[III] 哲学，神学，宗教PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY, AND RELIGION (4-8)
- 神学的定义（傅兰姆）Definition of theology (Frame)
我把神学定义为： 『某位格将上帝的话应用在人生每一个层面上。』
I define theology as “the application of the Word of God, by persons, to every aspect of human life.”
[ 注脚八。对这定义的阐述和维护，参《神学认识论》原著，页76-85；《圣言论》原著，页272-79；《系统神学》，第一章。》
[ Footnote 8. For exposition and defense of this definition, see DKG, 76-85; DWG, 272-79; ST, chap. 1.]
神学与哲学的关系Relation of Theology to Philosophy
根据这个定义，加上上文我为哲学所订的定义，两个专业之间必有很多关联。
On this definition, and on my previous definition of philosophy, there is a strong affinity between the two disciplines.
[1] 上帝的话和世界观Word of God and Worldview
上帝的话其中一个特点，就是它权威性地说出基督教的『世界观』。
The Word of God is, among other things, the authoritative statement of the Christian worldview.
[2] 上帝的话和大叙述Word of God and Meta-Narrative
因为上帝的话描述了一个历史过程，因此也可称为一个『大叙述』。
And because it describes a historical sequence, it may be called a meta-narrative as well.
[3] 『应用』包含了『讲述』(formulation) 和『维护』(defense)（神学和哲学都如此）
Application Involves Formulation and Defense (Theology and Philosophy)
我对神学订的定义里的『应用』，包括我对哲学的定义里的『说出』(formulation) 和『维护』(defense)。
Application in my definition of theology includes the “formulation” and “defense” in my definition of philosophy.
[4] 基督教神学是基督教哲学Christian Theology is Christian Philosophy
因此我们可以说：基督教的神学就是基督教的哲学，或说，是带有基督教世界观的哲学。
So we may say that:
Christian theology is Christian philosophy, or philosophy with a Christian worldview.
哲学家没有权威性文本？Philosophers – No Authoritative Text?
有人可能这样力争：哲学家与神学家不同，他们的工作并不参考权威性文本。
It might be argued that philosophers, unlike theologians, do not work from authoritative texts.
但若是如此，这只能对世俗哲学家来说，不能指犹太教，伊斯兰教，或基督教的哲学家。
But if that is true, it is true only for secular philosophers, not for Jewish, Muslim, or Christian ones.
而就算是世俗的哲学家，也有世界观作为预设（前提），正如我们上课看到的；因此，他们的世界观就是他们的权威性文本。
And even secular philosophers, as we have seen, presuppose worldviews, so that the worldview becomes for them the authoritative text.
- 宗教的定义（傅兰姆）Definition of Religion (Frame)
我把宗教定义为：『信仰的实践』，正如《雅各书》1：26-27所说的：
I define religion as “the practice of faith,” as in James 1:26-27:
『若有人自以为虔诚（信奉宗教），却不勒住自己的舌头，反欺哄自己的心，这人的虔诚（宗教）是虚的。在上帝我们的父面前，那清洁没有玷污的虔诚（宗教），就是看顾在患难中的孤儿寡妇，并且保守自己不沾染世俗。』
“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
『宗教』一词的用法：对巴特，潘霍华等人的批判
Critique of Barth/Bonhoeffer’s use of the word “religion.”
我不同意巴特和潘霍华等神学家和很多讲道者，他们用『宗教』一词来指自义(self-righteousness)，就是人依靠自己的行为，试图在上帝面前得称为义。
I do not follow theologians such as Barth and Bonhoeffer, and many preachers, who use religion to refer to self-righteousness, man’s attempt to justify himself before God by his works.
字典从来没有为『宗教』作这样的定义。
Dictionaries never define it that way.
字典较为通常的作法，是把『宗教』与『信心、信仰』(faith)，『信念』(belief)，『信条』(creed)等同，等于本章下文 Clouser所用的定义。
More commonly, dictionaries equate the term with faith, belief, or creed, as does the definition of Clouser, to be discussed later in this chapter.
但我认为我的定义更能抓到《雅各书》1：26-27的意涵：不是信心/信仰本身，而是透过敬虔的言语和怜悯他人的行为所表达的信心。
But my definition catches, I think, the nuance of James 1:26-27 – not faith as such, but its outworking in godly speech and compassionate behavior.
宗教是一个很好的字，没有理由改变它的定义以便在辩论中用来维护自己一个观点（稻草人）。
Religion is a perfectly good word, and there is no justification for re-defining it in order to make a theological or rhetorical point.
[注脚九。我这里想到的，是一些年青布道家的措辞：『你讨厌宗教吗？我也讨厌。我憎恨宗教，但我爱耶稣。』我同意这些话要表达的意思，甚至在某一个程度上认同背后的心态。但是用更好的方法讲这事。不要批评宗教！要批评的是『形式主义』，『传统主义』，教会的官僚，等。]
[ Footnote 9. I have in mind here the rhetoric of some young evangelists: “You hate religion? Well, I do, too. I hate religion, but I love Jesus.” I agree with the point and, to some extent, the attitude. But there are better ways of stating it. Don’t criticize “religion,” but criticize formalism, traditionalism, church bureaucracy, and the like.]
- 基督教宗教和基督教哲学的关系：基督是一切的主
Relation of Christian Religion and Christian Philosophy:
Christ is Lord of All
因此根据我的定义，基督教的哲学是基督宗教的一部分，是基督教信仰的表达。
On my definition, then, Christian philosophy is part of the Christian religion, an outworking of Christian faith.
基督徒是耶稣基督的仆人。祂是他们的主。
Christians are servants of Jesus Christ. He is their Lord.
《圣经》呼召基督徒，『无论作什么，都要为荣耀上帝而行』（《哥林多前书》10:31）。
Scripture calls them to “do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).
而他们的思想，他们从事哲学，是『无论作什么』的一部分。
Their thinking, their philosophizing, is part of that.
特别奇怪的是：基督徒都很乐意把基督的主权放在敬拜，救恩，伦理这些范围上，但是，思想却是例外。
It is remarkable that Christians so readily identify the lordship of Christ in matters of worship, salvation, and ethics, but not in thinking.
但正如我在本书前面列出的多处经文所说的，上帝在《圣经》多次吩咐祂的子民在智慧，思想，知识，悟性（理解）等事上要顺从祂。
But as I indicated by the great number of Bible verses prefacing this book, God in Scripture over and over demands obedience of his people in matters of wisdom, thinking, knowledge, understanding, and so forth.
当基督徒从事学习时，不论是学哲学或什么学科，他的首要问题必须是：『这与基督有什么关系？』
Whenever the Christian engages in study, of philosophy or anything else, his first question must be: “How is this related to Christ?”
而当然，一切事物都与基督有关，因为祂是万物的创造主（《约翰福音》1:3），并且：
And of course, everything is related to him, for he is the Creator of all (John 1:3) and:
『爱子是那不能看见的上帝之像，是首生的，在一切被造的以先。
『因为万有都是靠祂造的，无论是天上的，地上的；能看见的，不能看见的；或是有位的，主治的，执政的，掌权的；一概都是借着祂造的，又是为祂造的。
『祂在万有之先；万有也靠祂而立。
『祂也是教会全体之首。祂是元始，是从死里首先复生的，使祂可以在凡事上居首位。
『因为父喜欢叫一切的丰盛在祂里面居住。
『既然借着祂在十字架上所流的血成就了和平，便借着祂叫万有，无论是地上的，天上的都与自己和好了。』（《歌罗西书》1:15-20）
“he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Col. 1:15-20)
因此保罗能说：『所积蓄的一切智慧和知识，都在祂（基督）里面藏着』（《歌罗西书》2:3）。
So Paul is able to say that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).
- 非宗教性（世俗的）哲学存在吗？
Does Non-Religious (Secular) Philosophy Exist?
我们一般会区别基督教哲学和『世俗』的哲学。
So we normally distinguish Christian from “secular” philosophy.
『世俗』的意思，一般是指『非宗教性』。
Secular usually means “non-religious.”
但是，有没有『非宗教性的哲学』 (non-religious philosophy) 这码事？
But is there such a thing as non-religious philosophy?
[ 注脚十。接下来三段文字，摘自我的《基督教伦理学》，原著，页55-57。]
[ Footnote 10. The next three paragraphs are taken from my DCL, 55-57.]
当然，『世俗』的哲学并不要求人们上教堂，或参与宗教仪式。
“Secular” philosophies, of course, do not demand church attendance or participation in religious ceremonies.
但是从其他层面来看，它们是有宗教性的。
But in other respects, they are religious.
宗教信仰的定义：不容易
DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF: NOT EASY
克劳斯，在《宗教中性的迷思》一书中指出，为宗教作定义是有其难度的。
Roy Clouser, in The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories [Footnote 11], discusses the difficulty of defining religion.
[Footnote 11. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991.]
世界所有伟大的宗教有什么共同点？他的论点是，这个问题，比表面看来更困难。
What, he asks do the great religions of the world have in common? That question is more difficult than it might seem, Clouser argues.
[Footnote 12. See his discussion in ibid., 10-12.]
[1] 我们可能认为，所有宗教都有道德准则，但是日本神道教却没有。
We might think that all religions include ethical codes, but Shinto does not.
[2] 我们可能认为，所有宗教都承认有一位至高的位格性存有 (a personal supreme being)，但佛教和印度教却不然。
We might think that all religions acknowledge a personal supreme being, but Buddhism and Hinduism do not.
[3] 或者我们认为，所有宗教都要求人们从事敬拜。但是伊比鸠鲁主义和某些佛教和印度教的教派没有如此的要求。
Or we might propose that all religions demand worship. But Epicureanism and some forms of Buddhism and Hinduism do not.
克劳斯的结论是：我们仍然可以为『宗教信仰』 (religious belief) 作出定义。他的建议如下：
Clouser concludes, however, that it is nevertheless possible to define religious belief [Footnote 13], and
he suggests the following:
[注脚十三。请注意，克劳斯讨论的问题不是『宗教』的意义，乃是『宗教信仰』的本质，即：一个带有宗教性质的信念的性质。]
[Footnote 13. Note that Clouser’s question is not the meaning of religion, as I discussed it earlier, but the nature of a religious belief, that is, a belief that is religious in character.]
他的定义是：『一个宗教信仰（信念）乃是相信某一位神圣者。』
“A religious belief is any belief in something or other as divine.”
[Footnote 14. Ibid., 21-22.]
克劳斯的『神圣』 (divine) 不足作为《圣经》的上帝的定义，也不足为其他宗教的神明作定义。
Clouser’s definition of divine does not suffice to fully define the biblical God – or, for that matter, the gods of other religions.
但足为《圣经》的上帝的一个属性作为定义，这属性也是其他宗教传统归给他们的绝对者的。
But it does define an attribute of the biblical God [Footnote 15], an attribute also ascribed to absolutes of other religious traditions.
[ 注脚十五。就是自存 (aseity)。参：《上帝论》，第26章。]
[ Footnote 15. Called aseity in DG, chap. 26.]
人类所有的思想系统都包括对某一个自足，自存者的信念；这自存者不依靠任何他以外的事物。
All systems of thought include belief in something that is self-sufficient, not dependent on anything else.
基督教里，这自存者就是《圣经》的上帝。
In Christianity, the self-sufficient being is the biblical God.
伊斯兰教里，就是『阿拉』；印度教有他们的婆罗门。
In Islam, it is Allah; in Hinduism, Brahma.
克劳斯指出，希腊的多神宗教里的神明并不符合这个『神圣』的定义，因为他们都依靠其他的存有者。
Clouser points out that in Greek polytheism the gods are not divine according to his definition, because they depend on realities other than themselves.
万物源自一个流变，称为混乱(Okeanos)，这才是希腊宗教的真正绝对至高上帝。
The flux from which all things come, called Chaos or Okeanos, is the true deity of the ancient Greek religion.
[ Footnote 16. Clouser, Myth, 25. ]
就算是自称为无神论的宗教，例如小承佛教，都有按照这个定义的神圣者。
Even purportedly atheistic religions such as Theravada Buddhism have deities in Clouser’s sense.
小乘佛教认为『虚无』，至终的『无有』（涅盘），并不依靠任何其他事物。
Theravada holds that the Void, the ultimate Nothingness, sometimes called Nirvana, is not dependent on anything else.
[ Footnote 17. Ibid., 26-27.]
- 宗教和哲学之间，存在着区别吗？
Does a Distinction between Religion and Philosophy Exist?
可是，这样一个对『宗教』的定义，使我们不可能区别宗教和哲学，甚至不能区别宗教和人类思想和生活的任何其他层面。
But such a definition of religion makes it impossible for us to distinguish sharply between religion and philosophy, or indeed between religion and any other area of human thought and life.
[ 注脚十八。近年来思想家对『宗教』的定义，也导致同样的后果，例如：田立克：宗教是『至终的关怀 』(ultimate concern)，和特雷马的『对没有限制的价值的肯定』 (affirmation of unrestricted value)。克劳斯在书中12-16页反对这些定义，但是它们暗示：人类所有的思想都有宗教性。我对『宗教』的定义是『信仰的实践』(the practice of faith)，这定义和克劳斯的定义是重叠的，只要我们理解：接受一些『不依靠任何外界事物』的事物或存有，是信心的行动，虽然不是基督徒的信心。]
[ Footnote 18. The same result follows from some other recent attempts to define religion, such as Paul Tillich’s definition of religion as “ultimate concern,” and William Tremmel’s “affirmation of unrestricted value.” Clouser opposes these definitions in ibid., 12-16, but they also imply that all human thought is religious. I defined religion earlier as “the practice of faith,” and that definition coincides with Clouser’s, when we understand that to accept anything as “not depending on anything else” is an act of faith, though not necessarily Christian faith. ]
所有哲学家都承认，某一个存有是自存的
ALL PHILOSOPHERS BELIEVE SOME BEING HAS ASEITY
同理，各派的哲学，不论它们如何自称是『世俗』的，必然承认一些『神圣』(divine) 的事物，即：『不依靠任何外界事物』的事物。
Philosophies also, however secular they may claim to be, always acknowledge something that is divine in the sense of “not depending on anything else.”
例如：
泰雷兹的『水』，
柏拉图的『善良的形式』，
亚里斯多特的『第一动者』，
斯宾诺萨的『上帝或大自然』，
康德的『物自体』，
黑格尔的『绝对的/绝对者』，
维根斯坦的『神秘的/神秘界』。
Examples would be Thales’ water, Plato’s Form of the Good, Aristotle’s Prime Mover, Spinoza’s “God or Nature,” Kant’s noumenal, Hegel’s Absolute, the Mystical of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.
哲学家在知识论的范围里，同样典型地承认人类的理性是自足的，意即它不需要任何比它更至终的事物来证实 (justify)它（作为自足的合理性）。
In the epistemological sphere, also, philosophers typically acknowledge human reason as self-sufficient in the sense that it requires no justification from anything more ultimate than itself.
当他们似乎否认自主理性时（如：古希腊的诡辩派，司可脱，休谟，存在主义，和后现代主义），他们典型地高举自主的意志或感觉（我们下文会看见），以致意志或感觉成为神圣的。
When they appear to deny autonomous reason (as with the Sophists, Duns Scotus, Hume, existentialism, and postmodernism), they typically exalt autonomous will or feeling, as we will see later, so that will or feeling becomes divine.
没有真正的无神论者；只有敬拜真神者，和敬拜偶像者
THERE ARE NO REAL ATHEISTS;
ONLY WORSIPPERS OF TRUE GOD, AND IDOL WORSHPPERS
我们根据《圣经》在这里要说的是：没有人是真正的无神论者（根据最严肃的定义）。
The biblical point to be made here is that nobody is really an atheist, in the most serious sense of that term.
当人们转离真神，不再敬拜祂时，他们并没有拒绝相信『绝对/者』。
When people turn away from worship of the true God, they don’t reject absolutes in general.
事实是，他们不敬拜上帝，反之敬拜偶像，正如保罗在《罗马书》1：18-32所教导的。
Rather, instead of the true God, they worship idols, as Paul teaches in Romans 1:18-32.
人类中最大的分歧，不是有些人敬拜神，其他人则不然。
The great division in mankind is not that some worship a god and others do not.
最大的分歧乃是那些敬拜真神的人，和那些敬拜假神，偶像的人。
Rather, it is between those who worship the true God and those who worship false gods, idols.
虚假（错误）的敬拜可能没有包括（宗教）仪式，但它必然牵涉到承认『自存性』(aseity)，尊崇某某存在物是『不依靠任何其他事物』的。
False worship might not involve rites or ceremonies, but it always involves acknowledgment of aseity, honoring some being as not dependent on anything else.
- 结论：哲学的基本问题，都是宗教性问题。
Conclusion: All basic philosophical questions are religious questions.
因此我会在本书力争：哲学家探索的基本问题，都是带有宗教性的问题。
So I will argue through this book that the basic questions of philosophers are religious in character.
哲学家和宗教教师一样，都探索形而上学（存有），知识论（知识），和价值论（价值）这些伟大的问题。
Both philosophers and religious teachers explore the great questions of metaphysics (being), epistemology (knowledge), and value theory (value).
在形而上学的范围，哲学家和宗教教师讨论上帝和宇宙等问题。
Under metaphysics, both philosophers and religious teachers discuss the question of God and the world.
在知识论的范围，他们所关注的是真理宣称 (truth claims) 的合理性。
Under epistemology, they both concern themselves with the justification of truth claims.
在价值论的范围，他们都关注我们该如何活下去，我们该最尊崇什么事物。
Under value theory, both are interested in how we should live and what we should regard most highly.
在目前的文化，人们用『宗教』作一条棍子，来击打他们不喜欢的概念
CURRENTLY, “RELIGION” = A CLUB TO BEAT DOWN DISLIKED CONCEPTS
当今的文化里存在着一种强烈的的偏见，人们抨击『宗教』观点，不论在科学，政治，或文学的范围。
In current culture, there is a strong bias against “religious” views, in science, politics, and literature.
我的论点若有什么价值，我们必需谴责这种偏见。
If my argument above carries weight, we should reprove such bias.
『宗教』既然是一个重要的范畴（概念，范围），它是不能与哲学和科学严格区别的。
Insofar as religion is a meaningful category, it cannot be sharply distinguished from philosophy or science.
当人们反对教导『宗教』概念时，他们并没有提出一个具有逻辑的准则，来审核正确和虚假（错误）的概念。
When people oppose the teaching of “religious” concepts, they are not presenting a criterion that can logically distinguish between true and false ideas.
反之，他们用『宗教』这词作一条棍子，随意地排除，不考虑他们不喜欢的各种观点。
Rather, they are using the term religion as a club to arbitrarily exclude consideration of viewpoints that they don’t happen to like.
很明显，这是极其不公道的，我们在美国会说，是『不美国』（un-American, 不合美国精神）的。
That is, of course, blatantly unfair, indeed “un-American,” as we say in the States.
当然，有些人会诉诸『政教分离』，诉诸美国宪法的第一条修订案。
Some, of course, appeal to the “separation of church and state” as formulated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
但该修订案（无论法庭如何误判）并没有规定，宗教必须从政治范围完全分割出来。
But that amendment (courts to the contrary notwithstanding) does not require a total separation of religion from the political sphere.
它甚至没有禁止政府赞助教会（government-established churches国教），除了在联邦（全国）层次。
It does not even forbid government-established churches, except on the federal level.
当美国宪法被编写时，好几个殖民地都有他们赞助的教会（established churches,『国』教），第一条修订案的目的不是禁止这些殖民地赞助教会，乃是禁止联邦政府设立一个国教，与这些殖民地（州政府）赞助的教会竞争。
When the Constitution was written, a number of the colonies had established churches, and the purpose of the amendment was not to forbid these, but to forbid the federal government from establishing a church in competition with the state churches.
在一个真正自由的社会里，每一个行业（范围）里的人们都应有自由表达他们的观点，不论这些被称为宗教的与否，而思想的市场(marketplace of ideas) 会有自由去分辨，决定。
In a truly free society, people in every field would be free to express their views whether called religious or not, and the marketplace of ideas would be free to sort them out.
ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）