Daniel Dennett美国哲学家(1942–2024),塔夫茨大学教授,心灵哲学与认知科学代表人物,著有《意识的解释》《达尔文的危险思想》《Breaking the Spell》,「新无神论四骑士」之一。
Robert Lawrence Kuhn《Closer to Truth》节目创始人与主持人,长期采访科学家与哲学家探讨宇宙、意识与上帝问题。
01翻转提问:无神论的正面论证
0:00
Dan, I would really like to know whether God exists. And I've been asking a lot of smart people questions uh about God and about arguments here and all that. Um and most of the people who don't believe in God would seek to attack and and undermine the arguments of those who do. Fine. I'd like to flip that around and say, what are the affirmative arguments for non-belief or for atheism? Well, I think the first one it simply has to be uh this is the way naturalism always argues. I mean the burden of proof is is is sort of on the other side. Uh don't multiply entities beyond necessity. So uh the main reason for atheism is what for what do we what do we need what do we need God for?
Especially since we've got a a surfet of reasons for seeing why in the absence of a God we would nevertheless believe in God. I mean, there's plenty of natural arguments explaining why this false belief would arise. So, we don't have the puzzle of gosh, you know, where there's smokeless fire, where there's so much belief that God must exist. No, I think we can just set that aside. So, now the neutral as neutral. Yeah. So, that that cuts no real ice here. So now the question is uh if there's no positive argument for the existence of God then we should just assume there isn't one for the same reason we should assume that there isn't um a go. Um what's go? Well, it's a a sphere of copper two miles in diameter with the word go stamped on it. Um and it's outside the lycom so we can never see it. Yeah, we have no reason to posit its existence. So we might just as well assume it doesn't exist. So the the core concept is that the burden is on the other side. Yeah. That that somebody has to come up with an affirmative burden
proof of God in order for us to see it because because that that is the best argument for atheism. Well, maybe if we want some further reinforcement on this, uh if you understand that God is supposed to be good and supposed to be all powerful, then the problem with evil really looms. Uh and evil is everywhere and it's not just uh uh evil so that we can be heroes and and triumph over evil. that that makes a good story and it makes us our lives more exciting and all that, but what about the extraordinary brutality that we discover in the animal world when we find uh insects that that uh uh sort of hypnotize their prey and then burrow inside and lay their eggs and then the eggs eat them out from the inside while they're still alive.
There's all sorts of gruesome tales of this sort that we could tell about things that as we're animals do to each other. And uh why would a good god allow such such such horrible things to go on? Um I think that evil is you can't explain it away and it doesn't have as it were a dramatic purpose. Well, it exists because it can. The argument that you know is that evil is divided into two parts. The moral evil and the natural evil according to certain theologians and the the moral evil uh is to enable some kind of free will. There's a lot of different complications but the free will defense is generally the one given there. Natural evil is harder for them to deal with granted because that doesn't there's no free will involved.
Nobody cares about the human spirit or whatever. Uh and there there are a bunch of arguments that the probabilistic world and uh you know things have to go that way and well those do strike me as from hunger fairly desperate fairly desperate arguments. Um we have to remember we have to remember that the idea that God is good is a fairly recent domestication of religion. There were plenty of bad gods uh in the early days and this is a a recent refinement. And of course the problem of evil just disappears if you go back to the old religion. We have good gods and bad gods and they're duking it out. And there's something very satisfying about that. And once you decide to get rid of the bad gods and and be monotheistic and supposed God is good, then you have this nasty problem of explaining uh uh why then all this evil happen. Not you're not arguing to go back to the old ways, are you? Well, I think there was a certain there was a certain uh dramatic integrity to them that is missing from the more recent
ideas of God. Um uh you know when when uh the I can't remember their names, the the people that that created the comic book character Superman, uh they realized they had a problem. They have this omnipotent indestructible uh agent and where can how can there be suspense? How can there be any storylines? They had to invent kryptonite. They had to invent kryptonite so that there would be a counterveiling force in the world. And I view theologians attempts to handle the problem of evil as this is this is just kryptonite. And it's it's one understands why it's necessary as a as a sort of dramatic device, but I can't take it seriously in any other way. Some theologians would try to harmonize an all good God with an all powerful God.
That those two concepts and that's a tough one. Other theologians have now come along and to say, okay, we really can't do that. So, we have to compromise one or the other. And in general what they do is they diminish the the all powerful and they somehow say that there was part of God that that is the from antiquities or everlasting that that's that's that's that is unchanging and and and then but there's part of God that's open and uncertain. He's done the best he can and and to the best that it's possible to do in order to maintain this relationship with with with the free agents. And so they diminish the all power and therefore eliminate the inconsistency. Well, that's but in your own telling it sounds to me like like a storyboard conference at Superman comics. Um how are we going to solve this problem? Well, let's see.
if we if we if we tone down the the omnipotence a little bit, then we could we'd be back in business. All right, let's do it. Um, but the idea that that that little innovation of theirs is answerable to anything other than their own sense of consistency is to me just incredible. I mean, right, they're trying to tell a consistent story and they're playing by some pretty tough rules. They've made it. They've tied both hands behind their backs. And this is the best they can come up with. But what does that have to do with what's true? It's just how to tell a story. Other arguments that have been used affirmatively for atheism, I'd like to get your take on them are things like that if God is so wants me to believe why is he so hidden, the hiddenness of God. Another is uh that of God is a mind. We've never seen a mind uh outside of of an embodied form. Are these arguments good philosophical arguments for atheism?
Well, they are against people who hold the positions that they're addressed to. So if if somebody really holds a position where God has a mind, and I think actually most people who believe in God do, I mean, sure, why are they praying? To whom are they praying if God doesn't have a mind? Then I think they're they're legitimate arguments. Um what we have to face though is that um there's a sort of shell game. Uh uh can I not mean that disparagingly? Yes, I suppose in the neutral sense there's a shell game uh in which uh uh people who believe in God use richly personal language to talk about God. And when you say wait a minute wait a minute and you start criticizing or asking them questions about oh we didn't mean anything as as as crass as that. No, God doesn't have hands, doesn't have fingernails, you know, doesn't have eyes, but he sees us. What sense? Oh, don't ask these questions. And so, they back off from the inconsistencies to a god which ends up being an incomprehensible spirit of
goodness. Do I believe in an incomprehensible spirit of goodness? I don't know. Maybe. wouldn't pray to it. It wouldn't be he. Um, and maybe there's an incomprehensible spirit of badness, too. And don't see any reason to believe in it. But if you do, then at least you maybe find a consistent position.
“I'd like to flip that around and say, what are the affirmative arguments for non-belief or for atheism?”
flip sth around 表示「把问题反过来问」。适用于访谈或讨论中转换视角,先承认常规思路,再提出反向问题。
2. The burden of proof is on the other side.
“The burden of proof is sort of on the other side.”
论辩中把举证责任推给对方的标准表达。可仿写:The burden is on those who claim X to show that …
3. We might just as well assume …
“So we might just as well assume it doesn't exist.”
might (just) as well + 动词原形:既然没有更好的选择,不妨就……。语气克制,表示理性默认,而非强硬断言。
4. That cuts no ice here.
“So that cuts no real ice here.”
习语 cut no ice (with sb):对某人不起作用、没有说服力。适合在讨论中指出某论据无效。
5. What about …?
“But what about the extraordinary brutality that we discover in the animal world …”
先承认对方某种说法可以成立,再用 what about 抛出反例,是提出反驳的自然过渡。
6. X is a fairly recent Y of Z.
“The idea that God is good is a fairly recent domestication of religion.”
用名词化结构(domestication / refinement)把历史判断压缩进一句话,学术表达中常见,可仿写:This norm is a fairly recent refinement of …
7. I view A as (just) B.
“I view theologians attempts to handle the problem of evil as this is this is just kryptonite.”
view A as B 表示「把 A 看作 B」,用一个具体比喻给抽象事物定性,是表达立场的高效句式。
8. But what does that have to do with what's true?
“But what does that have to do with what's true? It's just how to tell a story.”
have to do with 表示「与……有关」;用反问指出对方论证与真相无关,再用短句总结,节奏有力。
9. They are X against people who hold the positions that they're addressed to.
“Well, they are against people who hold the positions that they're addressed to.”
有条件地肯定论证的效力:论证只对持有特定立场的人有效。适合给出「视情况而定」的严谨回答。
生词精讲 · 57 · 按出现顺序
affirmative/əˈfɜːrmətɪv/adj.0:00
正面的、肯定性的(论证);与「否定对方」相对
undermine/ˌʌndərˈmaɪn/v.0:00
削弱、逐渐破坏(论证、信心等)
naturalism/ˈnætʃərəlɪzəm/n.0:00
自然主义(哲学立场:只用自然原因解释世界)
burden of proofphr.0:00
举证责任;the burden of proof is on sb 由某方负责证明
multiply entities beyond necessityphr.0:00
不必要地增加实体(奥卡姆剃刀的表述)
surfeit/ˈsɜːrfɪt/n.0:48
过量、过剩(原文拼作 surfet);a surfeit of 多得用不完的
set that asidephr.0:48
把……放在一边、暂不考虑
cuts no real icephr.0:48
习语 cut no ice:不起作用、没有说服力
posit/ˈpɑːzɪt/v.0:48
(作为前提)假定、设定……的存在
sphere/sfɪr/n.0:48
球体
might just as wellphr.0:48
不妨、倒不如(表示没有更好的选择)
reinforcement/ˌriːɪnˈfɔːrsmənt/n.1:57
加强、强化(论证的补充支持)
looms/luːmz/v.1:57
loom:(问题、危险)隐约逼近、显得突出
triumph overphr.1:57
战胜、击败
brutality/bruːˈtæləti/n.1:57
残忍、野蛮行为
hypnotize/ˈhɪpnətaɪz/v.1:57
使催眠、使麻痹(此处指昆虫麻痹猎物)
prey/preɪ/n.1:57
猎物
burrow/ˈbɜːroʊ/v.1:57
钻入、挖洞进入
gruesome/ˈɡruːsəm/adj.2:55
令人毛骨悚然的、可怕的
explain it awayphr.2:55
把……搪塞过去、用解释来掩盖问题
as it werephr.2:55
可以说、所谓的(缓和措辞)
theologians/ˌθiːəˈloʊdʒənz/n.2:55
神学家
free will defensephr.2:55
自由意志辩护(回应恶的问题的经典神学论证)
granted/ˈɡræntɪd/adv.2:55
诚然、的确(承认对方某点后再转折)
probabilistic/ˌprɑːbəbɪˈlɪstɪk/adj.3:47
概率性的、基于概率的
from hungerphr.3:47
俚语:拙劣的、不入流的、走投无路才想出来的
domestication/dəˌmestɪˈkeɪʃn/n.3:47
驯化;此处比喻宗教被改造得温和、可接受
refinement/rɪˈfaɪnmənt/n.3:47
改进、精炼;晚近的修正
duking it outphr.3:47
duke it out:(俚语)打斗、较量
monotheistic/ˌmɑːnoʊθiˈɪstɪk/adj.3:47
一神论的
nasty/ˈnæsti/adj.3:47
棘手的、难对付的
dramatic integrityphr.3:47
戏剧上的完整性/自洽性
omnipotent/ɑːmˈnɪpətənt/adj.4:57
全能的
indestructible/ˌɪndɪˈstrʌktəbl/adj.4:57
不可摧毁的
suspense/səˈspens/n.4:57
悬念
kryptonite/ˈkrɪptənaɪt/n.4:57
氪石(超人的弱点);引申为「致命弱点」
countervailing/ˌkaʊntərˈveɪlɪŋ/adj.4:57
制衡的、抵消的(原文拼作 counterveiling)
dramatic devicephr.4:57
戏剧手法、叙事装置
harmonize/ˈhɑːrmənaɪz/v.4:57
调和、使协调一致
compromise/ˈkɑːmprəmaɪz/v.5:50
在……上让步、损害(此处指削弱某一属性)
diminish/dɪˈmɪnɪʃ/v.5:50
削弱、减少
antiquity/ænˈtɪkwəti/n.5:50
古代、远古
everlasting/ˌevərˈlæstɪŋ/adj.5:50
永恒的、永久的
inconsistency/ˌɪnkənˈsɪstənsi/n.5:50
不一致、矛盾
storyboard/ˈstɔːribɔːrd/n.5:50
分镜脚本;storyboard conference 分镜策划会
tone downphr.6:44
调低、缓和、减弱
back in businessphr.6:44
重新运转起来、又能接着干了
answerable tophr.6:44
对……负责、受……约束
tied both hands behind their backsphr.6:44
把双手反绑在背后:自设极苛刻的约束
hiddenness/ˈhɪdnnəs/n.6:44
隐蔽性;the hiddenness of God 上帝的隐蔽性(论证名)
embodied/ɪmˈbɑːdid/adj.6:44
有肉身的、具身的
legitimate/lɪˈdʒɪtəmət/adj.7:45
正当的、站得住脚的
shell gamephr.7:45
杯子藏球骗局;引申为障眼法、偷换概念
disparagingly/dɪˈspærɪdʒɪŋli/adv.7:45
贬低地、轻蔑地
crass/kræs/adj.7:45
粗俗的、粗浅的、不讲究的
back off fromphr.7:45
从……退缩、放弃(立场)
incomprehensible/ɪnˌkɑːmprɪˈhensəbl/adj.7:45
不可理解的、无法领会的
理解自测 · 11 题 · 是真懂了,还是以为自己懂
1. Dennett 给出的第一个、也是最主要的无神论论证是什么?
是自然主义的「举证责任」论证:不要在不必要时增加实体(奥卡姆剃刀),既然我们不需要上帝来解释任何东西,就应默认上帝不存在,举证责任在有神论一方。视频开头(第 0–1 段)他明确说「我们要上帝干什么」,并用一个处于光锥之外、印着 go 字样的铜球做类比:对于没有理由设定的事物,理性的做法是假定它不存在。
他会用铜球 go 的类比回应(第 1 段):对于原则上不可观测、又没有任何正面理由设定的事物,理性的默认态度不是悬置判断,而是假定不存在——我们对光锥外的铜球正是如此。若坚持「不能证伪就应悬置」,我们将不得不对无穷多荒诞假设保持中立。此外他会补充:大量自然解释已说明信仰为何产生,普遍信仰这一唯一的「正面证据」也已被中和。