或许应当区分新无神论者提出的两类论证。我们已经讨论过新无神论者把"上帝假设"视为已被驳倒、在新达尔文主义的解释面前站不住脚的做法。相对而言,我们也看到一些哲学家否定这一假设,而他们恰当地区分了进化机制与所谓引导进化的神明的能动作用。

Perhaps distinction should be drawn between two kinds of arguments presented by New Atheists. We have discussed the New Atheist treatment of the ‘God hypothesis’ as disproved and ‘untenable’ in the face of new Darwinian explanations. Contrastingly, we have also witnessed philosophical rejection of this postulation by those who rightly differentiate between the evolution mechanism and the supposed agency of a deity who is guiding it.

此外,我们还注意到方法论自然主义与形而上学自然主义之间微妙而重要的区别。总体而言,这就引出了一个问题:这些发现能否推广到宗教整体?还是说,根据这些新的科学证据,宗教本身已经被推翻了?

Moreover, we also noted the subtle but important difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. Overall this begs the question; can these findings be generalised to religion in general or has religion itself been disproven in light of this new scientific evidence?

克里斯托弗·希钦斯写道：

Christopher Hitchens writes:

宗教已经无法再为自己辩护。借助望远镜与显微镜，它不再能对任何重要的事情作出解释。过去，宗教凭借对整个世界观的完全掌控，能够阻止竞争对手的出现；如今，它只能阻碍、拖延我们所取得的可测量的进步，或试图使其倒退（Hitchens, 2019, p.282）。

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made (Hitchens, 2019, p.282).

在这一点上，道金斯声称："作为一名科学家，我敌视原教旨主义宗教，因为它积极地败坏了科学事业"（Dawkins, 2006, p.284）。格雷林进一步将这一论断从"原教旨主义"宗教扩展到所有宗教，他指出："达尔文主义与宗教不相容；生物科学的证据证明宇宙中不存在超自然的作用力"（Grayling, 2014, p.113）。格雷林还表示，智能设计论是"披着伪装的创造论"（Grayling, 2014, p.109）。显然，这里界定了两种不同的论证。第一，是针对"上帝假设"的论证，此前已有讨论。第二，则关乎宗教本身。那么，对于那些认真对待这两种话语的人而言，宗教话语与科学话语究竟在多大程度上相互纠缠？这当然是一个大问题，并没有简单的答案。接下来，我将概述穆斯林学者与基督教学者在回答这些问题时所采取的主要路径。

On this point, Dawkins claims ‘as a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.284). Grayling furthers this from ‘fundamentalist’ religion to all religion by suggesting ‘…Darwinism is not compatible with religion; the evidences of biological science are evidences against the presence of supernatural agency in the universe’ (Grayling, 2014, p.113). Grayling also states that intelligent design is ‘creationism in disguise’ (Grayling, 2014, p.109). Clearly, two separate arguments are defined here. Firstly, an argument against the ‘God hypothesis’, as previously discussed. The second argument concerns religion. To what extent, though, has religious and scientific discourse been entangled according to individuals who take such discourses seriously? This of course is a big question to which there is no simple answer. In what follows I will outline the main approaches that both Muslim and Christian scholars have taken when answering these questions.

在基督教和伊斯兰教传统中，宗教经典都曾得到多种多样的诠释。大卫·沙茨在讨论古代犹太哲学时，区分了温和的经文与科学相符论（modest concordism）和激进的经文与科学相符论（bold concordism）。前者允许经文与科学达成调和，后者则假定经文中含有对科学的“正面教导”。尽管无法将圣经注释的各种路径一概而论，但有三种对圣经的解读方式尤为突出。第一种是温和相符的寓意解经路径，它强调创世记叙述的寓意性质。既然这些经文是寓意性的，有人便可能主张，神学不能就进化论或大爆炸宇宙学作出延伸阐释。这一路径在教父时期（尤其是亚历山大学派）有其解经先例，但常常受到挑战。这些挑战涉及如何判定哪些经文可以作寓意解读、哪些不可以，由于超出本文范围，此处不再展开。

In both Christian and Muslim traditions, religious scriptures have been interpreted in a variety of ways. While discussing ancient Jewish philosophy, David Shatz differentiates between modest and bold concordism. The former allows scriptural reconciliation with science, whereas, the latter assumes ‘positive teaching’ of science in a scripture. Though one cannot generalise approaches to Biblical exegesis, three approaches to the Bible stand out. The first is a modest concordist allegorising approach which emphasises the allegorical nature of the Genesis account. Since the verses are allegorical, it may be argued, theology cannot expand on evolution or Big Bang cosmology. Though this approach has exegetical precedent from the patristic period (most notably from the Alexandrian school), it is often met with challenges. Such challenges, which are beyond the scope of this paper, relate to deciding which verses may or may not be allegorised.

第二种方法是字面主义的非协调论方法。应用于《圣经》时，它不必得出年轻地球创造论的结论，因为即便是一些早期教父，例如奥古斯丁（他很少进行寓意解释），也可能并不认为《创世记》中的"日"是字面意义上的日子（Brooke, 2012, p.8）。尽管如此，对《创世记》的字面解读仍有其自身的一系列"科学"和历史方面的挑战，其中包括一些解释，这些解释有教父和中世纪的先例，并据此推算宇宙的年龄为六千年。从其自身的角度看，这种方法并非非协调论的，因为它对"科学"及其过程的定义，与哲学科学的经典方法有所不同。年轻地球创造论者肯·哈姆（Ken Ham）将科学分为"观察性"和"历史性"两类，后者极易受人为解释的影响；当两者出现冲突时，经文的平实字面意义必须优先（Ham, 2013, p.45-55）。持这一观点的人常引用《创世记》第5章的家谱进路。

The second approach is the literalist non-concordist approach which, when applied to the Bible, does not need to produce a young-age creationist conception as even some patristic Church Fathers like Augustine (who is infrequent in his allegorisation) may not have considered the days in the Genesis account to be literal (Brooke, 2012, p.8). Nevertheless, a literal approach to Genesis has its own set of ‘scientific’ and historical challenges including interpretations, which have patristic and medieval precedent, and which indicate the universe’s age as six thousand years old. This approach is not non-concordist from its own perspective, as it defines ‘science’ and its processes in ways that differ from classical approaches of philosophy of science. Ken Ham, a Young Age Creationist, divides science into ‘observational’ and ‘historical’ types, the latter of which is highly subject to human interpretation, and where conflict exists, the plain reading of the text must take precedence (Ham, 2013, p.45-55). Proponents of this view refer to a genealogical approach to Genesis 5

它把一代又一代的年数逐一相加，由此得出宇宙大约六千岁的结论；可参见弗洛伊德·诺伦·琼斯（Floyd Nolen Jones）的《旧约年代学》（The Chronology of the Old Testament）。这种观点可以归类为"拒斥派"，因为它拒绝了普遍接受的科学。

which adds up the years from one generation to another, thereby concluding the universe is approximately six thousand years old; see Floyd Nolen Jones’s The Chronology of the Old Testament. One can categorise this perspective as rejectionist, on account of its rejecting popularly accepted science.

第三种方法近来由休·罗斯博士等人推广，即一种“大胆的协调主义”字面主义路径，旨在确定大爆炸等科学现象在经文中是如何被述及的。因此，这种方法本质上是一种字面主义的古老地球创造论，但其关键之处在于，它止步于人类进化这一点（Ross et al., 2001, p.11）。

A third approach, popularised recently by the likes of Dr. Hugh Ross, is a ‘bold concordist’ literalist approach which aims to establish how scientific phenomenon, like the Big Bang, is taught in scripture. Accordingly, such an approach is essentially a literalist Old Age creationist approach but one which crucially stops at the point of human evolution (Ross et al., 2001, p.11).

正如上文提到的奥利金和奥古斯丁等教父时期的学者一样，早期伊斯兰学者也时常明显地主张调和论，有的谨慎，有的大胆。

Much like scholars in the patristic period, like Origen and Augustine mentioned above, early Islamic scholars were also occasionally noticeably concordist, both modestly and boldly.

然而,主要信条学派的代表人物,例如伊本·泰米叶(哈奈白派)和安萨里(艾失尔派),会以字面方式解释涉及物质世界的经文(Qadhi and Khan, 2018)。哲学家(falasifa)的代表人物伊本·西纳(Ibn Sina)则与亚历山大的俄利根(Origen)相似(不过程度可能没那么明显),倾向于对那些似乎与当时宇宙论不相符的经文进行寓意解释,正如他在十重天体理论上所做的那样(Qadhi and Khan, 2018)。

Nevertheless, representatives of major creedal schools of thought, like Ibn Taymiyyah (for the Hanbalis) and AlGhazali (for the Asharis), would interpret verses which reference the physical world in a literal manner (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). The falasifa or ‘the philosophers’ most prominently represented by Ibn Sina (like Origen of Alexandria – though perhaps less flagrantly) would prefer allegorising verses which appeared to not correspond with the cosmologies of the day as he did with the theory of ten celestial spheres (Qadhi and Khan, 2018).

尽管伊本·西那（Ibn Sina）和哲学家（falasifa）的著作流传至今，但他们在经注方面的主张在很大程度上已被人们忽视，尤其是在安萨里（Al-Ghazali）的名著《哲学家的矛盾》（The Incoherence of the Philosophers）和伊本·泰米叶（Ibn Taymiyyah）的《驳希腊逻辑学家》（A Response to the Greek Logicians）发表严厉批判之后。在这些著作中，伊本·西那被宣布逐出伊斯兰教。尽管伊本·路世德（Averroes）在其《矛盾的矛盾》（The Incoherence of the Incoherence）中反驳了其中的一些观点，但逊尼派穆斯林世界似乎早已对此做出了定论。

Though Ibn Sina and the falasifa’s work has survived to the modern day, their exegetical preferences have become practically disregarded particularly after the scathing attacks of both Al-Ghazali in his famous work The Incoherence of the Philosophers and Ibn Taymiyyah following A Response to the Greek Logicians. In such works, Ibn Sina was ex-communicated from Islam and though Ibn Rushd (Averroes) refuted aspects of this in his The Incoherence of the Incoherence, the Sunni-Muslim world appeared to have already decided on the matter.

这一历史发展的最终结果是:对历史叙述或具有自然主义意义的经文进行寓意化解释,其适用范围仅限于涉及安拉“宝座”(Arsh)以及祂的名称与属性的教义层面问题。这一问题在艾什尔里派、罕百里派、马图里迪派、穆尔太齐赖派、十二伊玛目什叶派以及其他鲜为人知的学派之间都颇具争议。几乎所有这些教义学派的古兰经注释家都接受自然主义经文与“现实世界”之间的字面对应关系。其中最值得注意的包括:艾什尔里派的法赫鲁丁·拉齐、创信仰的罕百里派学者伊本·凯西尔、穆尔太齐赖派的左玛赫舍里,以及什叶派的艾布·贾法尔·图西等注释家。虽然这些注释家讨论了经文的象征意义,但几乎没有人愿意做到伊本·西纳或奥利金那样的事,即把经文简化为某种原因论(aetiology),剥离其字面价值。

The net result of this historical development was that allegorising historical narratives or verses of naturalistic significance were limited to creedal aspects of referencing Allah’s ‘throne’ (Arsh) and his names and attributes which is notably controversial among Ashari’s, Hanbalis, Maturidis, Mutazili’s, Shia Twelvers and other less well known schools. Quranic exegetes from virtually all of these creedal schools accept the literal correspondence of naturalistic verses with the ‘real world’. Perhaps most notably including exegetes of schools such as Fakhr al Deen al Razi (an Ashari), Ibn Kathir (creedal Hanbali), Al-Zamakhshari (A Mutazli) and Abu Jafar al Tusi (A Shia). Though such exegetes discussed the verses’ symbolic value, virtually none of them achieved what Ibn Sina or Origen were willing to do; namely reduce the verses to a form of aetiology, stripping it of its literal value.

鉴于哲学家（falasifa）的寓意释经在信条上已被排除，伊斯兰教中流行的、针对自然主义经文的释经路径可以很容易地分为三类：大胆的和谐论（bold concordism）、温和的和谐论（modest concordism）以及现代科学拒斥（modern science rejection）。与基督教学术与护教学的情况相似，这些类别并非固定不变：同一位学者或护教者在某一语境中可能是拒斥论者，而在另一语境中则未必如此。

With the creedal exclusion of the falasifa’s allegorical exegesis, popular Islamic exegetical approaches to naturalistic verses can be easily divided into three types: bold concordism, modest concordism and modern science rejection. As with Christian scholarship and apologetics, these categories are not fixed as a scholar or apologist may be rejectionist in one context and not in another.

扎基尔·奈克博士是英语世界中大胆的和谐主义字面主义取向最受欢迎的代表。在2017年的一项研究中，在YouTube上识别出同时包含"伊斯兰"和"科学"两个词的1006个在线视频，其中产出最多的演讲者是扎基尔·奈克（Gardner et al., 2018, p.358）。与休·罗斯博士一样，奈克表示《古兰经》教导大爆炸的发生，而且也与罗斯一样，奈克因人类进化与经文的字面意义相矛盾而不接受人类进化论（Gardner et al., 2018, p.385）。奈克的科学论点与莫里斯·布凯勒博士的几乎完全相同，后者撰写了一本名为《圣经、古兰经与科学》的论战性著作，有力地论证了圣经在宇宙学、地质学和诺亚洪水等问题上与科学不相符，而古兰经在这些问题上则与科学一致（Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, p.96-143; Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, 152-157）。这种新颖的传教/护教式伊斯兰取向（阿拉伯语称为"伊贾兹·伊尔米"取向）甚至促使沙特阿拉伯的萨拉菲派神职人员成立了一个关于《古兰经》和圣训科学奇迹的委员会（Dallal, 2010, p.171）。

Dr. Zakir Naik is the most popular representative of the Bold concordist literalist approach in the English-speaking world. In a 2017 study, 1006 online videos were identified with the terms ‘Islam’ and ‘science’ together on YouTube, and the speaker with the highest output was Zakir Naik (Gardner et al., 2018, p.358). Like Dr. Hugh Ross, Naik indicates that the Quran teaches that the Big Bang occurred, and also like Ross, Naik doesn’t accept human evolution because of its contradiction with the plain reading of the text (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385). Naik’s scientific arguments are almost identical to those of Dr. Maurice Bucaille who wrote a polemic book titled The Bible, Quran and Science effectively arguing that the Bible is incongruent to science on matters related to cosmology, geology and Noah’s flood whereas the Quran is in line with such matters (Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, p.96-143; Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, 152-157). This novel evangelising/apologetic Islamic approach (termed the Ijaaz Ilmi approach in Arabic) even prompted Salafist clergy members in Saudi Arabia to start a committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Quran and Sunnah (Dallal, 2010, p.171).

然而，这种方法因采用了“以意逆注”（主观附会）和伪科学而受到批评，尤其是在涉及达尔文主义与进化论的问题上（Gardner et al., 2018, p.385）。

However, this approach was criticised for employing eisegesis and pseudo-science, especially regarding issues relating to Darwinism and evolution (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385).

艾哈迈德·达拉勒在批评这一取向时指出：

Criticising this approach, Ahmed Dallal states:

当穆斯林是世界科学的主要生产者时,他们并不主张将科学与宗教结合在一起。讽刺的是,如今穆斯林在全球科学文化生产中的参与日益减少,他们却反而呼吁让两者相互结合(Dallal, 2010, p.170)。

When Muslims were the main producers of science in the world, they did not advocate wedding science and religion. Now, ironically, when Muslim participation in the production of the universal culture of science is dwindling, they call for bringing the two together (Dallal, 2010, p.170).

第二种拒斥主义的立场并不反对所有科学现象，只反对那些被认为与既有的注释传统或明确文本相悖的内容。人类进化论便是最好的例证，它被认为与《古兰经》的字面含义不相容（Qadhi and Khan, 2018）。遗憾的是，无论是新无神论者，还是试图回应他们的神学家，讨论中普遍缺少对科学哲学的实质性探讨。例如，在理论层面上，若区分方法论自然主义与形而上学自然主义，便可以认为，那些持有与人类进化论（或整个达尔文主义理论体系）相抵触观点的穆斯林和基督徒，所采取的是工具主义的立场，而非实在论的立场。由于工具主义并不要求人们相信科学理论的字面真理，穆斯林和基督徒便可以承认达尔文模型的有效性，甚至承认其内部可以取得的进展。

The second rejectionist approach does not oppose all scientific phenomena, only those deemed contrary to exegetical precedent or clear text. This is best exemplified by the theory of human evolution which is considered incompatible with literal Quranic meanings (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). Unfortunately, much of what has been missing from the discourse (from New Atheists and theologians who attempt to counter them) is a meaningful engagement with scientific philosophy. For example, theoretically, and when differentiating between methodological and metaphysical naturalisms, it may be suggested that Muslims and Christians who adopt views which may contradict human evolution (or the entire Darwinian enterprise) adopt an instrumental view rather than a realist view. Since instrumentalism does not necessitate believing the literal truth of scientific theory, Muslims and Christians can accept the validity of the Darwinian model (even allowing advances in it within their spaces)

无需相信智人（例如）从其他古人类演化而来。

without needing to believe in the evolution of homo-sapiens (for example) from other hominids.

因此,达尔文进化论可以作为一种有用的启发式工具,就像伦敦地铁图一样;尽管非常实用,却并不严格按比例绘制。由此,科学进步所受的阻碍便可得到缓解。在此需要作两点说明。第一,如果采取这一方法,那么一些人(例如罗斯和奈克)所声称的《古兰经》或《圣经》明确教导了大爆炸理论的说法,至少必须软化为温和的契合论立场。

Accordingly, Darwinian evolution can act as a useful heuristic, like a London Underground map; though highly useful is not properly to scale. Consequently, inhibitions to scientific progress can be mitigated. Two caveats must be made here. Firstly, if this approach is adopted, claims (made by Ross and Naik for example) that the Big Bang theory is explicitly taught by the Quran or Bible must be softened at least to a modest concordist position.

其次，若从工具论的角度主张"宇宙年龄为一百四十亿年"是一种"模型"，恐怕难以成立，因为这是一个关于历史的断言，而不是一个模型。

Secondly, it may be difficult to argue (on instrumental grounds) that the age of the universe being fourteen billion years is a ‘model’, as it is a historical claim rather than a model.