Name: 客觀道德--無神論者是否從《聖經》中的上帝那裡竊取了道德？弗蘭克-圖雷克說是 (Objective Morality- Do Atheists Steal Morality From the God of the Bible? Frank Turek Says Yes)
Uploaded: 2024-08-30T17:46:43.000Z
Duration: 38 min 6 s

情態副詞

Hypothetically, if anything would be the fingerprint of our true creator, it would be the core moral values written on our hearts.

假設一下，如果有什麼能成為我們真正造物主的指紋，那就是寫在我們心中的核心道德價值觀。

程度副詞

Any true creator would not contradict our most deeply held moral sentiments.

任何真正的造物主都不會違揹我們最深刻的道德情感。

Only a counterfeit would demand we cast our own conscience aside.

只有冒牌貨才會要求我們拋棄自己的良知。

After all, isn't discarding our own conscience the very definition of immorality?

畢竟，拋棄自己的良知不正是不道德的定義嗎？

I think this topic of objective morality and subjective morality is really more important than I had realized before.

我覺得客觀道德和主觀道德這個話題真的比我之前意識到的更重要。

I'm starting to see that the appeal to an objective morality is one of the foundational attractions to these belief sets of, like, Christianity and Islam.

我開始意識到，對客觀道德的訴求是基督教和伊斯蘭教等這些信仰的基本吸引力之一。

And I feel like if people had more tolerance or acceptance of subjective morality, they wouldn't be so drawn to these authoritarian ideas and even totalitarian systems of government.

我覺得，如果人們對主觀道德有更多的寬容或接受，他們就不會被這些獨裁思想甚至極權政府制度所吸引。

And these fundamental misunderstandings of objective morality and subjective morality are really preventing the possibilities of cooperation and negotiation that would otherwise be there.

而這些對客觀道德和主觀道德的根本誤解，確實阻礙了本來可以實現的合作與談判的可能性。

So Frank goes on to make these assertions in the following video clip I'm about to play, as well as in his book, Stealing from God.

是以，弗蘭克在我接下來播放的視頻片段中，以及在他的著作《偷竊上帝》中，繼續提出了這些論斷。

But I've identified at least five false assumptions, and each false assumption individually would actually falsify Frank's conclusion.

但我至少發現了五個錯誤的假設，而每個錯誤的假設實際上都能單獨地證偽弗蘭克的結論。

So I really want to get into depth on what objective morality is and what subjective morality looks like.

是以，我真的想深入探討一下什麼是客觀道德，什麼是主觀道德。

Because I think that a lot of people are drawn to the security and structure and sense of orderliness that comes with having a predefined set of moral beliefs.

因為我認為，很多人都會被安全感、結構感和秩序感所吸引，而這種安全感、結構感和秩序感正是擁有一套預定義的道德信仰所帶來的。

People feel the only alternative is complete and total relativism, which I think the true state of things is an ultimately subjective morality, but with a lot of objective aspects to it.

人們認為唯一的選擇就是完全徹底的相對主義，而我認為事情的真實情況是，道德最終是主觀的，但也有很多客觀方面。

And having a better understanding of the true state of things will really improve conversations and help us to move forward in a better way.

更好地瞭解事情的真實情況將真正改善對話，幫助我們以更好的方式向前邁進。

And just to be clear, the definition of objective that I'm going by is something that holds consistently true in all situations, regardless of who perceives it or any conditions.

為了明確起見，我對 "客觀 "所下的定義是，無論在任何情況下，無論由誰感知，也無論在任何條件下，它都始終是真實的。

And the definition of subjective that I'm using is an idea formed by a specific mind that may or may not hold true under different conditions or when perceived by a different mind.

我所使用的主觀定義是，由特定思維形成的想法，在不同條件下或由不同思維感知時可能成立，也可能不成立。

So I want to clear up misunderstandings on subjective moral values and really present the idea that objective morality is just an illusion anyway.

是以，我想澄清人們對主觀道德價值觀的誤解，真正提出客觀道德無論如何都只是一種幻覺的觀點。

Neither side actually has access to an objective morality.

實際上，雙方都無法獲得客觀的道德標準。

But I do think that any attempt at establishing objective morality or claiming that there's some inherent objective morality is really just an attempt to elevate one's own subjective morals to a higher level than it actually warrants.

但我確實認為，任何試圖建立客觀道德或聲稱存在某種固有的客觀道德的做法，實際上只是試圖將自己的主觀道德提升到比實際應有的更高水平。

It's like saying, no, my opinions are, of course, the correct ones, because to the individual, it really seems and feels through their perception that their moral values are correct.

這就好比說，不，我的觀點當然是正確的，因為對個人而言，通過他們的感知，他們的道德價值觀似乎真的是正確的。

We need to have this ability to see outside ourselves and how our minds are forming our own subjective moral values and a totally different entity, their mind is going to form somewhat different moral values.

我們需要有這種能力，跳出我們自己，看到我們的思想是如何形成我們自己的主觀道德價值觀的，而一個完全不同的實體，他們的思想會形成有些不同的道德價值觀。

And this misunderstanding gives people the inclination to judge the other side more harshly.

這種誤解讓人們傾向於對另一方做出更嚴厲的評判。

And we saw this even in the 30-year war between Catholics and Protestants, where both sides thought that they had the correct moral values and the other side was objectively wrong.

我們甚至在天主教和新教之間長達 30 年的戰爭中也看到了這一點，雙方都認為自己擁有正確的道德價值觀，而另一方客觀上是錯誤的。

And because of this, they felt justified in brutally killing each other.

正因為如此，他們覺得有理由殘忍地自相殘殺。

About 4 to 8 million Christians were persecuted by other Christians during this 30-year time frame.

在這 30 年間，約有 400 萬至 800 萬基督徒受到其他基督徒的迫害。

And this is one of the reasons I think it's important to build up a comfort with subjectivity and to just acknowledge the true state of things rather than to have to impose our own subjective moral values as the one objective morality.

這也是我認為必須建立對主觀性的舒適感的原因之一，承認事物的真實狀態，而不是將我們自己的主觀道德觀強加給他人，作為唯一的客觀道德。

這就是我想在這裡討論的問題。

But first, let's hear what Frank Turk has to say.

但首先，讓我們聽聽弗蘭克-特克怎麼說。

If you're going to complain that Christians have been judgmental or evil or done wrong things, fine.

如果你要抱怨基督徒有批判性、邪惡或做錯事，那好吧。

I can agree, Christians have been judgmental and evil and have done wrong things.

我同意，基督徒也有批判、邪惡和做錯事的時候。

But those things wouldn't be wrong unless God existed.

但如果上帝不存在，這些事情就不會是錯的。

But atheists don't have God in their worldview.

但無神論者的世界觀裡沒有上帝。

So they actually have to steal from God to argue against him.

是以，他們實際上不得不偷竊上帝的東西來反駁上帝。

They, in effect, have to sit in God's lap to slap his face.

實際上，他們不得不坐在上帝的腿上打他的臉。

So if I had to kind of paraphrase what Frank Turk is saying here, I think his logic is that Christianity offers the objective moral framework.

是以，如果讓我轉述弗蘭克-特克在這裡所說的話，我認為他的邏輯是，基督教提供了客觀的道德框架。

So those who are detached from Christianity don't really have a moral objective framework to point to.

是以，那些脫離基督教的人其實並沒有一個道德的客觀框架可以指向。

So without that reference, atheists are not able to even contribute to the discussion of moral topics.

是以，如果沒有這種參照，無神論者甚至無法參與道德話題的討論。

In many cases now, I've seen conversations being shut down where a theist will say, well, you have no right to speak on moral topics because you don't have an objectively moral framework to reference.

在很多情況下，我看到有神論者會說，好吧，你無權談論道德話題，因為你沒有客觀的道德框架可以參考。

But this is just built on many misunderstandings of morality.

但這只是建立在對道德的許多誤解之上。

And here I'd like to discuss some of the false assumptions that underlie Frank Turk's assertion.

在此，我想討論一下弗蘭克-特克的論斷所依據的一些錯誤假設。

So let's take a closer look at false assumption number one, which is that God has successfully communicated an objective set of moral values through his Holy Bible.

是以，讓我們仔細看看錯誤假設一，即上帝通過《聖經》成功地傳達了一套客觀的道德價值觀。

So the Bible does prescribe some moral values, but many of them are either too vague or contradicting each other in other areas that they can't be used in an objective way by even the most well-meaning Christians.

是以，《聖經》確實規定了一些道德價值觀，但其中許多價值觀要麼過於模糊，要麼在其他方面相互矛盾，即使是最善意的基督徒也無法客觀地使用它們。

Hence why we find so many different Christian denominations working to find a unifying message in the Bible, yet one cannot be found.

是以，我們才會發現有那麼多不同的基督教派在努力尋找《聖經》中的統一資訊，但卻找不到一個。

I discussed this phenomenon a bit in one of my previous videos, chapter three of my deconversion journey.

我在之前的一個視頻中，也就是 "我的脫胎換骨之旅 "的第三章中，對這種現象進行了一些討論。

所以，我就在這裡播放這個片段。

Different denominations of Christianity were literally doing completely different things trying to get to this heaven and evade this hell.

基督教的不同教派做著完全不同的事情，試圖進入天堂，逃避地獄。

The Bible was too vague about the specifics.

聖經》對具體細節的描述過於模糊。

上帝為什麼不認真對待這件事？

Why didn't God use his best efforts to communicate to us what's needed?

上帝為什麼不盡他最大的努力向我們傳達所需要的東西呢？

Is salvation by faith, works, grace, saying the sinner's prayer, being baptized, once saved, always saved?

得救是靠信心、行為、恩典、做罪人的禱告、受洗、一次得救、永遠得救嗎？

I will again reference the Catholic and Protestant wars where over a period of 30 years, four to eight million Christians were brutally killed by other Christians, both sides truly believing that they interpreted God's objective morals correctly.

我要再次提到天主教和新教戰爭，在 30 年的時間裡，有 400 萬至 800 萬基督徒被其他基督徒殘忍殺害，雙方都堅信自己對上帝客觀道德的解釋是正確的。

Virtually every concept expressed in the Bible is under interpretational dispute.

實際上，《聖經》中表達的每一個概念在解釋上都存在爭議。

So whether or not there actually is a God trying to communicate a single set of morals to humans, it's pretty much irrelevant because it's just not working.

是以，無論是否真的有上帝試圖向人類傳達一套單一的道德觀，這都是無關緊要的，因為這根本行不通。

There's just too much of a disconnect between the text and fallible humans who are trying their best to understand a unifying message from it.

文本與那些盡力從中理解統一資訊的易犯錯的人類之間存在著太多的脫節。

In topics of such great moral significance as slavery, both sides attempted to justify their position through the text of the Bible.

在奴隸制這樣具有重大道德意義的話題上，雙方都試圖通過《聖經》文本為自己的立場辯護。

So we see that the Bible wasn't this unifying objective message, but it was individual minds applying their own morality to the Bible and using it to justify their own positions.

是以我們看到，《聖經》並不是一個統一的客觀資訊，而是個人將自己的道德觀應用於《聖經》，並用它來證明自己的立場。

We also see this in matters such as women's rights and homosexuality.

我們在婦女權利和同志等問題上也看到了這一點。

The Bible ultimately fails at providing Christians with a unifying, consistent morality.

聖經》最終未能為基督徒提供統一、一致的道德觀。

So that brings me to false assumption number two, which is that God has instilled the same set of moral values on the hearts of each of his creation, and therefore there is a truly objective morality for Christians to reference with authority when discussing moral topics.

這就引出了第二個錯誤假設，即上帝在他所創造的每一個人心中都灌輸了同樣的道德價值觀，是以基督徒在討論道德話題時可以權威地參考真正客觀的道德觀。

But if that is a false assumption and everyone, including any potential God, actually has their own moral values, then morality is ultimately subjective and values are unique to each mind perceiving it.

但如果這是一個錯誤的假設，每個人，包括任何潛在的上帝，實際上都有自己的道德價值觀，那麼道德歸根結底是主觀的，價值觀是每個感知道德的心靈所獨有的。

Most evangelicals, like Frank, subscribe to a philosophy called divine command theory, which at least provides the illusion of an objective morality.

大多數福音派教徒，比如弗蘭克，都信奉一種叫做 "神聖命令論 "的哲學，這種理論至少提供了一種客觀道德的假象。

Let's hear a description from a YouTuber who did a really great job at describing it.

讓我們聽聽一位 YouTuber 的描述，他的描述非常精彩。

According to the philosopher and divine command theorist John Hare, it is the view that what makes something morally wrong is that God forbids it, and what makes something morally right is that God requires it.

根據哲學家和神諭論者約翰-黑爾的觀點，神諭論認為，使某件事在道德上成為錯誤的原因是上帝禁止這樣做，而使某件事在道德上成為正確的原因是上帝要求這樣做。

There are three main components in that description.

這一描述有三個主要組成部分。

Divine commands can be communicated through a number of means, including special revelation and conscience.

神的命令可以通過多種方式傳達，包括特殊啟示和良知。

The relation between divine commands and moral obligations can be understood in different ways.

神聖命令與道德義務之間的關係可以有不同的理解。

One way is causal, meaning that God's commands cause our moral obligations.

一種方式是因果關係，即上帝的命令導致了我們的道德義務。

A second way is constitutive, meaning that God's commands constitute or ground our moral obligations.

第二種方式是構成性的，即上帝的命令構成了我們的道德義務或道德義務的基礎。

A third way is one of identity, meaning that God's commands are identical to our moral obligations.

第三種方式是同一性，即上帝的命令與我們的道德義務相同。

Contemporary defenders of divine command theory do not say that God's commands make something morally good.

當代神聖命令理論的捍衛者並沒有說上帝的命令使某些東西在道德上是好的。

One can have a different account of moral value.

人們可以對道德價值有不同的解釋。

Rather, defenders of divine command theory offer the theory merely as a theistic account or explanation of our moral obligations.

相反，"神諭論 "的捍衛者只是將該理論作為對我們道德義務的有神論解釋或說明。

So what he's saying is that the older school of thought regarding divine command theory was that God has instilled the same set of morals on each person.

是以，他的意思是，關於神諭理論的舊學派認為，上帝給每個人都灌輸了同樣的道德觀。

But now the more contemporary thought is in recognizing that people will have separate opinions on morality from God.

但現在更現代的思想是承認人們對道德會有不同於上帝的看法。

And I think this is an acknowledgment of how people are finding discrepancy between their own moral values and what's portrayed in the Bible.

我認為，這是對人們發現自己的道德價值觀與《聖經》中的描述之間存在差異的一種認可。

Important here is that we see an acknowledgment that our moral intuitions are sometimes separate from the God of the Bible.

重要的是，我們在這裡看到了一種承認，即我們的道德直覺有時與《聖經》中的上帝是分離的。

We're able to see something he does and it triggers our conscience.

我們能夠看到他所做的一些事情，並觸發我們的良知。

Since our values are not by necessity equal to God's, this indicates that each party has a separate set of inner core moral values.

既然我們的價值觀不一定等同於上帝的價值觀，這就表明每一方都有一套獨立的內在核心道德價值觀。

So through this contemporary perspective of divine command theory, all the values are still subjective to the mind perceiving it, except that we're commanded to actually disregard our own moral values and instead adopt this foreign set that's imposed on us by Christianity.

是以，通過神聖命令理論的當代視角，所有的價值觀仍然是主觀的，只是我們被命令無視自己的道德價值觀，轉而採用基督教強加給我們的這套外來價值觀。

Let's consider another evangelical apologist named William Lane Craig as he discusses divine command theory with Alex O'Connor.

讓我們看看另一位福音派辯士威廉-萊恩-克雷格（William Lane Craig）與亞歷克斯-奧康納（Alex O'Connor）討論神聖命令理論時的情形。

Highly understandable why one would be troubled by this.

非常理解為什麼有人會為此感到困擾。

I remember when I first heard Philip Quinn, a philosopher at the University of Notre Dame, speak on divine command morality and these cases in the Old Testament.

我記得第一次聽聖母大學的哲學家菲利普-奎恩（Philip Quinn）講述神諭道德和《舊約全書》中的這些案例時的情景。

But as a philosopher, I'm required to say what I think about something, not how I feel about it.

但作為一名哲學家，我必須說出我對某件事情的看法，而不是我的感受。

And when I dispassionately weigh metaethical theories about the sources of moral obligation and prohibition,

當我冷靜地權衡有關道德義務和禁令來源的元倫理學理論時、

I can't think of any other moral theory that better grounds objective moral values and duties than divine command morality.

我想不出還有哪種道德理論能比神諭道德更好地為客觀道德價值和義務提供依據。

So in this clip, William Lane Craig actually acknowledges that his own conscience is triggered by the actions of the God of the Bible.

是以，在這個片段中，威廉-萊恩-克雷格實際上承認，他自己的良知是由《聖經》中上帝的行為引發的。

It's just that he's learned to suppress or disregard his own feelings, his own moral sentiments are to be disregarded, and favor of whatever the Bible God does is good.

只是他學會了壓制或無視自己的感受，自己的道德情感被忽視，而傾向於《聖經》中上帝所做的一切都是好的。

And the justification he provides for doing this is that he feels divine command theory is the only path to an objective morality, which he seems to think is the only tolerable solution to moral questions.

他這樣做的理由是，他認為神聖命令論是通往客觀道德的唯一途徑，他似乎認為這是解決道德問題的唯一可容忍的辦法。

Basically, he has no tolerance for subjectivity.

Divine command theory is essentially a denial of our own morals in exchange for an external set of beliefs.

神諭論本質上是對我們自身道德的否定，以換取一套外在的信仰。

This is an eradication of self and any of the moral safeguards that we formed for good reason.

這是在抹殺自我，也是在抹殺我們合理形成的任何道德保障。

字幕列表影片播放

客觀道德--無神論者是否從《聖經》中的上帝那裡竊取了道德？弗蘭克-圖雷克說是 (Objective Morality- Do Atheists Steal Morality From the God of the Bible? Frank Turek Says Yes)

ultimately

perceive

recognize

illusion