但是并不代表以后的生物医疗技术无法超过这一极限。

另外，自然器官的功能和寿命优势也有可能是漫长进化积累的结果。

癌细胞是一个个体内的细胞异常增生。进化依赖的则是一代一代基因的个别变异被环境所接受。
细胞和基因完全是两个不同的概念。我一个学电工的都能凭常识告诉你。

回到进化的问题上来，长期的基因变异，被自然选择，结果好象不是死气沉沉的地球，而是生机勃勃的文明嘛。

进化论是不易的真理吗？

--没有任何正经的科学理论会自称是不易的真理的。无意义的问题。


百名科学家发表宣言质疑达尔文主义

--爱因斯坦说过， “为什么要100个，要证明我是错的，一个就够了”。 科学本来就是欢迎质疑并不断修正的。


猿猴变人学说之错误
--“猿猴变人”。。。这个文章的作者估计连基本的进化论常识都没有。

http://paowang.com/news/3/2006-05-28/20060528215055.html

==============================================================

今天晚上我所要讲的题目就是方才主席所说的"我为什么不是基督徒"。也许我们最
好先弄清楚"基督徒"的意义。由于滥用的缘故，现在"基督徒"的意义相当含糊。有
些人仅以它来代表一个企图以善良的方式过活的人。这样解释的话，我想各个教派
之中都有基督徒存在。但是我认为这个解释并不恰当，这等于暗示所有的非基督徒
―― 包括佛教徒、儒者、回教徒等等 ―― 都不打算以善良的方式生活。我所要
说的基督徒并不代表任何尝试以个人的智慧去过端正的生活的人。我认为一个必须
有相当明确的信仰，才能自称为基督徒。现在这个名词所代表的意义，已不再像圣
奥古斯丁和阿奎那的时代那样单纯。在那时，假如一个人自称是基督徒，人人都懂
得他的意思：他接受一套明确的教条制度，他以完整的信念全力信仰这些教条中的
每一个音节。



什么叫做基督徒？

现在的情况不同了，我们为基督教下定义时，不能不稍微含糊一点。我个人认为，
每一位自称基督徒的人，都必须具备这两个条件。第一个条件是非常武断的，就是
，必须信仰上帝和不朽。不信仰上帝和不朽的，就不能自称是基督徒。第二，根据
"基督徒"这个名词本身所代表的意思，必须对基督其人有某种信仰。回教徒也信仰
上帝和不朽，但是他们不自称基督徒。假如不认为基督是神，最低限度应该相信基
督是至善至慧的人，不然的话，就没有资格自称基督徒。当然，就另一个说法，像
怀台克所编的"年鉴"，和把世界人口区分为基督徒、回教徒、佛教徒、和拜偶像者
等等的地理书，我们全是基督徒。这些地理书把我们全体归类为基督徒，这纯粹只
有地理学上的意义，我们可不予理会。所以我现在要告诉你们我为什么不是基督徒
，就要同时说明两件事：第一，我为什么不相信上帝和不朽。第二，我为什么不认
为基督是至善至慧的人，虽然我对他的道德评价颇高。

由于不信仰者在过去不断努力的成果，我今天才能给基督教下这样一个广泛的定义
。如我方才所说，古时候"基督教"所代表的意义，要比现在纯粹得多。从前的基督
徒还必须相信地狱之说。一直到不久以前，永久的地狱之火是基督教信仰里的一个
重要项目。你们都知道，地狱的说法后来被枢密院废除了。肯特堡大主教和约克郡
大主教不承认这项决定。但是在我们的国家里，我们的信仰全凭国会的法案裁决，
枢密院的职权凌越大主教之上，因此基督徒不必再信仰地狱之说。我也不必坚持信
仰地狱之说是基督徒的条件之一。



上帝的存在

我们先来讨论上帝的存在与否：这是一个严重的大问题，若要予以彻底的处理，就
必须请诸位坐在这里等待来世。所以假如我的处理方式不够具体的话，请诸位务必
原谅。你们都知道天主教会有一个信条：上帝的存在是不证自明的。这句话听起来
实在奇怪，但这是他们的教条之一。他们不得不提出这个信条，因为曾有一段时期
，自由思想者养成一种可疑的习惯，他们喜欢一面提出各种论证，说明纯理智否认
上帝的存在，一面又说，就信心的立场来说，他们当然明白上帝的确存在。他们把
这些论证和理由刻意铺叙得十分详尽，使天主教会觉得有加以禁止的必要，因此主
张上帝的存在不证自明，而一面却又建构他们所谓的论证来加以证明。他们的论证
有很多种，我这里只提出几种来讨论。



第一因论证

最简单易解的就是第一因论证。第一因论证主张万事万物都有因，循着因因的连锁
一步步往上追溯，就得到第一个因。我们把上帝之名给予第一个因。这个论证目前
已经没有多少份量了。首先，因的性质已经不同了。在哲学家与科学家的反复研究
之下，因已失去了以往的活力。即使不提这个，你们也知道第一因论证本身就是无
效的。当我还年轻，我的心中还在严肃地辩论这些问题时，我曾有一度接受第一因
论证。直到十八岁时，有一天我读了J·S·穆勒的自传，读到这样一个句子："我
父亲告诉我'我是谁创造的？'这个问题是没有答案的，因为这个问题牵连更进一步
的问题'上帝是谁创造的？'"这个简单的句子使我猛然悟出第一因论证的谬误。假
如万事万物都必须有因，那么上帝也必须有因，假如无因的事物有存在的可能，则
世界和上帝都可以无因，所以第一因论证完全无效。这与印度教徒的见解有异曲同
工之妙。印度教徒认为世界被一头象顶在背上，这头象立在一只乌龟背上。假如有
人问起："那只乌龟又如何呢？"印度人就说："换个话题吧！"第一因论证实在不比
这个高明。我们没有理由认为世界的出现非有原因不可，也没有理由认为世界不是
一向就存在的。假定世界有一个开端是毫无道理的。万事万物都必须有开端的想法
，实在是由于想象力贫乏所致。因此我不想在第一因论证再浪费时间了。



自然律论证

接下来我想谈谈常见的自然律论证。这是十八世纪中最受欢迎的论证，特别受欢迎
的原因是因为有牛顿和他的宇宙起源论助阵。人们观察出行星依据万有引力定律环
绕太阳转动，认为因为上帝命令行星以这种方式转动，所以行星就照办。这当然是
一个再便当不过的解释，为人们省去了解释万有引力定律的麻烦。目前我们解释万
有引力的方式，是爱因斯坦提出的。我不打算在此说明爱因斯坦如何解释万有引力
定律，以免花费太多的时间。总而言之，牛顿系统中的自然律今天已经不能成立了
。牛顿认为由于某种不可解的原因，自然界中的一切以一致的方式推移。现在我们
才发现，许多我们一向当作自然律的东西，其实是人为的习惯。要知道，即使在星
空中最遥远的角落，一码还是等于三尺，这是再明显不过的事实，但不能叫做自然
律。许多所谓的自然律都是这一类的。从另一方面来说，我们研究原子的实际动态
，到最后会发现原子的运动并非依据任何所谓的定律。我们计算出来的定律，只是
统计学上的平均数，而这个平均数的产生纯粹由机会来决定。我们知道掷骰子掷到
双六的机会，每三十六次中大约只有一次，我们不会认为这其间有任何定理在支配
。相反地，假如每次掷骰子，每次都得到双六，我们就会觉得有定理在支配。许多
自然律就是这样产生的。它们是统计学上的机会平均数。这么说穿以后，自然律这
回事就没有以往那样神秘动人了。撇开这个瞬息万变的科学形态不谈，认为自然律
暗示有立法者存在，纯粹由于混淆了自然律和人为律。人为律命令我们以某种方式
行动，我们可以依照这个方式，也可以不依照这个方式。而自然律是在描述事物实
际上的行动方式，它只是描述事实而已，所以就不能说一定有某人在背后指挥。假
如一定要这么说的话，就必须面对这个问题："为什么上帝制定这种自然法？"假如
上帝之所以这么作，全由他兴之所至，而没有特别的理由，那么至少这一件事是不
依据定律的，自然律的说法因此不攻自破。假如像正统的神学家所说，上帝之所以
制定现有的这种自然法，而不制定别种自然法是有理由的 ―― 上帝要创造一个最
好的宇宙（仔细想过以后，你当然不会这么说）。既然上帝制定这些定律是有理由
的，那么上帝本身也依据定律行事。所以提出上帝这个媒介物来并没有任何好处。
在这些神圣的法令之外之前，还另有定律，上帝帮不上这个自然律论证的忙，因为
他不是最终极的立法者。简而言之，自然律论证已失去了从前的效力。我现在讨论
的次序是依照这些论证产生的时间先后。这些论证随着时间的进展，性质也渐有改
变。刚开始是艰涩的学术论证，其中包含明显的廖误，然后愈来愈缺乏学术精神，
竟至以道德为借口，使论证本身更加模糊。



设计论证

依照次序，接下来我们要谈的就是设计论证。设计论证是这样的：世界上的万事万
物之所以被设计成现在这个样子，是为了便于人类的生存，假如世界不是这个样子
，我们就无法生存下去。这个论证常会以相当奇异的形式出现。譬如：兔子有白色
的长尾，是为了便利人类瞄准射击。我不知道兔子们对此说有何感想。这个论证用
来作游戏文章最恰当不过。服尔泰就会有如下的惊人之笔：人类的鼻梁之所以被设
计成这种形状，是为了便利戴眼镜。可是我们现在看这一类的游戏文章，已经不觉
得像十八世纪时那样滑稽了。因为自达尔文以来，我们开始了解生物为什么要适应
环境，环境不是为了适合他们而设计的，是他们逐渐地趋向适合环境。这就是适应
说的基础，其间并无设计的证据。

你们如果再作进一步的思索，当会发现一件惊人的事实：人们竟能相信这个世界，
以及其间的万事万物和一切缺点，会是全知全能的上帝花费了几百万年的时间，所
能造成的最佳情况。想想看，假如你们被赋予全知全能，以及几百万年的时间去完
成一个世界，你们难道不能选出比三K党比法西斯党更好的东西来吗？此外，你们
若接受科学上的一般定律，就不会不知道人类的生命以及地球上的一切生命，将在
适当的过程中完全消失：这是太阳系衰灭过程中的一个阶段。在太阳系衰灭的过程
中，到某一个时期，地球上产生了适合原生质的温度与各种情况，一个短时期的生
命于是诞生。我们看看月亮，就可以预知地球的未来
―― 死寂、冰冷、而毫无生命。

有人说这种想法未免令人丧气。有人说假如相信那个，他们就活不下去了。别相信
，这些话毫无意义。没有人会认真地担心几百万年以后的事。人们担心的事现实得
多了 ―― 也许只是担心自己消化不良之类的。但是没有人会因为几百万年以后的
事，而认真地不快乐起来。因此，假定生命会完全消失虽然是一种悲观的论调 ―
― 有时细想人们使用生命的方式，我几乎觉得生命的完全消失是一大安慰 ――
但是不足以使人们陷入悲惨的心境，只会使注意力转向。



道德论证

我刚才说过，这些论证愈来愈缺乏学术精神，现在我们进入另一个阶段，来讨论道
德论证。古代有三个支持上帝存在的论证，康德在"纯粹理性批判"中把它们全部驳
倒。驳倒之后，立刻制造了一个新论证 ―― 一个道德论证，而且自觉极为满意。
和许多人一样，他在智力方面，是个怀疑主义者；在道德方面，却盲目地信仰在母
亲膝畔吸取的格言。这证明了心理分析学家所一再强调的事实 ―― 幼年时期接受
的观念比日后接受的观念更具束缚力。

话说回来，康德发明的道德论证在十九世纪以各种形式出现，大受欢迎。其中的一
种形式是这么说的：除非上帝存在，否则是非还有什么分别？此刻我所关心的不是
是非到底有无区别，这是题外话。我关心的是这个问题：假如相信是非有明确的分
别，我们就必须面对这个情况：是非的区别是上帝造成的吗？假定是，则是非对于
上帝自己而言，并无区别，我们也就不能肯定上帝是善的。假如一定要像神学家一
样地坚持上帝是善的，则可见是非的区别与上帝的旨意无关，因为上帝的旨意是善
而不是恶，这件事与他制造是非之别的单纯事实无关。这么一来，是非的存在就不
是由于上帝的缘故，它们在本质上是先于上帝的。我们当然可以说创造世界的上帝
是受命于另一位更优越的神明，或者更俏皮的说法是 ―― 我私下认为此说颇有可
取之处 ―― 这个世界是魔鬼趁上帝不注意的时候创造的，我们也可以找到许多支
持此说的证据。我不打算反驳这些说法。



主持公道论证

接下来我们要讨论一个异常奇怪的道德论证。据说为了把公道带给世界，上帝是一
定存在的。在我们所知的这部分宇宙里，有很大的不公平。时常好人吃苦，坏人反
而得志，简直不知道那件事更令人生气。要想在宇宙的整体中得到公道，就必须假
定有一个补偿现世的不平的来世，所以据说必有一位上帝，也必有天堂和地狱。这
样的说法实在奇怪。站在科学的观点，我们会说："我看到的毕竟只有这个世界，
我不知道宇宙还有其它的那些部分。如果有其它的部分，我所知的这个世界可能就
是其它部分的样本，这里有不公平，别处多半也有不公平。"假如我们打开一篓橘
子，发现顶层的橘子都是坏的，我们不会说："为了补偿不公平，下面的一定都是
好橘子。"我们会说："可能整篓都是坏的。"这才是一个受过科学教育的人应该说
的话。关于宇宙的问题，一个受过科学教育的人应该会这么说："现世中有许多不
公平，可见公道并不支配着这个世界，这提供一个反对上帝存在的道德论证，而不
提供一个支持的论证。"我知道我们谈到的这一类学术论证，并不能真正地打动人
心。真正能打动人心的根本就不是学术论证。大多数人相信上帝，是因为从孩提时
代起就接受这样的教导，这才是主要原因。其次，渴望安全感是第二个最有力的原
因。渴望有一位长兄在旁处处照护自己，这种感觉在信仰上占非常重要的地位。




基督的人格

现在要谈到的问题，是理性主义者一直未曾彻底处理过的。这个问题是：基督是至
善至慧的人吗？一般人都认为这一点应当是可以同意的，我却不同意。我觉得在许
多方面，我都比自称是基督徒的人更能接受耶稣的意见。我不敢说自己能够完全与
耶稣意见一致，但至少比自称基督徒的人一致得多。你们一定记得耶稣曾经说过：
"不要抗拒邪恶，若有人打你的右颊，把左颊也转向他。"这不是新箴言或新原则，
在基督出生之前约五、六百年，老子和佛就已经说过这一类的话了。但是基督徒并
未真正地接受这个原则。举例来说，我认为我们的现任首相无疑是一位最虔诚的基
督徒，但是我不主张你们去打他的右颊试试，你们可能会发现，他认为耶稣这句话
的用意是象征性的。

基督还有另一个极好的主张。你们都知道基督曾说："不可审判人，否则你亦将遭
到审判。"我想你们不会发现这项原则受到基督教国家的法庭的欢迎。我认得好几
位法官，其中不乏热诚的基督徒，但是他们之中没有觉得自己的职责与基督教的原
则相悖。基督说："施予有求于你的人，不要避开想向你借贷的人。"这是一个非常
可嘉的原则。主席曾提醒你们，我们今天不谈政治，但我忍不住要说，在上次大选
中，两党竞争的核心问题就是如何避开借贷。这必定使人以为自由党员和保守党员
都是不同意基督教训的人，因为他们在大选期间，确曾明显地逃避借贷。

基督还说过一个很有道理的格言，但我从未发现它受基督教朋友们的欢迎。他说：
"假如你想做一个完美的人，就必须变卖你的一切，去送给穷人。"这也是极好的格
言，但是并不怎么受重视。我想这些格言都很好，但是要照着去作有点困难。我承
认自己不能照作，但我不是基督徒，这些格言对我的意义与对基督徒的意义不同。




基督教诲中的缺点

我承认方才提到的格言都是很好的。现在我要谈点别的事，这些事情使我不能相信
基督像福音书中描写的那样至善至慧。在这里，我可以说历史方面的问题并不重要
。就历史观点来说，基督究竟是否存在过都十分可疑，而即使存在过，我们对基督
其人也一无所知。所以我不关心历史方面的问题，考证太难了。我所关心的是福音
书上所说的基督。根据福音书的叙述，基督确曾作过一些不甚聪明的事。举例来说
：基督认为自己将在当时的民众死亡之前，再度降临于荣耀的云彩之中。福音书中
的许多地方都可以证明基督的确有这个想法。？说："在你们越过以色列的众城之
前，人子将再度来临。" ？又说："现在站立在这里的人当中，有的在人子进入？
的国度之前，不会尝到死亡。"此外还有许多地方明白地表示出？相信自己将在当
代民众的有生之年内，再度降临。这是？的早期信徒们的信仰，也是？的许多道德
教诲的基础。当？说："不要挂心明天的事。"之类的话时，多半是因为相信自己很
快地会再度降临，所以那些平凡的俗事都无关紧要。事实上，我认识的一些基督徒
当中，曾有人认为再度降临之事已迫在眉睫。有一个我认得的教士曾经对聚会听道
理的人说，再度降临这件事指日可待。这句话使教徒们惊惶失措了好一阵子。后来
他们看到这位教士在自己的花园里种树，于是纷纷如释重负。早期的基督徒都深信
再度降临之事，所以不大在自己的花园里种树，也尽量避免作这一类的事。就这件
事看来，？显然不如某些人聪明，当然更谈不上是至慧。



道德问题

下面我们要讨论道德问题。我个人认为基督的道德人格上有一个严重的缺陷：相信
地狱。我觉得真正心地宽厚的人不可能相信永久惩罚的说法。根据福音书中的叙述
，基督的确相信永久的惩罚。留心观察的话，我们会不断地发现？对于不肯听从？
的教诲的人，怀着一种仇念深重的愤恨 ―― 一种在传教士身上不难发现的态度。
这种态度对于至善的品行多少有点损害。苏格拉底就不会有这种态度，他对于不肯
听他说话的人总是很有礼貌，采取这种态度比较配得上称为圣人。我想你们都记得
苏格拉底临死前说了什么话，也记得他平时对反对自己的人说些什么话。

基督说："蛇以及蛇类的后代，你们岂能逃得过地狱的诅咒！"对不乐意受？教诲的
人说这句话，就我看来，态度有点不佳。？还说过一些关于亵渎圣灵之罪的话，？
说："说话亵渎圣灵的人，无论今生与来世都不能得到宽恕。"这句话在世界上造成
了难以言喻的愁苦，因为人人都觉得自己多少有些亵渎圣灵之处，此生来世都永难
获得宽恕。我实在不认为一个天性仁慈的人会把这些恐惧的情绪带入世界。

基督又说："人子将派遣？的天使，把冒犯和行为不端的人聚集在王国之外，把他
们掷入一炉熊熊烈火之中，让他们哀号切齿。" ？继续不断地说一些关于衷号切齿
的话，诗文中充满了这些字眼，使读者觉得期待别人衷号切齿显然是一件相当快乐
的事，否则？不会这样说个没完。你们一定也记得关于山羊和绵羊的事。？再度降
临时将把山羊和绵羊分开，对山羊说："走开！你们这些受诅咒的，到永久的地狱
之火里去！"又说："这些都将要走开，到永久的地狱之火里去。" ？又说："假如
你的手冒犯了你，就砍掉它。残废地进入生活总比带着双手进入地狱的火焰中好，
地狱里的蛆永不死亡，火永不熄灭。" ？一再地重复这句话。我必须说，这个地狱
之火的惩罚教条，是一个惨无人道的教条，它把残酷带入这个世界，使人类的世世
代代永受折磨。福音书中的基督实在难辞其咎。

此外还有一些次要的事。加达瑞恩的猪也是一个例子。？把魔鬼附在猪的身上，使
猪冲下山坡跌入海里，这样对待猪实在不太仁慈。诸位都知道？是全能的，？可以
轻而易举地驱逐魔鬼，但是？偏要把魔鬼赶到猪的身体里。还有一件关于无花果树
的怪事，我对此事一向深觉困惑。你们大概都记得那株无花果树遭到了什么样的噩
运。"？饿了，看见远处有一株长着叶子的无花果树，？走上前去想找果子吃，但
是只找到树叶，因为结果实的季节还没有到。于是？说：'从现在起，永远没有人
吃你的果实。'……而彼得对？说："看哪，主人！被你诅咒的那株树正在凋谢。"
这实在是一件怪事，不是结果的季节，怎么能够怪那棵树。我觉得无论在智慧方面
或道德方面，基督都不是最优秀的，至少佛与苏格拉底都在？之上。



情感的因素

我方才说过，我认为人们之所以接受宗教，不是由于任何一种论证，而是由于情感
的缘故，常听见有人说攻击宗教是很不对的，因为宗教使人向善。这是别人跟我说
的，我自己可不觉得。山穆尔·布特勒（Samuel Butler）的"重游艾洛恒"（
Erewhon：Revisited）中有一段游戏文章，叙述一位名叫希格斯的人到过一个遥远
的国度，逗留一段时期以后，乘着汽球逃走。二十年以后，他旧地重游，发现这个
国家里新兴一种宗教，以"太阳之子"的名称膜拜他，传说他曾升入天堂。他发现庆
祝"升天节"的时候快到了，又听见汉基教授和潘基教授在聊天时透露，他们从未见
过希格斯其人，希望永远都不要看到他。此二人是太阳之子教的高级教士。希格斯
听了那一番话，非常愤怒，走上前去对两人说："我要揭发这个骗局，我要告诉艾
洛恒的民众，那个希格斯就是我，我是乘着汽球升空的。"两位教授连忙劝止他：
"你不可以这样作，本国的道德制度全靠这个神话来维系，人民一旦知道你并未升
天，就会开始胡作非为。"希格斯被说服了，于是安安静静地走开。

就是这个想法 ―― 我们如果不支持基督教，就会胡作非为。我个人觉得支持基督
教的，才大多是胡作非为之辈。有一件事十分奇怪：宗教愈热烈，独断的信仰愈深
，残酷的事情就愈多，社会情况就愈腐败。在所谓信心时代，当人们毫无保留地信
仰基督教时，就有宗教裁判，和宗教裁判的酷刑，数百万不幸的女子被当作女巫活
活烧死，各种残酷的人性，假藉宗教之名而迫害人类。

环顾世上，我们发现仁慈情操的每一次进步，刑法的每一次改良，减轻战祸的每一
个步骤，有色人种待遇的每一次改善，奴隶制度的每一次缓和，世上一切道德进步
的过程，都一致遭到有组织的教会反对。我十分慎重地说一句话：基督教以其教会
组织的形态，一向是，而且今天依然是道德进步的主敌。



教会阻碍进步的方式

你们也许认为我说教会今天依然是道德进步的主敌这句话言过其实。我不以为自己
有什么言过其实的地方。举一件事实为例，希望诸位能忍受。这是不愉快的事实，
但是教会使人不得不提到不愉快的事实。假设现在有一位没有经验的女子和一个梅
毒患者结婚，天主教会会说："婚姻是不能解除的圣仪，你们必须忍受独身或共同
生活。假如你们选择共同生活，你们也不能用节育的方法来防止受梅毒病菌侵害的
婴儿出生。"任何人只要天生的同情心尚未完全泯灭，道德天性对于别人的苦难还
不能置若罔闻，就不能说这种作法是对的。

这只是一个例子。目前，教会以所谓道德为名，用种种方式使人类遭受不应得的、
不必要的痛苦，而且阻碍进步，阻碍减轻世上苦难的一切改良方法。它选定一套狭
窄的行为法则，称之为道德，这套法则对于人类的幸福没有丝毫帮助。每当有人提
议作某些事情以促进人类幸福时，教会就觉得无此必要。"人类的幸福与道德有什
么关系呢？道德的目的并不是要使人类幸福。"



恐惧 ―― 宗教的基础

我觉得宗教信仰主要是基于恐惧。一部分是由于对未知的恐惧，一部分如我方才所
说，是渴望有位长兄之类的人物，在一切麻烦和争执中支持自己。恐惧是宗教的基
础 ―― 对神秘的恐惧、对失败的恐惧、对死亡的恐惧，恐惧是残酷之母。残酷与
宗教永远携手并进，这是再自然不过的情形，因为恐惧是此二者的基础。今天，我
们刚开始了解事物，刚开始藉科学之助控制事物，科学一直在一步一步地向基督教
，向教会，向一切古老的格言进军。科学可以帮助我们克服这个困扰人类世世代代
的卑怯的恐惧，科学可以教导我们，我们的心也可以教导我们，我们不必再四处去
寻求幻想中的支持，不必再捏造并无其人的盟友，我们宁可脚踏实地，凭自己的努
力把世界建设成一个比教会构筑的今生与来世都更适合人类居住的地方。



我们应该怎么作

我们应该站立起来，公平地正视这个世界――善的事实、恶的事实、美的、丑的，
看清世界的真面目，不必畏惧。我们应该以才智征服世界，不可奴隶般地慑服于恐
惧。上帝的观念全部来自古东方的专制主义，不值自由思想者一顾。常常有人在教
堂中贬抑自己，说自己是可憎的罪人，这种事是何等的可鄙，不值得有自尊心的人
类去作。我们应当站立起来，坦率地正视世界，我们应当尽我们的能力去善用这个
世界。假如这个世界不像我们希望的那么好，它毕竟还是可以渐渐好转。一个好的
世界需要知识、仁爱和勇气，不需要惋惜过去，不需要让古代无知者之言束缚。它
需要无所畏惧的思想和自由的才智，它需要对未来的憧憬，而不是对既往的追忆。
我们相信，凭我们的才智，我们所创造的未来，必定远胜于过去。

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
==========================================
Why I Am Not A Christian
by Bertrand Russell

Introductory note: Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall. Published in pamphlet form in that same year, the essay subsequently achieved new fame with Paul Edwards' edition of Russell's book, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays ... (1957).

As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is "Why I Am Not a Christian." Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.

What Is a Christian?
Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker's Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.

But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included he belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.

The Existence of God
To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.

The First-cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

The Natural-law Argument
Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.

The Argument from Design
The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.

I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.

The Moral Arguments for Deity
Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother's knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize -- the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.

The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this: they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also." Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, "The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You would say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, "Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one." Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God.

The Character of Christ
I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense.

Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, "Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very emphatically turn away on that occasion.

Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor." That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.

Defects in Christ's Teaching
Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then he says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.

The Moral Problem
Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.

The Emotional Factor
As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, "I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

How the Churches Have Retarded Progress
You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."

Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

What We Must Do
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

希望能在名目和方式众多的传教声音之外，给大家提供一些不同的观点和看待问题的方式。

如果对于信仰和宗教有任何的疑问和困惑，在有一些人温柔的催促你的时候无法作出决定，完全可以把你的困惑放到心情版上来。很多有着不同看法和信仰背景的过来人都会来和你一起讨论交流。

如果没有一定的历史，宗教学和哲学基础，逻辑思辨又差， 在理工科背景人士出没频繁的论坛传教是非常自讨没趣的。

大家好好讨论，不要情绪化。

好多看不懂啊，555555555

“父阿、赦免他們．因為他們所作的、他們不曉得” --路加福音23:34

而不是说这种走着瞧的斗狠的话。