根据皮尤研究中心(Pew Research Center)最新公布的数据,90%的美国人相信存在某种更高的力量。¹ 尽管英国和美国的许多人已不再信奉某个特定宗教,但只有5%的人是坚决的无神论者,而且他们的立场表明其接受了新无神论者(New Atheists)的论证。² 从百分比来看,这似乎并不多,但5%在整体人口中仍是一个可观的比例。有些人拒绝信仰上帝,这一事实表明:要么他们对上帝存在的证据不以为然,要么关于上帝存在的论证已被驳倒。有鉴于此,理查德·道金斯(Richard Dawkins)——大概是西方最受欢迎的学院无神论者——在《上帝的妄想》(The God Delusion)一书中仅用两页篇幅驳斥设计论证,而只用五页讨论阿奎那的宇宙论论证,这或许令人意外。新无神论者似乎并未认真对待有神论者的分析性证据,再加上分析哲学主导着西方大多数大学的学术环境,3

According to the most recent data published by Pew Research Center, 90% of Americans believe in a higher power.1 Although many other people in the UK and US no longer believe in a particular religion, only 5% are strident atheists in a manner which indicates acceptance of the arguments of the New Atheists.2 Percentage-wise, this may not seem like much, but 5% is a significant proportion of the overall population. The fact that some people are rejecting faith in God would suggest that either they are unconvinced with the evidence for God’s existence, or that arguments for God’s existence have been demolished. Considering this, it may come as a surprise that Richard Dawkins – probably the West’s most popular academic atheist – dedicates only two pages to refuting the design argument for God’s existence and five to Aquinas’s cosmological argument in the God Delusion. The fact that New Atheists seem to have not engaged with the analytic evidence of theists, combined with the fact that analytic philosophy dominates most western university settings,3

这种思路为有神论者提供了广阔的理论空间。他们可以重新提出历史上一些最持久的自然神学论证。我在本书中将提出的许多论证，我已在实际场合中运用了十多年。在此期间，我与数百位无神论者和不可知论者进行过深入而有意义的交谈，尤其是在英国。我希望让读者领略我与社会各阶层人士交往的大致面貌。 我将以两个人物为例，他们会贯穿全书。这两个人物并非真实的个体，而是虚构的人物，或是我所接触过的人的综合形象。 研究对象A，我称之为理查德，是一位极端怀疑论的朋友。他21岁，曾是基督徒，现已不信教。他考入大学，主修物理学和哲学。在修读一门“自我理论”课程之后，理查德经历了一场存在主义危机，从此成为无神论者。理查德性格不随和、外向，也不在乎他人。 研究对象B，我称之为贝蒂，是一个安静的人。与理查德不同，贝蒂性格内向。她是不可知论者。她大部分时间独自度过，要么待在自己房间里，要么在图书馆。我与贝蒂交谈时，她会花时间听完我的话，然后才回应。与理查德不同，贝蒂不太热衷于挑起别人的反应，而更乐于分享想法。贝蒂给人的感觉十分顺从、平和，尤其是在公共场合，她有很强的社交焦虑。贝蒂成长经历坎坷，在童年时期遭受过性虐待和身体虐待。 在本书中，凡相关之处，我都会以我与贝蒂和理查德的经历作为案例，来说明人们在护教式交流中可能遇到的一些现实复杂性。

gives theists a wide theoretical opening. They can reintroduce some of the most enduring natural theological arguments posited throughout history. Many of the arguments I will present in this book, I have used in applied settings for over a decade. In this time, I have had deep and meaningful conversations with hundreds of atheists and agnostics particularly in the UK. I aim to give the reader a flavour of the type of interactions I have had with people from different cross-sections of society. I will reference my experience with two characters who I will make reference to throughout this book. These two characters are not actual subjects but are hypothetical people or fictitious amalgams of people I have met. Subject A, who I shall call Richard, is the ultra-sceptic friend. He is 21 years of age and an ex-Christian. He entered university to study physics and philosophy. After taking a course on ‘theories of the self’, Richard had an existential crisis and became an atheist. Richard is 1 Pew Forum (2019). In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at a Rapid Pace [online] Pew Research Centre Available at: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of Christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/. disagreeable, extraverted, and non-caring. Subject B, who I shall call Betty, is a quiet person. Unlike Richard, Betty is an introvert. Betty is agnostic. Spends most of her time by herself either in her room or in the library. When I speak to Betty, Betty takes time to listen to what I say before replying to me. Unlike Richard, Betty is less interested in provoking a reaction from people but more in sharing ideas. Betty comes across as highly docile and placid especially in public settings in which she has much social anxiety. Betty has had a troubled upbringing with sexual and physical abuse in her formative years. Throughout this book where relevant, I will use my experiences with Betty and Richard as case study examples to outline some of the real-life complexities one may face in apologetic interactions.

这些关于神存在的论证所涉甚大。对许多人而言，有神论的理智正当性取决于这些论证是否健全，以及它们能否被清晰地阐明。有神论者若要真正有效，就必须能够从第一原理出发为自己的信仰辩护。自古以来，就有人提出理性论证来证明神的存在。例如，亚里士多德在证明不动的推动者时，所用的方式与神存在的论证相似。在基督教传统中，奥古斯丁、安瑟伦和阿奎那都提出了严肃而理性的神存在论证。迈蒙尼德——或许是犹太历史上最负盛名的学者——撰写了《迷途指津》，以论辩推理系统地论证了神的存在。在伊斯兰世界，伊本·西纳（Avicenna）、安萨里（Algazel）、伊本·路世德（Averroes）以及其他许多人，都通过提出各自的证明，为这一论述作出了贡献。与此类似，启蒙运动及后启蒙时期的哲学家，包括莱布尼茨和库尔特·哥德尔这样的博学者，也提出了新的论证。这些论证以及类似的论证，已进入被称为“宗教哲学”的哲学分支的学术辩论之中。在这一领域，人们特别关注神存在的本体论论证和宇宙论论证。需要说明的是，我所说的本体论论证，指的是“一种完全从先验前提出发论证神存在、不使用任何源于我们对世界的观察的前提的证明”。另一方面，宇宙论论证则是那些在前提中直接提及宇宙的论证。

Much is at stake in the presentation of these arguments for God’s existence. For many, the intellectual validity of theism is predicated on the soundness of these arguments, and the degree to which they can be clearly articulated. For theists to be truly effective they must be able to justify their beliefs from first principles. Since ancient times, rational arguments have been posited for God’s existence. For instance, Aristotle employs proof for an unmoved mover in a way which is analogous to arguments for God’s existence. In the Christian tradition, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas formulated serious and rational arguments for God’s existence. Maimonides – perhaps the most celebrated scholar in Jewish history – wrote the Guide for the Perplexed, in which he made a systematic case for God’s existence using discursive reasoning. In the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), al-Ghazālī (Algazel), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and many others contributed to this discourse by offering their own sets of proofs for God’s existence. In a similar fashion, enlightenment and post enlightenment philosophers including polymaths such as Gottfried Leibniz and Kurt Gödel presented new arguments as well. These and similar arguments have entered the academic debates that concern a sub-branch of philosophy known as ‘Philosophy of Religion’. In this field, particular focus has been placed on both ontological arguments and cosmological arguments for God’s existence. To be clear, when referring to ontologicalarguments I mean “a proof which argues for the existence of God entirely from a priori premises and makes no use of any premises that derive from our observation of the world”.4 On the other hand cosmological arguments are those which make direct reference to the cosmos in the premises.

在这本书中，我旨在专门分析伊本·西纳（Ibn Sīnā）的“证明”（Burhān）论证，用以论证真主的存在，因为我认为它最能经受各种反驳。该论证认为，仅由偶然存在构成的世界是不可想象的，因为偶然存在不能自己造就自己。无限多个偶然存在的集合也无法解释所有偶然存在的存在，否则它就会归入另一个集合，即必然存在者的集合。作为必然存在者，它就是一个不被造成的因，且不可能是其他样子。简言之，伊本·西纳主张，解释任何事物存在的唯一方式，就是设定一个不被造成的因，即一个“必然存在”（wājib al-wujūd）。然而，尽管该“证明”影响深远，却尚未被整理成适合现代听众使用的护教材料。因此，我对关于真主存在之讨论的新贡献，在于意图为有神论者重新阐述这一论证，以便他们向无神论听众为宗教辩护。为此，我将以伊本·西纳著作中若干在分析上十分重要的段落的译文开篇（其中一些此前从未从阿拉伯文译为英文）。随后，我将评述伊本·西纳的“证明”论证在中世纪基督教与穆斯林世界中的接受情况。之后，我将介绍宇宙论论证与本体论论证的一些现代运用，并将其与“证明”进行比较。接着，我将以“证明”为指导，阐述我自己对真主必然存在的证明。在此过程中，我将构造基于非因果偶然性与依赖性的论证，力图绕过关于因果性与复合性的一些常见反驳。 此外，我将回应针对这一论证的一些最突出的反对意见，目的是说明“Burhān”论证在有神论者与无神论者的讨论中可以发挥多大的作用。为此，我会尽可能引入与理查德（Richard）和贝蒂（Betty）的对话。

In this book, I aim to specifically analyse Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument for the existence of God, as I regard it as being most invulnerable to any type of counterattack. The Burhān argument postulates that a world with only contingent existences is inconceivable, as a contingent existence cannot cause itself. A set of an infinite number of contingent existences cannot explain the existence of all contingent existences, or else it would belong in another set, namely the set of necessary existence(s). As a necessary existence it would be an uncaused cause, and it could not be any other way. In short, Ibn Sīnā argues that the only way to explain the existence of anything is to postulate the existence of an uncaused cause, or a wājib al-wujūd (‘necessary existence’). However, despite its impact, the Burhān has not been packaged for apologetic use for a modern audience. Accordingly, my novel contribution to the discourse surrounding God’s existence is found in the intention of re-articulating this argument for theists attempting to make the case for religion to atheist audiences. To this end, I will start this book with some translations of analytically important extracts from the work of Ibn Sīnā (some of which have hitherto not been translated from Arabic to English). I will then assess the reception of Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument in the medieval world of both Christians and Muslims. Thereafter, I will present some modern usages of the cosmological and ontological arguments, while comparing them with the Burhān. I will then articulate my own proofs for the necessary existence of God, using the Burhān as my guide. In this, I will compose arguments informed by non-causal contingency and dependency which aim to circumnavigate some of the stock objections on causation and composition. In addition, I will answer some of the most prominent objections towards this argument, with the goal being to demonstrate how useful the Burhān argument can be in discussions between theists and atheists. To achieve this goal, I will bring in conversations with Richard and Betty, wherever possible.