLEDGE: WHAT TO KNOW
知识的对象就是：上帝自己，和祂所创造的世界。
The objects of knowledge are God himself and the world he has made.
[1.3] 知识的主体：人，认知者SUBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE: THE KNOWER
人类，知识的主体（认知事物者）是上帝所创造的，是上帝的形象。
The human subject of knowledge is God’s creature and God’s image.
知识的主体（存在）能否与知识的对象/客体维持一个有果效的关系，以致产生知识？这由上帝来决定。
Can the subject (existential) enter into a fruitful relation to the object (situational) so that knowledge takes place? That is for God to determine.
[2] 上帝的权威和人类的知识GOD’S AUTHORITY AND MAN’S KNOWLEDGE
上帝既然是宇宙万物的权威，祂是万物的真假和是非（准则）的终极准则。
Since God is the authority of all things, he is the ultimate criterion of truth and falsity, right and wrong (normative).
人类若有可能认识任何事物，我们的知识都必须符合这些准则。
If it is possible for human beings to know anything, their knowledge must meet these criteria.
[3] 上帝的临在和人类的知识GOD’S PRESENCE AND MAN’S KNOWLEDGE
可是，使人类具体有/获得知识的，是上帝的临在（存在）。
It is the presence of God, however (existential), that makes human knowledge actual.
因为，《圣经》中，『上帝的临在』的意义包括：祂向祂的被造物启示自己，特别向人启示。
For part of the biblical meaning of God’s presence is that he reveals himself to his creatures, specifically to human beings.
我们认识上帝，因为祂采取了主动，启示了自己。
We know God and the world because he has taken the initiative to reveal himself.
不然我们不可能有任何知识。
Otherwise, we could have no knowledge at all.
[4] 知识论的扭曲DISTORTIONS IN EPISTEMOLOGY
因此，形而上学和知识论都依靠上帝的超越（掌控和权威）和祂的临在（同在）。
So epistemology as well as metaphysics depends on God’s transcendence (control and authority) and immanence (presence).
而非基督徒对超越和临在的扭曲，产生了知识论上的扭曲。
And the non-Christian distortions of transcendence and immanence also create distortions in epistemology.
宇宙的绝对存有者的超越 ，若根据不符合《圣经》的意义，那么，我们当然完全不能认识祂。
If the absolute being is transcendent in the non-biblical sense of being inaccessible to the world, then of course we cannot know him.
而我们同时也不能认识宇宙，因为（唯有）上帝提供认识真理的唯一准则。
And we cannot know the world either, because God furnishes the only criteria by which we can discover truth.
同样地，绝对者的临在性，若是根据不符合《圣经》的临在，意即：他与宇宙等同，那么我们的知识是自主的，人类的理智也就成为绝对（者）。
Similarly, if the absolute is immanent in the non-biblical sense of being identical with the world, then our knowledge is autonomous and human reason becomes an absolute.
因此我们可以从知识论的角度来理解我们长方形的图表；参图表1.6。
So we can interpret our rectangular diagram in epistemological terms; see fig. 1.6.
符合《圣经》的 不符合《圣经》的
BIBLICAL NON-BIBLICAL
[1] 理性是有限的 [3] 非理性主义
Reason limited Irrationalism
[2] 理性有能力认知 [4] 理性主义
Reason competent Rationalism
Fig. 1.6. 不同的理性主义和非理性主义 Concept of Rationalism and Irrationalism
[1] 告诉我们，因为上帝的超越性，我们的理智是有限的。
[1] tells us that our reason is limited because of God’s transcendence.
上帝才是宇宙知识的终极的掌控者和权威；我们不是。
He, not we, is the ultimate controller and authority for knowledge.
我们的知识（我们所知道的）是我们的门徒生活 (our discipleship) 的一个层面；是仆人的知识。
Our knowledge is an aspect of our discipleship, that is, a servant knowledge.
我们的知识是服在上帝的掌控之下；上帝权威性的启示，为我们的思考设立了最高的定律。
It is subject to God’s control, and his authoritative revelation constitutes the highest laws of thought for
[ 注脚四十三。在哲学界，人类思考的定律一般是指逻辑的基本定律：不矛盾律 (law of non-contradiction)；一个事物，不可能同时，并在同样意义上是A也是非A；同一律 (the law of identity)；和排中律 (law of the excluded middle)：一个事物，要就是A，或者就是非A，不可能同
时和在同样意义上是A也是非A。我在这里要宣称的是：上帝的启示有更高的权威，连人类的逻
辑系统都服在他的启示的权威之下。]
[Footnote 43. In philosophy, the laws of thought are generally identified as the basic laws of logic: the law of non-contradiction (nothing can be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect), the law of identity (everything is what it is), and the law of the excluded middle (everything is either A or not-A; nothing can be both at the same time and in the same respect). What I am claiming is that God’s revelation has higher authority even than any human system of logic.]
[2] 告诉我们，我们的理智虽然有限，但有能力(competence) 认识真理。
[2] tells us that although our reason is limited, it is competent to know truth.
人类有这种能力，因为上帝是临在的，祂已（译者按：在时空历史中）启示了自己，也向我们启示了有关世界，历史，和我们（人类）的真理。
It is competent because God has become immanent and has revealed himself and has revealed truths about the world, history, and ourselves.
[3] is an epistemological corollary to the non-Christian understanding of transcendence.
[3] 是从非基督教的超越观所推出的知识论原则。
『绝对』（绝对者）若是离世界那么远，我们不能认识它，那么，人类就没有理由相信，他们能获知真理，没有理由相信他们的理性有能力认识世界。
If the absolute is so far from the world that we cannot know it, then human beings have no reason to think that they have access to truth, that their reason is competent to know the world.
[4] 是非基督徒对临在的理解，在知识论层面的推论。『绝对』（绝对者）的临在，若设立了人类的智慧为绝对的，那么，人类的理智就是真假的至高裁判者。换言之，我们是自主的。
[4] is an epistemological corollary to the non-Christian understanding of immanence. If the immanence of the absolute establishes human wisdom as absolute, then the human mind is the final determinant of truth and falsity. That is, we are autonomous.
非基督徒会循例称基督教思想为理性主义的，或非理性主义的。
Now, non-Christians routinely speak of Christian thought as rationalistic and irrationalistic.
[5] 非基督徒的批判：基督徒的自主向上帝降服：这等于理性本身投降！
NON-CHRISTIANS’ CRITIQUE: CHRISTIANS SURRENDER AUTONOMY
SURRENDERING AUTONOMY = SURRENDERING REASON ITSELF
当基督徒论到人类思想的有限性，人类需要向上帝的启示降服时[1]，非基督徒往往看到基督徒的自主向上帝降服而感到恐怖。
When a Christian speaks of the limits of human thought, the need to bow to God’s revelation [1], non-Christian respondents are appalled at their surrender of autonomy.
对非基督徒来说，自主的降服，就等于理性本身投降。
To non-Christians, to surrender autonomy is to abandon reason itself.
这是康德的《完全在理性限制之下的宗教》一书内所强调的。
Kant made much of this argument in his Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone.
但是，当基督徒说，人类的理性有能力(competence) 认识真理时，非基督徒会认为他是一个理性主义者。
But when a Christian speaks of the competence of human reason to know truth, non-Christians regard him as a rationalist.
例如，对后现代主义者来说，声称自己能认识绝对真理，本质上就是错的。这声称是傲慢的。
To postmodernists, for example, the very claim to know absolute truth is necessarily wrong. It is an arrogant claim.
[ 注脚四十四。根据后现代的『叙述』（理论），后现代主义者宣称，基督徒是非理性的，因为他们的宣称缺乏证据 (insufficient claims for claims)。后现代主义者也宣称，基督徒是理性主义者，因为他们宣称自己认识绝对真理。]
[Footnote 44. In the postmodern narrative, the modernists claimed that Christians are irrational because they did not have sufficient evidence for their claims. The postmodernists claim that Christians are rationalist because they claim to know absolute truth.]
因此，基督徒和非基督徒，彼此批判，指控对方是理性主义者，也指控对方是非理性主义。
So both Christians and non-Christians charge each other with being rationalist and irrationalist.
[6] 基督徒的回应：分析非基督徒立场
CHRISTIAN RESPONSE: ANALYSIS OF NON-CHRISTIAN VIEW
作为基督徒，我相信，（基督徒）对非基督徒的批评是合理的；而（非基督徒）对基督徒的批评却不合理。我在上文已描述两方的立场，因此这句话的合理性，应该很明显。
As a Christian, I believe that the non-Christians are guilty of this criticism, the Christians non-guilty, for reasons that should be evident from my description of these two positions.
现在我再详细一点，讨论非基督徒的立场。
To consider the non-Christian position more fully:
当我们正视哲学史时，我们会看到，非基督徒的理性传统（思想学派），总在理性主义和非理性主义之间摆动。
As we look at the history of philosophy, we will see that the non-Christian intellectual traditions vacillate between rationalism and irrationalism.
正如形而上学的『超越』和『临在』之间的张力一样，非基督教的理性主义和非理性主义也是彼此不一致的，但是吊诡的是：他们同时彼此强化对方(reinforce each other)。
As with the metaphysical tension of transcendence and immanence, non-Christian rationalism and irrationalism are inconsistent with each other, but they also, paradoxically, reinforce each other.
怕门尼德的理性主义，并不能说服他之后的思想家，导致诡辩家和『中级学院』 (Middle Academy) 的怀疑主义和相对主义。
Parmenides’ rationalism failed to impress later generations of thinkers, leading to the skepticism and relativism of Sophism and the Middle Academy.
但是，怀疑主义和相对主义很难让人满意，这样又导致新柏拉图主义的理性主义。
But few could rest content with skepticism and relativism, leading to a new form of rationalism in Neo-Platonism.
因此，哲学的圈子，几百年来总是从理性主义摇摆到非理性主义，然后又摇摆回来。
So the philosophical community over the centuries has vacillated from rationalism to irrationalism and back again.
最伟大的哲学家们会尝试用一个系统来结合理性主义原则和非理性主义原则。
The greatest philosophers have tried to combine rationalistic and irrationalistic principles in a single system.
例如：柏拉图对『形式』是理性主义的，对『物质世界』则是非理性主义的。
So Plato is rationalistic about the Forms, irrationalistic about the material world.
亚里斯多特和普罗诺斯（新柏拉图主义者）也是如此。
Same for Aristotle and Plotinus.
康德对『现象界』是理性主义的，对『物自体界』则是非理性主义的。
Kant is rationalistic about phenomena, irrationalistic about the noumenal world.
维根斯坦对他的『完全的语言』(perfect language) 是理性主义的；对『神秘的世界』则是非理性主义的。
Wittgenstein is rationalistic about his perfect language, irrationalistic about his “mystical” world.
我们在本书中会看到更多的例子。
We will see other examples throughout this book.
两个立场之间的互动乃如下：
The dynamic between the two positions is as follows:
理性主义若是正确，人的理智在追寻知识时，不会犯错。但是理智的确会犯错。
If rationalism is true, the mind should not make errors in its quest for knowledge.
But it does.
理智犯错时，哲学家不想责怪知识的主体：人的自主理性。
When it does, philosophers do not want to blame their autonomous reason (the subject of knowledge).
他们责怪的，是知识的客体（对象）：世界本身。
Rather, they blame the world, the object of knowledge.
（他们宣称：）人的理智不能获得完全的知识，因为世界不是完全可知的。
The mind cannot attain perfect knowledge because the world is not perfectly knowable.
因此，理性主义又回到非理性主义。
So rationalism leads back to irrationalism.
批判CRITIQUE
但是我们怎会知道，世界是非理性的？
But how do we know that the world is irrational?
当然是靠我们（假装是）自主的知识。
By our would-be autonomous knowledge, of course.
因此，非理性主义又带我们回到理性主义。
So irrationalism leads back to rationalism.
简言之：
Or, to shorten the discussion:
哲学家非理性主义地坚持理性主义，因为：这样的坚持是不够理性根据的。
Philosophers assert rationalism irrationally, for there is no adequate ground for asserting it.
同时哲学家也很理性主义的坚持他们的非理性主义，其根据是他们的自主理智。
And philosophers assert irrationalism rationalistically, on the basis of their autonomous intellect.
因此归根究底，这两个立场，虽然彼此是不一致的，却是彼此作为根据的，从一个意义上来看，它们是等同的。
So in the end, the two positions, inconsistent as they are, are based on each other and are in one sense identical.
范泰尔的伟大成就（之一）是：他从这个理性主义和非理性主义的彼此摆动来讲述（西方）哲学史，这样他同时叙述和批评了哲学史。
It was Van Til’s great accomplishment to narrate the history of philosophy as a movement from rationalism to irrationalism and back again, a description of non-Christian thought and a critique of it at the same time.
我在本书各章将常常提到这个模式。
I will frequently mention this pattern in the historical chapters of this volume.
ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）