(Note: “Koala” is my online name)
Let me start with a dialogue, followed by my analysis.
Zhang Jun:
Some people say: “We must believe in the Creator.”
Others ask: “Then where did the Creator come from?”
Response:
1) The reason the belief in a Creator is credible is because the non-existence of a Creator is even less credible;
2) Believing in the Creator implies either: a) giving up the pursuit of where the Creator came from; or b) accepting that humans cannot know where the Creator came from— otherwise one is putting oneself on equal footing with the Creator, which contradicts point 1, unless the Creator actively reveals Himself to humanity;
3) As human beings, accepting that some things are unknowable and some questions unaskable comes from the inevitable recognition of our smallness and limitations in the universe and in existence;
4) There is indeed credible and worthwhile evidence of divine revelation (e.g., Bacon’s “two books”—the book of nature and the book of scripture).
Koala:
Here are my responses to the above points:
1) The credibility or incredibility of a belief has nothing to do with the object of belief, but with the level of confidence held by the believer or non-believer. So comparing “credible” and “less credible” is meaningless—it does not concern the object of belief.
2) The Creator never stated that the created beings are incapable of questioning the Creator. Such questioning doesn’t mean one is on equal footing with the Creator (just as a son questioning his father doesn’t make them peers).
3) I agree with this point.
4) I have yet to find a book that convinces me—I hope those books will be exceptions. 😬
Zhang Jun:
Not believing is totally normal. But the evidence is right there. Not finding a convincing book is also normal—because you don’t want to read them, and even if you did, you wouldn’t believe. But perhaps one day, you’ll reach a point where disbelief is no longer an option.
The same book can feel totally different depending on the “background book” you bring to it—shaped by your family, upbringing, and culture. It’s not just a matter of reason or logic—it’s (if anything) a matter of spirituality and insight.
That said, change can happen quickly—especially during major life events. The relationship between reason, will, and emotion is deeply complex.
In the end, people only read the books they want to read, seek the answers they want to seek, and believe what they want to believe.
But “unexpected things” do happen. This is true for everyone.
Koala:
That’s sophistry 😬
I’m certainly not someone who only reads books they like. In fact, it’s the opposite—over the past ten years, many people have recommended books of this type to me, and I ended up dismantling their arguments. I am actually hoping to find a book that can persuade me, one that changes my view. I genuinely look forward to that.
Zhang Jun:
I’m not trying to debate—just offering a few thoughts, for your reference. 😄
Zhang Jun:
You’re a superman, admirable. 😬
But perhaps that’s only because the standard isn’t high enough.
My judgment here applies to all humans—no fundamental exceptions. Just a matter of degree.
No intention to belittle anyone. Just stating my general observation of humanity, including self-reflection.
Koala:
We don’t fully know each other’s faith journeys. I’m not an atheist. In fact, I used to be a lukewarm Christian—from a Christian perspective, I probably wouldn’t be considered one now. One of the most common mistakes Christians make is trying to prove their faith with evidence. But faith is a choice, an attitude. What can be proven is no longer up to you whether to believe. 😜
Zhang Jun:
Actually, I shared this mostly to clarify some linguistic and logical issues.
It’s not about who believes what.
If you are at least open to the possibility that a Creator exists, or don’t consider it outright nonsense, then you should not (or cannot) ask “who created the Creator?” or “where did the Creator come from?”
Because asking such questions as a human being (i.e., not the Creator) violates the shared definition of “Creator” and the foundational relational implication between Creator and humanity.
Zhang Jun:
Knowledge and belief have a deeply complex relationship.
Habermas’ 2019 book spends over 900 pages discussing it. 😊
Zhang Jun:
Glad to know you have a foundation for belief.
Some things can be slowly explored over time. Faith can’t be persuaded purely by reason, but it can be shared and discussed.
Zhang Jun: 🤝🤝 This question gets asked repeatedly, and I want to offer a reasonably precise response.
My Reflection:
To begin, let’s make one thing clear:
Academic discourse and daily religious experience are not always aligned.
There are two main reasons:
Our energy and capacity are limited. We cannot wait until we’ve figured everything out before we begin to live or establish our faith. Human reason is limited. Therefore, we cannot live entirely in a rational world.
To this day, I haven’t found a single book that convinces me—rationally—that God exists.
The above dialogue is more of a casual exchange than a rigorous discussion.
Still, we can see that Zhang Jun’s reasoning for the existence of God is not rigorous—or could even be considered sophistry.
That said, I agree with his final point: faith cannot be fully persuaded through reason alone. That’s precisely my point—God’s existence cannot be proven through reason.
But this undermines Zhang Jun’s original argument at the beginning of the dialogue.
Over the years, I’ve met many Christians, some of them highly educated, even with doctoral degrees in theology.
Many recommended books to me.
Every time I read one, I regretted it—because the logic was flawed.
Books of this kind often bring up Einstein to prove their points, claiming that Einstein also believed in God. But in fact, the God Einstein believed in was the kind referred to by Spinoza, not a human-like God—such as Jesus Christ. Personally, I also believe that the existence of God is quite likely, and the God I’m referring to here is the same kind of God that Einstein spoke of.
Another common example is that some physicists or mathematicians believe in God. But this does not prove the existence of God; it only shows that these individuals have personally managed to reconcile their belief in God with their academic fields. Their knowledge of mathematics or physics, in itself, does not constitute evidence for the existence of God. There is a clear distinction between science as an institution and the individual beliefs of scientists.
Many such books remain stuck at the level of these two examples—Einstein, or other God-believing mathematicians and physicists. Rationally speaking, this is hardly worth refuting.
It’s not that I have a bias against belief in God. Quite the opposite — I’m curious, hopeful to be convinced, even eager to believe in God.
But most of these conversations end like the one above—with the other party shifting toward emotional appeals.
That’s okay too, as I stated earlier—academic discussion and religious practice don’t always overlap.
Churches are also secular spaces—gathering points for communities.
You don’t need a PhD in theology to believe in God.
All the Christians I’ve met over the years have been incredibly kind — and this puzzles me.
Christian lifestyles not only haven’t gone out of date in modern society; they’ve become even more resilient. Whether in families or nations, many underlying conflicts find partial answers in Christian teachings.
Emotionally, I accept Christianity. But rationally, the doubts remain unresolved.
（注：考拉是我的网名）
先看一段对话，然后我再来分析。
张军：有人说：要相信造物主。有人问：那造物主从何而来？
答：
1）之所以认为“造物主存在”可信，是因为“造物主不存在”更不可信；
2）若相信造物主存在，就意味着a)放弃追问造物主从何而来；或者b) 接受人类无法知道造物主从何而来；否则还是把自己放在与造物主同等的预设位置上，等于推翻了第一条；除非造物主向人类主动启示自己；
3） 作为人类，接受有些事情不可知、有些问题不可问，是出于经验现实、对人类在宇宙间和存在界的渺小有限的必然认知；
4）的确存在值得重视和探索的、造物主向人类启示自己的证据（比如培根所说的“两本书”）。
考拉：分别回应上面三条：1）可信的程度以及不可信的程度，与被信之物无关，而是与信或者不信者的信心程度有关。所以在可信与更不可信之间进行比较是没有意义的，因为这与信或者不信的对象无关：2）造物主并没有规定被造之物不具备质疑造物主的能力，这种质疑也并不意味着其与造物主处于同等的位置（比如儿子质疑父亲并不意味着他们就处于同辈了）；3）同意这一点；4）我至今没有读到过一本能说服我的书，希望这几本是例外[呲牙]
张军：不信很正常，但是evidence就摆在那里。没读到可信的书很正常。因为你不想读，读了也不会信。但也许你会到一个点，想不信都不行。因为同一本书带着不同的background book读起来感受完全不同。而这个background book是被每个人的家庭、成长经历以至于整个族群文化塑造的，根本不是一个简单的理性或者思辨问题，而（勉强可以说）是一种灵性和悟性问题。 但并非不可以快速改变。特别是当人生有重大变故的时候。或者说，理性和意志与情感的关系是相当复杂的。所以，终究读书也只能读自己想读的，找自己想找的，信自己想信的。 但是“意外”也偶尔发生。所有人都是一样。
考拉：你这是诡辩[呲牙]我肯定不是你说的那种只读自己喜欢的书。事实正好相反，过去十多年有很多人给我推荐这类书，最后都把他们驳得哑口无言。我恰恰是非常想遇到这样一本，能够说服我的书，改变我的看法，这是我非常期待的事情。
张军：我不要跟你辩论啊。只是做一点回应。仅供参考。 [偷笑]
张军：你能做超人，令人仰慕。[呲牙] 但恐怕只是标准不够高而已。 我这个判断，针对一切人类，并无根本例外。程度差别而已。所以无意贬低谁。只是表达我对人类的普遍观察，包括对自己的反省。
考拉：我们彼此不是特别了解各自的信仰历程，其实我不是一个无神论者，确切地说我曾经是一个不坚定的基督徒，所以从基督徒的眼光来看我肯定不算基督徒。这个地球上基督徒犯的最普遍的一个错误就是总想用证据来证明他们的信仰。信仰是一种选择，一种态度。能够证明的东西由不得你不信[调皮]
张军：我发这个，其实主要只是想做一个语言/逻辑澄清。无关谁相信什么。就是说如果你愿意（考虑）接受“造物主有可能存在”这样一个statement，或者至少认为它并非必然胡说八道，你就不该/不能追问“造物主是谁造的/从哪里来的”这样的问题（但似乎出于直觉很多人都会问）。因为当你作为一个人类（非造物主）这样追问的时候，已经违背了对“造物主”的共享定义，以及这个定义必然隐含的有关造物主与人类的基本关系。
张军：知和信有深刻复杂的关系。哈贝马斯2019年的书，花了900多页来讲这个问题。[微笑]
张军：很高兴知道你有信的基础。有些东西可以找机会慢慢交流。 信仰不是一个可以理性说服的东西。但一定可以交流。
张军：[握手][握手]因为这个问题不断有人问。 我也希望自己有个相对精确的回应。
以上是对话的主要内容，下面是我的分析。
首先我想应该做一个基本的澄清，就是学术交流和日常的宗教体验并不一定始终一致。原因有二，其一：我们每个人的精力和能力都是非常有限的，我们不可能把所有的事情都搞清楚之后再开始生活、再开始确立自己的宗教信仰。其二，人的理性是有局限的，所以我们不能只活在理性的世界中。
我至今没有读到一本能够说服我的书，就是从理性角度解释上帝是存在的。上面的对话并不是很严格意义上的讨论，仅仅是一种聊天。不过我们仍然可以看出，张军证明上帝存在的理由是不严格的，或者说是狡辩。当然我很认可他最后的那个观点，就是我们不能仅从理性的角度说服信仰问题，而这正是我的观点，即无法用理性来证明上帝的存在。这同时也否定了这段对话之初张军自己的基本观点。
我接触过很多基督徒，有些文化水平非常高，甚至获得神学博士学位。不少人给我推荐过很多书，我每次读完之后都觉得后悔，不应该读，因为他们那里面讲的道理根本就讲不通。
比如这类书籍往往都会把爱因斯坦搬出来，证明他们的观点是正确的，他们说爱因斯坦也信上帝。其实爱因斯坦信的上帝是斯宾诺莎所指能那种上帝，而不是一个人形的上帝—耶稣基督。我自己也相信存在上帝的可能性很大，这里我说的上帝就是爱因斯坦说的那种上帝。
再比如某些物理学家或者数学家也信上帝，这其实并不能证明上帝存在，只能说明这些物理学家或数学家，他们个人可以处理好上帝与他们的学术领域之间的矛盾冲突。而他们的数学或物理知识本身并不能证明上帝的存在。科学家本人与科学家研究的内容之间是有区别的。
很多此类读物都是停留在上述两个例子（爱因斯坦或其他信上帝的数学家物理学家）的水平上。这在理性上当然不值一驳。
我并不是因为有成见，一定认为上帝不存在，恰恰相反，我抱着极大的好奇心，试图证明上帝存在，或者说服我，让我相信上帝的存在。大部分收场的方式都像上面的对话一样，对方以柔性的感性的方式转移话题。这当然也非常好，就像我开始这段分析之前说明的那两点一样，学术讨论与实际的宗教实践之间总是有距离的。教堂其实也是一个世俗的场所，是一个社区的集合地。信上帝并不需要神学博士学位。
我这么多年接触的基督徒几乎全部都非常友善，这也是非常困惑我的一个问题。基督教徒的生活方式在现代社会中不仅没有过时，反而显示出更强大的生命力。小到个人家庭，大到国家社会，各种各样的冲突背后的原因，最后总能从基督教里找到部分答案。显然我从情感上是接纳基督教的，可是理性上的困惑却一直没有办法解除。
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.