核心立場
Core Position
科學可以與基督教信仰並存，但前提不是把科學降格為「世俗意見」，也不是把信仰縮小為私人感受。較穩健的立場是：在研究可觀察、可重複、可量測的自然現象時，接受科學的方法論規範；在處理上帝、創造、人的尊嚴、罪、救恩、終極目的與敬拜時，承認哲學、神學、歷史見證與啟示具有不可替代的角色。這不等於任何宗教主張都免於證據檢驗；凡是關於公共歷史或自然世界的主張，也應誠實地面對相關證據。
Science and Christian faith can coexist, provided neither science is reduced to “secular opinion” nor faith to private feeling. A more stable position is this: when investigating observable, repeatable, measurable natural phenomena, accept the methodological norms of science; when addressing God, creation, human dignity, sin, salvation, ultimate purpose, and worship, recognize the indispensable roles of philosophy, theology, historical testimony, and revelation. This does not mean that every religious claim is exempt from evidence; claims about public history or the natural world should also face relevant evidence honestly.
「科學唯物主義」常把兩件事混在一起：第一，科學研究自然現象時使用自然原因；第二，宇宙中只有物質或物理實體存在。前者可稱為方法論自然主義，通常是科學實作的工作規則；後者是本體論自然主義或物理主義，是一個更強的哲學世界觀。前者不會自行推出後者。哲學文獻明確區分兩者：方法論自然主義規範科學如何進行，不宣稱超自然實體必定不存在。
“Scientific materialism” often conflates two distinct claims: first, science uses natural causes when studying natural phenomena; second, only matter or physical entities exist in the universe. The first is methodological naturalism, usually a working rule of scientific practice; the second is ontological naturalism or physicalism, a stronger philosophical worldview. The former does not itself entail the latter. Philosophical literature explicitly distinguishes them: methodological naturalism governs how science proceeds and does not assert that supernatural entities do not exist.
三層區分：方法、形上學與信仰
Three Levels: Method, Metaphysics, and Faith
- 方法論自然主義
- Methodological Naturalism
方法論自然主義要求：若某個現象要成為科學解釋，就必須提出可公開觀察、可測試、可比較、可重複或至少可被證據約束的機制。這不是科學家在每一次研究前先宣告「上帝不存在」；而是說，若一個解釋不能產生可辨識的觀察差異，它便不能作為實驗室內與其他假說競爭的科學模型。自然科學可以由基督徒、無神論者或不可知論者共同實踐，因為它不要求研究者先接受某一特定宗教或無宗教立場。
Methodological naturalism requires that, for a phenomenon to receive a scientific explanation, one must propose mechanisms that are publicly observable, testable, comparable, repeatable, or at least constrained by evidence. It does not mean that a scientist declares “God does not exist” before every investigation. Rather, if an explanation produces no distinguishable observational difference, it cannot compete as a scientific model in the laboratory. Natural science can be practiced jointly by Christians, atheists, and agnostics because it does not require prior acceptance of a particular religious or nonreligious stance.
例如，基督徒醫生為病人診治時，應使用病史、檢驗、影像、藥理和臨床試驗來判斷病因與治療；同時，他或她可以禱告、安慰病人並相信生命受上帝眷顧。禱告不是用來替代抗生素、手術或公共衛生措施；醫療機制也不能邏輯上證明病人的生命沒有上帝所賦予的意義。兩者回答的問題並不完全相同。
For example, when a Christian physician treats a patient, he or she should use medical history, tests, imaging, pharmacology, and clinical trials to determine causes and treatment; at the same time, the physician may pray, comfort the patient, and believe that life is upheld by God. Prayer is not a substitute for antibiotics, surgery, or public-health measures; nor can medical mechanisms logically prove that the patient’s life lacks God-given meaning. The two address questions that are not entirely identical.- 本體論自然主義或物理主義
- Ontological Naturalism or Physicalism
本體論自然主義主張，全部實在最終只有自然界、物質、能量、時空與物理規律；不存在上帝、天使、靈魂或任何超自然實在。這不是「科學方法」本身，而是對科學成功的一種哲學詮釋。它可能是一種可辯護的世界觀，但不能只憑「科學有效」便被當作實驗結論。從「自然機制能成功解釋許多現象」推到「除了自然機制外絕無其他層面的實在」，中間需要額外的形上學論證。
Ontological naturalism claims that all reality ultimately consists only of nature, matter, energy, space-time, and physical laws; there is no God, angels, soul, or other supernatural reality. This is not scientific method itself but a philosophical interpretation of scientific success. It may be a defensible worldview, but it cannot be treated as an experimental result merely because science is effective. Moving from “natural mechanisms successfully explain many phenomena” to “there is absolutely no reality beyond natural mechanisms” requires additional metaphysical argument.
基督徒不必接受這個額外結論。你可以承認自然因果在自然研究中的可靠性，同時相信自然秩序本身是受造的、可理解的、受持守的。這種立場不是「遇到未知就說神做了」，而是把上帝理解為萬有存在與持續的終極根源，而非只在科學暫時無法解答的空白處出現。
Christians need not accept this additional conclusion. You may affirm the reliability of natural causation in natural inquiry while believing that the natural order itself is created, intelligible, and sustained. This is not “God did it whenever we do not know”; it understands God as the ultimate ground of the existence and continuance of all things, not merely as an agent inserted into temporary gaps in scientific knowledge.- 基督教信仰的主張
- Claims of Christian Faith
基督教不只是「價值觀」或「心靈安慰」。它包含形上學主張，例如上帝是創造主；也包含歷史主張，例如耶穌的受死與復活；還包含倫理與存在論主張，例如人按上帝形象受造、罪是真實的、人蒙召去愛上帝與鄰舍。因此，基督教不能被簡化成只談私人意義；它會與歷史研究、哲學論證和某些自然世界的問題發生真實接觸。
Christianity is not merely a “value system” or psychological comfort. It contains metaphysical claims, such as God as Creator; historical claims, such as Jesus’ death and resurrection; and ethical and existential claims, such as humans being made in God’s image, sin being real, and people being called to love God and neighbor. Christianity therefore cannot be reduced to private meaning alone; it genuinely intersects with historical inquiry, philosophical argument, and certain questions about the natural world.
非重疊權威：有用但不完整
Non-Overlapping Authorities: Useful but Incomplete
「非重疊權威」常被稱為 NOMA（Non-Overlapping Magisteria），與 Stephen Jay Gould 有關。其基本想法是：科學主要處理宇宙的經驗性構成與可檢驗事實；宗教主要處理倫理價值、目的和屬靈意義。這一模式的優點，是阻止科學僭越為完整世界觀，也阻止宗教領袖以神學權威直接否定經驗證據。
“Non-overlapping magisteria,” often called NOMA and associated with Stephen Jay Gould, holds that science chiefly addresses the empirical constitution of the universe and testable facts, while religion chiefly addresses ethical value, purpose, and spiritual meaning. Its strength is that it prevents science from overreaching into a complete worldview and prevents religious leaders from using theological authority to dismiss empirical evidence directly.
然而，對基督徒而言，嚴格的 NOMA 不足夠。若宗教完全不碰事實，基督教的創造、道成肉身、復活、禱告、教會歷史等主張就會被不恰當地排除；若科學完全不觸及世界觀，科學哲學中的因果、理性、真理、意識與價值問題也會被遮蔽。更好的說法是「區分但有接觸的權威」：不同學科有不同的主要方法和正當範圍，但在共同問題上必須彼此尊重證據與推理。
For Christians, however, strict NOMA is insufficient. If religion never touches facts, Christian claims about creation, incarnation, resurrection, prayer, and church history are improperly excluded; if science never touches worldview questions, issues in philosophy of science concerning causation, reason, truth, consciousness, and value are obscured. A better formulation is “distinct but intersecting authorities”: different disciplines have distinct primary methods and proper scopes, yet on shared questions they must respect one another’s evidence and reasoning.
可用一個判別原則：當問題是「某現象在可量測自然條件下如何運作」，科學有首要權威；當問題是「人應當如何活、何為終極善、上帝是誰、救恩意味著什麼」，神學與哲學有不可替代的角色；當問題包含可檢驗的歷史或自然斷言，則需要讓聖經研究、歷史研究、哲學和科學各自按其能力共同參與。
A practical rule is this: when the question is “how does a phenomenon operate under measurable natural conditions?”, science has primary authority; when the question is “how ought humans to live, what is the ultimate good, who is God, and what does salvation mean?”, theology and philosophy have indispensable roles; when a question includes testable historical or natural assertions, biblical studies, history, philosophy, and science must each participate according to their competence.
聖經不是科學教科書
Scripture Is Not a Science Textbook
說聖經不是科學教科書，並不是說聖經不真實、沒有權威，或只剩主觀感受。它是說：聖經寫作的主要目的不是提供 DNA、量子力學、地質年代或天體運動的現代技術說明；它透過多種文類見證上帝的作為、人的罪與責任、以色列的歷史，以及在基督裡的救恩。把古代經文強迫回答現代實驗科學所設計的問題，往往既誤讀文本，也誤解科學。相關基督教科學對話資料也指出，聖經寫成時現代科學尚未形成，因此不應期待它直接教授現代 DNA、重力或量子理論。
Saying that Scripture is not a science textbook does not mean that Scripture is untrue, without authority, or reduced to subjective feeling. It means that its primary purpose is not to supply modern technical accounts of DNA, quantum mechanics, geological ages, or celestial motion; through multiple genres it bears witness to God’s acts, human sin and responsibility, Israel’s history, and salvation in Christ. Forcing ancient texts to answer questions designed by modern experimental science often misreads both the text and science. Christian science-and-faith materials likewise note that modern science had not yet formed when the Bible was written, so we should not expect it to teach modern DNA, gravity, or quantum theory directly.
因此，讀聖經時要問：「這段文本是什麼文類？它向原初受眾說什麼？它使用的是詩歌、敘事、異象、智慧文學、比喻、書信還是預言修辭？它的神學重點是什麼？」文類不是逃避真理的藉口；恰恰相反，尊重文類是按照作者和文本本身所採用的方式追求真實。
Therefore, when reading Scripture, ask: “What genre is this text? What did it communicate to its original audience? Does it employ poetry, narrative, vision, wisdom literature, parable, epistle, or prophetic rhetoric? What is its theological focus?” Genre is not an excuse to evade truth; on the contrary, respecting genre pursues truth according to the mode adopted by the author and text themselves.
創世記與科學：詮釋原則
Genesis and Science: Principles of Interpretation
創世記 1–3 章提出的中心神學宣告包括：上帝是萬有的創造主；受造界本質上是好的並有秩序；人具有獨特尊嚴與道德責任；罪破壞人與上帝、人與人、以及人與受造界的關係。基督徒可以在這些核心宣告上堅定，同時對「六日」的長度、文學結構、地球年齡、物種形成方式、亞當與夏娃的歷史問題採取不同、但需接受檢驗與彼此尊重的解讀。
The central theological affirmations of Genesis 1–3 include: God is Creator of all things; creation is intrinsically good and ordered; humans possess distinctive dignity and moral responsibility; and sin damages relationships between humans and God, among humans, and between humanity and the created order. Christians can remain firm on these core affirmations while holding different—yet accountable and mutually respectful—interpretations concerning the length of the “days,” literary structure, the age of the earth, the formation of species, and historical questions about Adam and Eve.
當看似衝突出現時，不應匆忙選擇「聖經錯了」或「科學全錯了」。較成熟的檢查順序是：第一，科學結論是否真是跨多條證據線、可重複而且已經相當穩固，而不只是媒體標題或單一研究？第二，經文是否被按文類、語境、古代近東背景及整本聖經的正典脈絡解讀？第三，衝突是否其實發生在兩個可修正的人類詮釋之間？有基督教思想資源以奧古斯丁的詮釋策略為例，指出在經文與可靠科學似有衝突時，應嚴肅考慮文本的文類；衝突可能是人對「上帝的話」與「上帝的世界」的解讀衝突。
When an apparent conflict arises, do not rush to choose either “the Bible is wrong” or “all science is wrong.” A more mature order of inquiry is: first, is the scientific conclusion genuinely supported by converging lines of evidence, repeatability, and substantial stability, rather than a headline or single study? Second, has the biblical passage been interpreted according to genre, context, ancient Near Eastern background, and the canonical context of Scripture? Third, might the conflict actually be between two revisable human interpretations? Christian intellectual resources, using Augustine’s interpretive strategy as an example, argue that when Scripture and reliable science appear to conflict, the literary genre of the text should be considered seriously; the conflict may be between human interpretations of “God’s Word” and “God’s world.”
這不表示所有經文都應被象徵化，也不表示只要科學界有某種意見就能重寫神學。相反地，釋經必須由文本、語法、歷史語境、正典神學與教會長久的辨識來約束；科學判斷也必須由資料品質、方法、重複性、預測能力與同行批評來約束。雙方都不可把自己的短暫共識絕對化。
This does not mean that every passage should be symbolized, nor that any scientific opinion can rewrite theology. Rather, interpretation must be constrained by text, grammar, historical context, canonical theology, and the church’s long discernment; scientific judgments must be constrained by data quality, methods, reproducibility, predictive power, and peer criticism. Neither side should absolutize its temporary consensus.
對神蹟的理性態度
A Rational Posture Toward Miracles
基督教相信上帝能行神蹟，但神蹟不宜被當作一般性科學解釋。科學研究通常尋找可重複描述的規律；神蹟若發生，按其定義是上帝在特定歷史處境中的自由行動，而非人能隨意操控或製造的可重複技術程序。因此，神蹟問題往往涉及歷史見證、哲學上對因果與上帝行動的討論、以及神學判斷，而不只是一次實驗能否重做。
Christianity affirms that God can perform miracles, but miracles should not be treated as ordinary scientific explanations. Science usually seeks regularly describable patterns; if miracles occur, they are by definition God’s free action in particular historical circumstances, not a repeatable technical procedure humans can control or manufacture. Questions about miracles therefore often involve historical testimony, philosophical discussion of causation and divine action, and theological judgment, rather than merely whether a single experiment can be rerun.
同時，信徒不應把每一個未知、巧合、疾病痊癒或自然災害都武斷宣稱為直接神蹟或神的特別審判。這既可能傷害他人，也會把真誠的信仰與缺乏證據的推論混為一談。對具體個案保持禱告、盼望、辨識與謙卑，比倉促作出屬靈判決更合乎基督徒的責任。
At the same time, believers should not arbitrarily label every unknown event, coincidence, recovery from illness, or natural disaster as a direct miracle or special divine judgment. Doing so can harm others and confuses sincere faith with unsupported inference. For particular cases, prayer, hope, discernment, and humility are more consistent with Christian responsibility than hasty spiritual pronouncements.
科學與信仰可共用的認識美德
Intellectual Virtues Shared by Science and Faith
科學與成熟的基督教信仰都應培養同類的認識美德：尊重真實、誠實陳述證據、願意承認錯誤、避免操控資料、不把願望當作事實、不用權威壓制合理提問，也不因未知而過度自信。這些不是對信仰的威脅；它們可被理解為愛真理、愛鄰舍與避免作假見證的具體操練。
Both science and mature Christian faith should cultivate similar intellectual virtues: respect for truth, honest presentation of evidence, willingness to admit error, avoidance of data manipulation, refusal to treat wishes as facts, resistance to using authority to silence reasonable questions, and avoidance of overconfidence amid uncertainty. These are not threats to faith; they can be understood as concrete practices of loving truth, loving one’s neighbor, and avoiding false witness.
許多科學與宗教的公開討論也採取一種有限但重要的相容觀：科學解釋依據自然世界的證據、觀察與實驗，並能因反證而修正或被放棄；同時，許多宗教傳統與信徒認為接受生物演化的證據可以與對上帝的信仰相容。這不要求每位基督徒接受同一套神學整合，但提醒我們不可把科學證據與信仰必然對立。
Many public discussions of science and religion adopt a limited but significant view of compatibility: scientific explanations rest on evidence from the natural world, observation, and experiment, and can be revised or abandoned in response to contrary evidence; at the same time, many religious traditions and believers hold that accepting the evidence for biological evolution can be compatible with belief in God. This does not require every Christian to adopt one theological synthesis, but it reminds us not to treat scientific evidence and faith as inherently opposed.
給基督徒的實踐框架
A Practical Framework for Christians- 當問題是技術性或自然機制性的，例如疫苗、疾病、工程安全、地質、氣候或生物學，先追問最可靠的證據、資料與專業共識；禱告不取代負責任的研究與行動。
- When the question is technical or concerns natural mechanisms—such as vaccines, disease, engineering safety, geology, climate, or biology—first ask for the most reliable evidence, data, and expert consensus; prayer does not replace responsible research and action.
- 當問題是終極意義、倫理義務、人格尊嚴、敬拜、罪與救恩時，不要期待自然科學單獨給出充分答案；要進入聖經、神學、哲學、教會群體與靈性操練。
- When the question concerns ultimate meaning, moral obligation, personal dignity, worship, sin, and salvation, do not expect natural science alone to provide a sufficient answer; engage Scripture, theology, philosophy, the church community, and spiritual disciplines.
- 當聖經與科學看似衝突時，先界定到底是哪一項經文解釋與哪一項科學主張衝突；不要把「聖經」與「科學」當成兩個沒有內部差異的整體。
- When Scripture and science appear to conflict, first identify precisely which interpretation of a passage conflicts with which scientific claim; do not treat “the Bible” and “science” as two internally uniform blocks.
- 抵制「空白之神」的做法：不要因為尚未理解機制便宣稱那必然是神蹟；也抵制「科學萬能主義」：不要因為某件事可被機制描述，便宣稱它沒有上帝、目的或價值。
- Resist “God of the gaps”: do not declare an event necessarily miraculous simply because its mechanism is not yet understood; also resist scientism: do not declare that something lacks God, purpose, or value simply because it can be described mechanistically.
- 對基督教核心信仰保持清晰，對次級且有爭議的模型保持謙卑。不同基督徒可在創造時間尺度、演化與創造的關係、創世記早期章節的文類等議題上有歧見，但應避免把某一個現代科學模型或某一種狹窄釋經方案等同於整個福音。
- Be clear about core Christian convictions and humble about secondary, disputed models. Christians may disagree about timescales of creation, the relationship between evolution and creation, or the genre of early Genesis, but should avoid equating a particular modern scientific model or narrow interpretive scheme with the whole gospel.
結論
Conclusion
作為基督徒，你不需要在「忠於聖經」與「尊重科學」之間選邊站。你可以在科學實作中採取方法論自然主義：對自然現象尋找可檢驗的自然機制；同時拒絕把它擴張為科學已證明只有物質存在。你也可以以嚴肅的釋經閱讀聖經：承認其神聖權威、尊重其文類和歷史語境，並讓可靠的自然知識促使我們重新檢查自己是否誤讀了文本，而不是急於否定上帝或否定事實。
As a Christian, you do not need to choose between “faithfulness to Scripture” and “respect for science.” In scientific practice, you can adopt methodological naturalism: seek testable natural mechanisms for natural phenomena, while refusing to expand this into the claim that science has proved only matter exists. You can also read Scripture through serious interpretation: affirming its divine authority, respecting its genres and historical context, and allowing reliable knowledge of nature to prompt re-examination of whether we have misread a text rather than rushing either to deny God or deny facts.
一個可持守的簡明表述是：科學擅長回答「在受造秩序中，事情通常如何運作」；基督教信仰宣告「為何有受造秩序、誰是其根源、人是誰、我們應如何活，以及上帝在基督裡為人的救恩做了什麼」。兩者有區分，也有在歷史與真實世界中必須誠實相遇的地方。
A concise formulation worth holding is: science excels at answering “how things ordinarily work within the created order”; Christian faith proclaims “why there is a created order, who its source is, who human beings are, how we ought to live, and what God has done for human salvation in Christ.” The two are distinct, yet they also meet honestly in history and the real world.
Leave a Reply