《上帝的疯狂》读后感Reflection on The Insanity of God

这两天把《上帝的疯狂》这本书读完了，不想用中文写读后感，因为我估计这本书在中国大陆可能会是禁书。我什么书都看，书中的观点可能是也可能不是我的观点。可是有些中文读者不具备这种起码的常识，他们会简单粗暴地认为你看什么书你就是什么人，或者你生活在什么国家就意味着你不爱别的国家。这种二极管的思维深刻地影响了绝大部分中国人的脑袋，即便他们知道要避免二极管思维，也知道这个时髦的词儿，但是仍然难以做到完全避免。

我们当然不能简单地责怪他们，相反应该理解和同情他们。就好像有人对我说2+2等于5，我不会生气，我只会对他深表同情。

在没有参照的情况下，他们如何知道东南西北呢？中国人绝非天生的不想讲道理，而是文化限制了他们的思维。他们只能通过翻译来了解外部世界，却总是瞧不起那些既懂中文又懂外语的人，这其实是一种心理上的障碍。他们不敢面对深层的冲突和自我挑战，于是只能自欺欺人地扭曲现实，对事物进行符合心理预期却不符合事实的合理化解释。

阴差阳错的是，很多来自西方世界的信息本身又存在着明显的谬误。这反过来进一步强化了中国人的固执己见。

所以全球化背景下的文明的冲突非但没有起到倍增收益的效果，反而加剧了隔阂。

所以对这本书，我更想从中国人的思维角度来评判一下。

我读过不少西方传教士的故事。这是其中一本，但是它提出了一些深度的问题。这本书讲的是一个美国传教士一家人先后到索马里、俄罗斯和东欧以及中国传播基督教的经历。

我一直都非常认可不同宗教信仰中的共通的部分，那就是传播爱。可是那些明显不符合人的直觉常识的部分，严重阻碍了人们对整个基督教的接受程度。而传教者往往回避这些最基本的根本性的问题。其实爱是人性的需要，用不着通过各种神迹做支撑。不管耶稣有没有复活，爱都应该始终被坚持。很遗憾，这本书并没有在这个很基本的问题上给出任何突破性的阐述。

宗教迫害行为当然有他们自己的道德理由，以便舒缓这种行为的罪恶感。基督教中的这些神迹恰恰给他们提供了这种理由。其实佛教或其他宗教都有类似的问题。这或许是他们存在的原因之一，那就是宗教需要超越人的理性能力。

现实世界的运作，有很多不同层次的解释。在实践层面工具主义似乎更实用。我们不能用意念移动物体，但是我们可以用符和牛顿力学的方式移动物体。所以在实践层面，牛顿力学胜出。这只是一个比方，我想说的是，宗教解决的精神问题，是有关爱的本质。所以我们不能简单地机械地用两千年前的圣经来指导现实社会的操作细节。作者Nik从非洲返回美国之后的反思已经触及到了这个问题。他的东欧之行似乎帮他找到了一个解决方案。

这可能只是他自己的信仰之路的一种临时的圆满。在我看来，传统宗教与现实社会之间的冲突，仍然在不断地加剧。

不过，从我个人的体会来看，佛教的可操作性更加糟糕，因为它从根本上对抗人性。

面对这个世界，我们知道的很少。我读得越多，发现自己知道的越少。不管有没有上帝，都不是上帝在疯狂，真正疯狂的是人类自己。

Over the past couple of days, I finished reading The Insanity of God. I hesitated to write a review in Chinese, as I suspect this book might be banned in mainland China. I read all kinds of books; the views presented in them may or may not reflect my own. Unfortunately, some Chinese readers lack even this basic discernment—they tend to assume that whatever book you read reflects exactly who you are, or that living in one country means you must oppose another. This kind of binary thinking deeply shapes the mindset of most Chinese people. Even those who are aware of the term “binary thinking” and recognize its dangers still find it hard to completely escape its influence.

We shouldn’t blame them too quickly. Instead, we should understand them—and even sympathize with them. If someone told me that 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn’t get angry; I’d simply feel sorry for them.

Without external reference points, how can one know which way is north, south, east, or west? Chinese people are not innately unreasonable; it’s the limitations of their cultural context that shape their thinking. They rely on translations to understand the outside world, yet often look down on those who are bilingual—this reveals a psychological obstacle. Many are unwilling to face inner conflict or deep challenges to the self, so they resort to self-deception, twisting reality to fit their expectations rather than the facts.

Ironically, many messages from the Western world do contain obvious flaws, which only reinforce the stubbornness of the Chinese mindset. Rather than bridging the gap, the clash of civilisations during the globalisation has sometimes deepened it.

So, in approaching this book, I prefer to reflect from the perspective of how a Chinese person might think.

I’ve read many stories of Western missionaries. This is one of them, but it raises deeper issues. It recounts the journey of an American missionary and his family as they bring Christianity to Somalia, Russia, Eastern Europe, and China.

I have always valued the common ground shared by different religious traditions—the message of love. However, the parts that defy basic human intuition hinder broader acceptance of Christianity. Missionaries often avoid these fundamental issues. Yet love is a human need; it doesn’t require miracles to justify it. Whether or not Jesus resurrected, love should always be upheld. Sadly, this book does not offer any breakthrough insights on that core point.

Religious persecution often comes with its own moral justifications, as a way to ease the guilt associated with such actions. The miracles described in Christianity conveniently offer such justification. Similar issues exist in Buddhism and other religions. Perhaps this is part of why religions exist in the first place—to transcend the limits of human reason.

The functioning of the real world allows for multiple levels of explanation. On the practical level, instrumentalism seems more effective. We cannot move objects by thought alone, but we can use symbols and Newtonian mechanics to do so. In that practical sense, Newton wins. This is just an analogy: what I mean is that religion addresses spiritual issues—chiefly, the essence of love. Therefore, we cannot rigidly apply a 2,000-year-old Bible to govern the operational details of modern society.

After returning from Africa, the author Nik did begin to reflect on this issue. His time in Eastern Europe seems to have offered him a possible resolution. Perhaps it was only a temporary resolution on his personal journey of faith. In my view, the conflict between traditional religion and modern society continues to intensify.

However, from my personal experience, Buddhism is even less practical because it fundamentally goes against human nature.

In facing this world, we know very little. The more I read, the more I realize how little I truly understand. Whether or not God exists, it’s not God who is insane—the real madness lies in humanity itself.