最好的起点是给出一个定义。从词源上看,"无神论"(atheism)的字面意思是"非有神论者",换言之,是不相信有神或诸神存在的人。前缀a表示"没有"或"不",而theism源自希腊词theos,指对"存在一位干预世界的神或诸神"的信仰。两者都源自希腊语,但仅凭字面含义,不足以解释这一术语的深层含义。那么,不相信有神或诸神,究竟意味着什么?自称无神论者的人,是否拥有支持无神论的积极论证?还是说,他们目前并不被任何有神论的论证说服?抑或仅仅是他们不相信任何神明的存在?

The best place to start is with a definition. Atheism linguistically means ‘not a theist’; in other words, someone who does not believe in a God or gods. The prefix a means none or not, and theism, coming from the word theos, denotes a ‘belief in the existence of an intervening God or gods’. Both come from Greek, but relying on the literal meaning is not enough to explain the implications of the term. So what does disbelief in a God or gods imply? Does it indicate that the one who describes himself as an atheist has positive arguments in favour of atheism? Does it mean that they are currently not convinced by any theistic arguments? Or does it mean that they just do not believe in any gods?

学术界对无神论的定义尚未达成共识,但我所关心的不是哲学上的咬文嚼字,而是一个实际的问题。让我们先来讨论我之前提出的第一个问题:自称无神论者的人,是否意味着他拥有支持无神论的积极论证?从这个意义上说,无神论者是一个提出知识性主张的人,即认为不存在上帝。然而,这样的主张需要理由加以证明。该主张是一种积极的断言,需要某种论证来支撑。因此,这一类型的无神论者必须为自己的立场提供证据。

Academics have not reached a consensus on a definition for atheism, but my concern is not with philosophical hair-splitting. My focus is a practical one.5 Let’s address the first question I raised: Does it indicate that the one who describes himself as an atheist has positive arguments in favour of atheism? In this sense, an atheist is someone who makes a knowledge claim—that there is no God. Nevertheless, such a claim requires justification. The claim is a positive assertion, and it requires some sort of argument to back it up. Therefore, this type of atheist must provide evidence for their position.

这就引出了第二个问题:这是否意味着无神论者目前并不被任何有神论的论证所说服?这似乎已经远离了无神论,而进入了不可知论的领域。持有这样的立场就意味着,如果有人提出一个好的论证来证明上帝的存在,他们就必须接受它。最后,我们还有一个问题:这是否意味着此人只是不相信任何神明?如果无神论者的不信只是出于个人选择,而没有任何理性的考察,那么它与任何其他信念又有什么区别,无论是对精灵的信仰还是对占星术的信仰?根据我的经验,人们常常会问的问题是:你为什么不信任何神?

This leads us to the second question: Does it mean that the atheist is currently not convinced by any theistic arguments? This seems to be far removed from atheism and is entering into the realm of agnosticism. Holding such a position would imply that if a good argument were offered for God’s existence, they would have to accept it. Finally, we have the question: Does it mean that the person is someone who just does not believe in any gods? If an atheist disbelieves based on mere choice, in the absence of any rational investigation, then how does that differ from any other belief, whether it is the belief in fairies or astrology? From my experience, the question why do you believe in no gods?

《我》是与无神论者展开对话的绝佳切入点（见第四章）。根据对方的回应，我能清楚地判断他们是不可知论者、没有任何实证依据便相信无神的无神论者，还是已经找到反对神存在的论据。 如果对方是不可知论者，最好的策略是提供充分的理由，说明我为什么相信神的存在。如果对方是真诚的，而且论证成立，那么他们就应当接受神性的存在。如果他们在没有证据的情况下相信不存在任何神，那么我认为有益的做法是引导他们质疑和思考自己的信念。我会问他们：你有什么证据来否定神的存在？我还会向他们说明，仅凭个人选择、没有任何理性或智识依据地去相信某事，会带来哪些负面影响。如果他们声称已经找到反对神存在的证据，我会请他们出示证据。在这种情况下，作为穆斯林，我的任务是指出他们提供的证据是错误的或被误解了，同时提出神确实存在的论证。

is an excellent conversation starter with an atheist (see Chapter 4). Depending on the response I receive, I clearly know if they are agnostics, atheists who believe without any positive evidence, or if they have found an argument against God. If they are agnostics, then the best strategy is to provide good reasons for why you believe God exists. If they are sincere, and the argument is valid, then they should accept the existence of the Divine. If they believe in no gods without evidence, then what I find useful is to get them to question and think about their beliefs. I would ask them: What evidence do you have to reject God’s existence? I would also show them the negative implications of just believing in something based on mere choice without any reasoning or intellectual basis. If they claim to have found evidence against God’s existence, I would ask them for the evidence. In that case, as a Muslim, it would be my job to show how the evidence they have provided is false or misunderstood, while at the same time presenting a case for why God does exist.

以下是这段文字的简体中文译文： 所以，这里总结一下，实际上成为无神论者意味着什么。首先，是一种否定性的主张，即一个人只是不相信有神或诸神。其次，是认为目前关于神存在的论证并不令人信服的观点，这意味着不可知论。最后，是一种肯定性的主张，即不存在任何神。这样的主张需要论证。根据我的经验，撇开关于这一问题的吹毛求疵式的争论不谈，许多无神论者之所以成为无神论者，仅仅是因为他们不被任何支持神圣存在的论证所说服。这意味着大多数无神论者其实并不是真正的无神论者，而是隐秘的不可知论者。因此，希望是有的，只需提出一个有力的有神论论证即可。需要指出的是，我在这里提出的实际定义并非非此即彼，每一类无神论者都存在不同程度的差异。无神论者也可以被描述为具有其中一种定义，或是几种定义的结合。 如果事情真的这么简单就好了。人类不是智能机器人。无数的情感、社会、精神和心理因素，决定了我们采纳何种世界观。要厘清导致某些决定或信念的众多变量，是不可能的。然而，根据我的经验，无神论并不是一个单纯出于理性和科学的严格理智决定。相反，无神论深深植根于心理层面（尽管我承认这适用于部分而非所有无神论者）。

So here’s a summary of what it practically means to be an atheist. Firstly, there is the negative assertion that one is simply a disbeliever in a God or gods. Secondly, there is the view that the current arguments for God’s existence are not convincing, which implies agnosticism. Finally, there is the positive assertion that there are no gods. Such an assertion requires an argument. From my experience, regardless of the hair-splitting debates on this issue, many atheists are atheists simply because they are not convinced by any argument in favour for the Divine. This means that most atheists are not really atheists at all, but closet agnostics. So there is hope, and all one has to do is offer a good argument for theism. It is important to note that the practical definitions I have proposed here are not binary; there are varying degrees of each type of atheist. Atheists can also be described as having one or a combination of these definitions. If only it was that easy. Human beings are not intellectual robots. An array of emotional, social, spiritual and psychological factors determines which worldview we adopt. Unravelling the vast number of variables that lead to certain decisions or beliefs is impossible. However, from my experience, atheism is not a strict intellectual decision born out of reason and science. On the contrary, atheism is deeply rooted in psychology (although I appreciate this applies to some and not all atheists).

憎恨神：对神的憎恨。

Misotheism: hatred of God.

虽然这不被视为无神论的一种形式,我认为进一步阐述另一种否认神性的观点会非常有意思。这种观点并非否认上帝的存在,而是表现为对上帝的憎恨,以及希望祂不存在的愿望。这一概念被称为"憎神论"(misotheism),源自希腊语 misos(意为憎恨)和 theos(意为神),这种宗教上的反叛长期潜伏于阴暗之中。是时候让人们看清这种对上帝的谴责了,有人可能会认为它正是某些类型无神论的心理基础。副教授伯纳德·施威策(Bernard Schweizer)就此主题撰写了一本书。他梳理了众多杰出思想家和作家的文学作品,包括阿尔杰农·查尔斯·斯温伯恩(Algernon Charles Swinburne)、佐拉·尼尔·赫斯顿(Zora Neale Hurston)、丽贝卡·韦斯特(Rebecca West)、埃利·维塞尔(Elie Wiesel)、彼得·谢弗(Peter Shaffer)和菲利普·普尔曼(Philip Pullman),最后得出结论:他们似乎都在与一个充满邪恶与苦难的世界中仁慈和怜悯的上帝这一观念角力。他指出,他们憎恨上帝的动机,"大体上出于令人敬佩的人文主义冲动"。6

Although not considered a form of atheism, I thought it would be of great interest to elaborate on another type of rejection of the Divine. Rather than rejecting God’s existence, this perspective involves a hatred of God and a wish that He did not exist. Known as misotheism, coming from the Greek misos, meaning hatred, and theos meaning God, this religious rebellion has been lurking in the dark. It is time some light was shed on this denunciation of God, which some might argue is the psychological basis for certain types of atheism. Associate Professor Bernard Schweizer has written a book on the topic; after sifting through a number of literary works of prominent thinkers and writers, including Algernon Charles Swinburn, Zora Neale Hurston, Rebecca West, Elie Wiesel, Peter Shaffer and Philip Pullman, he concludes that they seem to struggle with the idea of a compassionate and merciful God in a world of evil and suffering. He indicates that the motivation for their hatred of God is due to being “generally motivated by admirable humanistic impulses”6

Schweizer还指出，恨神者在情感和心理上是有创伤的。他认为，“在心理、情感和身体上受伤的人，最有可能转离上帝，这确实不假”。7

. Schweizer also indicates that the misotheist is emotionally and psychologically troubled. He argues that it is “quite true that the psychologically, emotionally, and physically wounded are most likely to turn away from God”7

……以及，“绝不确定更有效的传教方式能否平息对神的仇恨之火，或堵住通往无神论的道路”。8

, and that it is “by no means certain that more effective forms of ministering would help douse the fires of misotheism or block the path to atheism”8

尽管这些思想家和作家代表了不同类型的反神论者，他们都在质疑上帝在人类苦难中的角色：

. Although these thinkers and writers represent different types of misotheists, they all question God’s role in human suffering:

“对于憎恶神者（misotheist）而言，情形则有所不同。在他看来，广泛存在的恶与仁慈之神的形象之间的不相容，是一个真实的难题，而不仅仅是神学上的咬文嚼字。憎恶神者是真正的神的控诉者，他们会就随机的恶和无端的苦难追究神的责任。因此，无神论者与憎恶神者是从相反的方向来面对神在人类苦难中所扮演角色的问题：无神论者会说，憎恶神者的主张建立在虚构之上，因而是无效的。而对憎恶神者本人来说，恰恰因为他是一个信仰者，神并不是替罪羊，而是恶的同谋或煽动者。”9

“The situation is different for the misotheist. To him, the incompatibility of widespread evil with the image of a benevolent God is a real problem, not merely a case of hair-splitting theological arguments. Misotheists are genuine accusers of God, and they will hold him accountable for random evil and undeserved suffering. Thus, atheists and misotheists come to the question of God’s role in human suffering from opposed directions: the unbeliever would say that the misotheist makes an invalid claim based on fiction. To the misotheist himself, precisely because he is a believer, God is not a scapegoat but an accomplice or an instigator of evil.”9

施韦策的研究相当细致入微。他将厌神论分为不可知论厌神者、绝对厌神者和政治厌神者三类。概括这位教授的主要观点：厌神者受一个核心问题驱使：人类做了什么，竟要承受上帝，以及祂所允许发生的种种邪恶与苦难？根据我的经验，我认为不少无神论者其实是隐秘的厌神者。有一个问题往往能印证这一结论：如果上帝确实存在，你会崇拜祂吗？（见第十五章）我遇到的许多无神论者会回答不会，他们常引用世上那些“不必要”和“无端”的邪恶与苦难作为理由。我理解他们对同类有情众生所遭受痛苦的关切与悲痛，但无神论者和厌神者都存在一种隐蔽的自我中心主义。这意味着他们刻意不从自己的眼睛之外的任何视角看世界。然而，如此一来，他们便犯了一种情感上或精神上的谬误。他们将上帝拟人化，把祂当作一个有限的凡人。他们假定上帝必然像我们看待事物那样看待事物，因此祂应当制止邪恶。若祂任其持续，便须受到质疑并被拒斥。

Schweizer’s study is quite nuanced. He categorises misotheism into agnostic misotheists, absolute misotheists and political misotheists. To summarise the professor’s main point, the misotheist is motivated by a key question: What has humanity done to deserve God and all the evil and suffering that He allows to occur? From my experience, I would contend that quite a few atheists are closet misotheists. One question to ask that usually testifies to this conclusion is: If God did exist, would you worship Him? (see Chapter 15). The response from many atheists that I have encountered would be no, and they frequently cite the amount of ‘unnecessary’ and ‘gratuitous’ evil and suffering in the world. Although I empathise with their concern and anguish at the suffering inflicted on fellow sentient beings, atheists and misotheists alike suffer from a veiled type of egocentrism. This means they make special effort not to see the world from any perspective other than through their own eyes. However, in doing so, they commit a type of emotional—or spiritual—fallacy. They anthropomorphise God and turn Him into a limited man. They assume that God must see things the way we see things, and therefore He should stop the evil. If He allows it to continue, He must be questioned and rejected.

将人与神相比较，便暴露出他们无法整体地理解事物。厌神者此时大概会呼喊，这意味着人比神更有慈悲心。这进一步凸显了他们无法超越自身视角去看待事物，也显示出他们未能领会：神的行为与意志符合一种我们无法触及的神圣理性。神并不满足于邪恶与苦难的发生。神不阻止这些事情，是因为祂看到了我们所看不到的东西，而不是因为祂对邪恶与苦难的持续感到满意。神看到的是全景，而我们看到的只是一个像素。理解这一点有助于获得灵性与理智上的宁静，因为信士明白，世间发生的一切最终都符合一种基于至善的、更高的神圣智慧。拒绝接受这一点，恰恰使厌神者陷入傲慢、自我中心，并最终陷入绝望的泥潭。他没有通过考验；他对神的憎恨使他忘记了神是谁，并否认神的智慧、慈悲与良善这一事实（参见第11章）。

Comparing man with God exposes their inability to understand things holistically. The misotheist would probably at this point exclaim that this means man has more compassion than God. This further highlights their inability to see things from beyond their perspective, and reveals their failure to fathom that God’s actions and will are in line with a Divine reason that we cannot access. God is not content with the occurrence of evil and suffering. God does not stop these things from happening because He sees something we do not, not because He is content with evil and suffering to continue. God has the picture and we merely have a pixel. Understanding this facilitates spiritual and intellectual tranquillity because the believer understands that ultimately, all that occurs in the world is in line with a superior Divine wisdom that is based on superior Divine goodness. Refusing to accept this is actually where the misotheist falls into the quagmire of arrogance, egocentrism and ultimately, despair. He has failed the test; his hatred of God makes him forget who God is and dismiss the fact of Divine wisdom, mercy and goodness (see Chapter 11).

无神论与哲学自然主义。

Atheism and Philosophical Naturalism.

在讨论伊斯兰教对无神论的定义之前，本章是一个很好的机会，介绍一个将在本书许多章节中被提及的概念。与无神论一样，哲学自然主义也否认神圣者与超自然的存在。因此，大多数无神论者采纳哲学自然主义作为其世界观，也就不足为奇了。哲学自然主义认为，宇宙中的一切现象都可以通过物理过程来解释。这些物理过程是盲目的、非理性的。这意味着它们不会有意地朝向某个目标或归宿，也无法在事物或观念之间创建和识别逻辑关系。

Before I discuss the Islamic definition of atheism, this chapter is a good opportunity to introduce a concept that will be referred to in many chapters of this book. Like atheism, philosophical naturalism denies the Divine and the supernatural. Therefore, it is not surprising that most atheists adopt philosophical naturalism as a worldview. Philosophical naturalism is the view that all phenomena within the universe can be explained via physical processes. These physical processes are blind and non-rational. This means that they are not intentionally directed towards a goal or a destination and they are not able to create and recognise logical relations between things or ideas.

哲学自然主义者拒绝一切超自然的主张，有些人认为，如果宇宙之外还存在某种事物，那么它也不会干预宇宙。据理查德·道金斯教授所言，无神论者都是哲学自然主义者。道金斯说，无神论者“相信自然的、物质的世界之外别无他物”。然而，也有一些无神论学者并不是自然主义者。这些无神论者虽然否认神圣者的存在，却承认非物质现象的存在。对有神论者而言，这一类无神论通常更容易进行理性的对话，因为它们并不否定非物质现象。在这一点上，它们与有神论存在一定的共同立场。需要指出的是，大多数主张存在反对真主存在的证据，或认为缺乏有力证据能证明神圣者存在的无神论者，都在不同程度上（或明或暗地）采纳了哲学自然主义。尽管如此，本书中提出的大多数论证，仍可用于面对那些采纳或不采纳哲学自然主义的无神论者。

无神论简史

A brief history of atheism.

在伊斯兰历史上，直到8世纪达哈利亚（Dahriyya）的出现，无神论才成为重大的社会和思想威胁。这些思想家是经验主义者，他们认为一切知识都只能通过经验方法获得。他们相信宇宙是永恒的，由四种性质构成，而万物皆由这四种性质所决定。他们主张万物一直存在，不需要任何创造者或造物主。14

In Islamic history Atheism was not a major social and intellectual threat until the emergence of the 8th century Dahriyya. These thinkers were empiricists who believed that all knowledge could only be acquired via the empirical method. They believed that the cosmos was eternal and composed of four qualities, which were responsible for everything that existed. They argued that everything had always existed and did not require any creator or maker.14

根据法拉吉·伊斯法哈尼所著的《歌集》（Kitab al-Aghani），著名法学家、传统学派之一的创立者艾卜·哈尼法（Abu Hanifa）在8世纪曾与一位达赫里（Dahri）辩论。据载，艾卜·哈尼法在公开辩论中以理性有力地驳斥过达赫里耶（Dahriyya）（见第8章）。许多伊斯兰学者都回应了达赫里耶的主张，其中包括安萨里（Al-Ghazali）、伊本·焦兹（Ibn al-Jawzi）、贾希兹（al-Jaḥiẓ）、穆罕默德·本·沙比卜（Muhammad b. Shabib）、伊本·古太白（Ibn Qutayba）和艾卜·尔萨·沃拉格（Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq）。[15] 在安萨里的著作《幸福的炼金术》（Kimiyaʾ-yi sa‘adat）中，他将达赫里耶描述为还原论者，他们对宇宙及其目的缺乏整体的理解。他断言，他们就像纸上的蚂蚁，无法把目光从眼前的墨水或笔上移开，因此看不见是谁在书写。16

According to Kitab al-Aghani by Faraj al-Isfahani, Abu Hanifa, the famous jurist and founder of one of the traditional schools of thought, debated a Dahri in the 8th century. Abu Hanifa was known to have intellectually hammered the Dahriyya in public debates (see Chapter 8). Many of the Islamic scholars responded to the claims of the Dahriyya, including Al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Jaḥiẓ, Muhammad b. Shabib, Ibn Qutayba, and Abu ‘Isa al-Warraq.15 In Al-Ghazali’s book, Kimiyaʾ-yi sa‘adat, he describes the Dahriyya as reductionists who do not have a holistic understanding of the universe and its purpose. He asserts that they are like ants on a piece of paper that cannot lift their eyes from the ink or the pen they see before them, thus failing to see who is writing.16

伊斯兰历史上的无神论思想清楚地表明，当时存在着一种进行思想讨论与辩论的环境，而这种环境只能依靠相互尊重与宽容才得以促成。《古兰经》明确指出，信仰的多样性是真主意志的一部分，因此绝不应有任何形式的强迫，而应当彼此尊重与宽容。

The Islamic history of atheism clearly shows an environment of intellectual discussion and debate, which could only have been facilitated by mutual respect and tolerance. The Qur’an makes it absolutely clear that having myriad beliefs is part of God’s will, and that there should never be any form of compulsion but mutual respect and tolerance:

“假如你的主意欲如此，地上的人们必定全都信道。难道你要强迫世人，使他们成为信士吗？”17

“And had your Lord willed, those on Earth would have believed—all of them entirely. Then, would you compel the people in order that they become believers?”17

“宗教中没有强迫。”18

20世纪60年代之后，逻辑实证主义走向衰亡。其衰亡的一个主要原因在于它是自我推翻的。逻辑实证主义者提出的意义标准是：任何陈述都必须能通过物理经验加以证实；然而，这一标准本身却无法通过物理经验来证实。因此，该标准本身便是无意义的。逻辑实证主义衰亡之后，学术界见证了有神论在思想上的复兴。《时代》杂志在1980年评论有神论的兴起时写道："在一场安静的思想与论证革命中，这是二十年前几乎没有人能够预料到的，上帝正在卷土重来。最引人注目的是，这一现象并非发生在神学家或普通信徒之中，而是发生在学院派哲学家那犀利的思想圈子里，而在那里，学界共识早已将全能的上帝逐出了富有成果的讨论。"27

Post 1960s saw the death of logical positivism. One of the key reasons for its demise was the fact that it was self-defeating. The logical positivists’ criterion for meaning was that any statement had to be verified by physical experience; however, the criterion itself could not be verified by physical experience. Consequently, the criterion itself was meaningless. After the demise of logical positivism, the academic world saw the intellectual resurrection of theism. Time magazine in 1980 commented on the rise of intellectual theism: “In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not amongst theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.”27

有神论在知识领域复兴的一个原因,是20世纪中叶那些引人入胜的科学发现。其中包括“大爆炸”理论,它假定宇宙有一个宇宙学意义上的开端。这背离了传统观点——传统观点认为宇宙是静止而永恒的,不需要造物主(见第5章)。20世纪70年代,宇宙学家发现了引人入胜的“精细调谐”现象,它明确表明宇宙的规律与结构似乎经过设计与精细调校,使得像人类这样复杂的有意识生命得以存在(见第8章)。20世纪初,我们对生物学的基本构造几乎一无所知。我们以为细胞——生物体的构件——不过是均匀的原生质团块。然而,1953年,詹姆斯·沃森和弗朗西斯·克里克揭示了DNA的双螺旋结构,DNA是细胞的信息存储装置。此后,分子生物学革命持续推进,在微观层面上不断揭示出更多引人入胜、精妙复杂的特征。克里克(他本人是无神论者)对遗传密码的普遍性印象深刻,以至于他确信这不可能是偶然发生的,并主张某种外星智慧的介入。这些科学发现与进展,以及它们的哲学含义,逐步把有神论重新带回了知识界与学术讨论的议事桌上。如今,有神论已是一种完全可以被尊重的立场。

One reason for the intellectual revival of theism was the intriguing scientific discoveries of the mid-20th century. These include the ‘Big Bang’, which postulates a cosmic beginning to the universe. This was a departure from conventional thinking that postulated the universe was static and eternal, needing no creator (see Chapter 5). In the 1970s, cosmologists discovered the intriguing phenomenon of fine tuning, which explicitly demonstrated that the universe’s laws and arrangement seemed designed and fine-tuned so that complex conscious life, like human beings, could exist (see Chapter 8). Near the beginning of the 20th century, we had an utterly inadequate understanding of biology’s nuts and bolts. We thought cells—the building blocks of organisms—were just homogenous blobs of protoplasm. In 1953, however, James Watson and Francis Crick demonstrated the double helix structure of DNA, the information-storage device of the cell. Following this discovery, the molecular biological revolution continued, unearthing more and more fascinating, sophisticated features on a microscopic level. Crick (an atheist himself) was so impressed with the universality of the genetic code that he became convinced that this could not have happened by chance, and argued that some sort of extra-terrestrial intervention was involved.28 These discoveries and progresses in science, as well as their philosophical implications, progressively brought theism back onto the intellectual and academic discussion table. Today, theism is a perfectly respectable position.