關於愛，我是個小學生。

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. 

自然法則
其次我們要從自然法則的角度提出一個極為常見的論點。在整個十八世紀中，特別是在艾賽克‧牛頓爵士及其宇宙進化論之影響下，自然法則的研究，特別受到重視。人們觀察到行星按萬有引力定律圍繞太陽運轉，便認為上帝命令這些行星按照這種獨持的方式運行，這是行星運動的原理。這樣解釋，當然簡單方便，也省卻進一步探求引力定律的麻煩。今天，我們用愛因斯坦所介紹較複雜的方法來解釋引力定律。但現在我不打算介紹愛因斯坦的萬有引力定律，這要費很多時間。無論如何，牛頓的自然法則理論已不再完全適用了，按照他的理論，自然以目前人們尚未了解的某種原因而有規律地運行。我們現在才知道，許多我們過去當作是自然法則的現象，原來只是人彼此約定的定義；即使在無限遙遠的太空，一碼還是等於三英尺。這是顯然且毫無疑問的事實，而你卻不大會稱此為自然法則。許多被認為是自然法則的事物便屬於這類性質。另一方面，你要是能仔細研究一下原子的實際運動，就會發現它們遠不如人們所想地那樣嚴格遵守規律，而人類所掌握的規律只是隨機事件出現的統計平均數。有個規律大家都熟知：擲骰子大約每擲三十六次只會出現一次雙六，這時我們總不會說這就證明骰子是受到某種意志的支配，要是每次都是雙六，方是如此。自然法則中很多都是屬於這種性質的。不過是事件根據機率的規律出現的統計平均數罷了，因此，所謂自然法則這一整套說法就不像過去那樣吸引人了。姑且不論這些法則的只是不斷變化的科學發展中之過渡性現象，認為有自然法則就有法則制訂者的這一看法，乃因將自然法則和人為規則混為一談之故。人為規則是有關人類行為方式的種種規定，你可以服從，也可以違反。而自然法則則是對事物運動方式的如實反映。忠實客觀地反映。你決不能說有誰命令自然服從某一法則，因為即使是這樣假設，你也不能迴避這個問題：為什麼上帝只提出這些自然法則，而沒有規範其他 [好比人] 呢？要是你說上帝高興怎麼做就怎麼做，不必什麼理由，那你又會發覺有些事物並不合乎規律；於是，自然法則的一系列理論便產生了矛盾。如果按大多數正統神學家的說法：上帝規定的一切法則，其所以是這些而不是那些，當然是為了創造最美好的宇宙，儘管你絕不想當真去看一下這個「最美好的」世界；如果上帝的創造真有法則可循，那麼上帝本人也應受法則的約束，因此，把上帝搬出來作為中介，並沒有什麼好處。人確實存在某種規律，超越並早於神祇行為。上帝並不能滿足你，因為祂不是規律的最初創造者。簡而言之，有關自然法則的整個論點再也沒有它昔日的說服力了。我正在依時間順序逐個檢視那些論點。隨著時間的推移，昔日用以證明上帝存在的論點已經改變。當初，這些嚴格而富有思想的論點已含有某些顯見的謬誤。而時至今日，便顯得不那麼可敬了，並且越來越顯得有種空洞的說教意味。

【論證與主張】
主張「人類所掌握的規律只是隨機事件出現的統計平均數。」哇！這是一個學習數學的人該有的主張嗎？那 1 + 1 = 2 是甚麼？然後以此為命題作以下

論證：「因此，所謂自然法則這一整套說法就不像過去那樣吸引人了。」我滿腦錯愕！？哲學但求真理，有憑有據，實是求是；試問吸不吸引人 (impressive) 於討論何益？雖是講演一篇，然其為何許人也，又話題震驚嚴肅，自當謹言乎矣。

論證「認為有自然法則 (N) 就有法則制訂者 (creator) 的這一看法，乃因將自然法則和人為規則 (M) 混為一談之故。」Because N is not eaqual to M, N has no creator. = M has a creator. But what if N has a creator but the creator is not human, then N is still not eaqual to M, yet N has a creator? 此篇真為羅氏所撰？我開始懷疑了。

主張「這些法則的只是不斷變化的科學發展中之過渡性現象。」 儘管法則會變，公式會改，此乃人之學習進步之故。自然可曾改變？彩虹可曾八色？花焉能變鳥？此無異緣木求魚。

論證「要是你說上帝高興怎麼做就怎麼做，不必什麼理由 (R)，那你又會發覺有些事物並不合乎規律 (I)；於是，自然法則的一系列理論便產生了矛盾 (C)。」If R and I, then C? But if R, then I doesn't exist. I is C. So if R, then ~I. = If R, then ~C. 我笑了。

論證「如果上帝的創造真有法則可循 (L)，那麼上帝本人也應受法則的約束 (R)，因此，把上帝搬出來作為中介，並沒有什麼好處 (~A)。」If L, then R? Why is a carpenter necessarily to be restricted by the pieces he created? What kind of logic is this? If R, then ~A? That means if God is not restricted by the laws He Himself stipulated, then there is benefit to humans to have Him be an intermediary between laws and the creatures?! Are the three factors, intermediary, laws, and humans, RELEVANT TO ONE ANOTHER?

主張「人確實存在某種規律，超越並早於神祇行為。」非為恆真，待證。

論證「上帝並不能滿足你 (~S)，因為祂不是規律的最初創造者 (~C)。」If ~C, then ~S. = If C, then S. Really? Why does God serve your purpose only if He is the Creator of laws?

【問題與意見】既說是自然法則，那就是「自然」的法則。為什麼自然法則一定要照著某些人心中以為的規律才是規律呢？若不是，便是不合「理」嗎？規律中有不規律，不規律中有秩序，不可能嗎？人一定能洞悉整個宇宙的運行嗎？不必講太多，光連個用來思考的大腦，其功能和運作，人至今尚且不知其萬一；把自己的腦子研究完了，會不會對自己的愚笨和固執更有認識呢？人以目前這樣的智能水平，藉著對自然的片知隅解，妄自論斷自然的全貌、試圖模擬自然的道，難道比某些「傻子」願意相信是  神創造宇宙更「理性」、更富有「科學」精神、更有「求知」的勇氣嗎？若從這樣的角度看來，人很自大，也很無知。其實，不管人怎麼高談闊論，天地依舊自顧運行著，依舊以所謂的「自然法則」，生養萬物。早在人類誕生不知多少年前，自然已然存在，已然如此。人能從中觀察畢生難盡之學習，已屬萬幸，何德何能，得以斷是非、知縱橫若是？我以為，人有思維，可以學習、可以探索；但切勿自高。可以質疑、也可以假設；但不可以妄斷。可以知、可以不知；但不可以剛硬。我為何是基督徒？自有理由待陳，然非今之主題，當另闢專題以述；今觀羅氏論述至此，其論證命題定義域不明，其主張局限於自我設定之定義域之片面陳述，又缺乏直接證據，信誓旦旦若此，著實令人抱憾不已。

【待續】