Russopsy－關於愛，我是個小學生。

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.

計劃論
以下談到計劃論。大家都知道，計劃論就是世界萬物洽好造成現在的狀態，使人類得以生存，稍加改變，人類則無法存續。這種論調有時十分耐人尋味。例如，上帝讓兔子長白尾巴，是要使人容易瞄準射擊。我不知道兔子如何看待這一妙論。這是很容易仿製的拙劣論點，你們都記得伏爾泰的話，他說事先計劃把鼻子造成現在這個樣子顯然是為了能架眼鏡。這類翻來覆去的附會已經不再如十八世紀時般氾濫；因為從達爾文時代起，我們逐漸更加瞭解生物為什麼能適應環境。不是環境被造得適宜生物的生存，而是生物逐漸適應變化的基礎，這就是物競天擇的基礎。這裏絲毫不能證明有什麼事先的計劃。

當你深入研究計劃論時，最今人驚嘆的是，人們居然能相信這個世界以及世界萬物，儘管缺點很多，卻是全智、全能的上帝在千百萬年中能夠創造出的最完美世界。我實難以苟同。如果你有全智和全能，並且有千百萬年的時間來使你的世界臻於完善，難道你創造不出比三Ｋ黨和法西斯更美好的東西麼？再者，你只要認識科學的一般規律，就必然同意：地球上人類生命和其他一切生命到了最後都將滅亡，這是太陽系逐漸衰亡的過程。太陽系在衰亡的某一階段中產生了適宜原生質生存的諸如溫度之類的條件，於是在整個太陽系存在的過程中，生命可以存在一個短暫的時期。你在月球中就可以看到表示地球發展趨勢的某些情況──死寂、寒冷、沒有生命。

有人說，這種末日觀點使人沮喪。也有人說，要是相信這種觀點，他們簡直就無法生活下去。各位，不用理睬這種胡言亂語。沒有人會為幾百萬年後將發生的事擔憂。即使他們聲稱非常憂慮，也只是自欺欺人而已。他們憂心忡忡的是更現實的東西；人會擔心消化不良，但沒有人會因為想到億萬年後世界的光景而悲哀。因此，儘管一切生命都將滅絕的觀點確是令人不快，至少我們可以這樣說：儘管我有時沉思人們活著所做的一切盡都是空，但畢竟這麼想還不致使生活苦不堪言，只會讓人注意力稍稍轉移而已。

【論證與主張】主張誰都會說，誰都可說；若不用證明、不須負責，那更是甚麼都能說；以下為根據羅氏主張，提出我個人的主張回應之，姑且一笑：

主張「上帝讓兔子長白尾巴，是要使人容易瞄準射擊。」一百多年前，我相信這句話不是在開玩笑。但在一百多年後的今天，這可以是一種幽默。不論如何，不管是或不是，這似乎不能用來否認上帝的存在，只能用來衡量說這句話的人的格局。不過，會引用這句話來駁斥上帝的人，其格局倒是顯然可知的。

主張「我們逐漸更加瞭解生物為什麼能適應環境。不是環境被造得適宜生物的生存，而是生物逐漸適應變化的基礎，這就是物競天擇的基礎。」物競天擇只局限於環境與生物的存活？本段第四個主張稍可釐清何謂競、何謂擇。

主張「如果你有全智和全能，並且有千百萬年的時間來使你的世界臻於完善，難道你創造不出比三Ｋ黨和法西斯更美好的東西麼？」不用全智全能！如果你有一點點的智能，你根本不用等，因為人類才犯錯之初就早已被你毀滅了。你會傻到要人來提醒你、責怪你錯了？

主張「你只要認識科學的一般規律，就必然同意：地球上人類生命和其他一切生命到了最後都將滅亡，這是太陽系逐漸衰亡的過程。」若此為真，競則競一時，終究無可擇。到頭皆是空，俯仰所為何？那現在爭甚麼呢？反正都要死。又何必發表這篇演講呢？應提倡全民大睡覺、世界大狂歡之纇的活動才是；或者，應發表如海倫凱勒女士所撰「如果我只能看見三天」的文章，人生得意須盡歡才是；明知人類終將滅，更叫人類爭千秋，這不是自欺欺人麼？

主張「太陽系在衰亡的某一階段中產生了適宜原生質生存的諸如溫度之類的條件，於是在整個太陽系存在的過程中，生命可以存在一個短暫的時期。」「一只普通的手錶，平均約有 500 到 1000 個零組件，把它們拆散後全部放進一個小盒子裡，裡面有適宜的溫度和潤滑，保證每一零件皆在 100 年內不會生鏽變形；現在，關上盒子，用任何非念力及意志力或組織力形成的方法，比如搖一搖、上下拋、靜置不動等，一定時間之後，終將使這些零件重組成原來的手表。」以上兩主張，你只要能相信其中一個，應該就有辦法相信另一個。

主張「儘管我有時沉思人們活著所做的一切盡都是空，但畢竟這麼想還不致使生活苦不堪言，只會讓人注意力稍稍轉移而已。」以我淺薄的見識觀察，世上最不會逃避問題的人，就是哲學家。