教授与学生

Posted: 23rd March 2011 by anti_christendom in 基督教之“反科学”/“反理智”

上半段(由基版FAQhttp://julian_yeung.tripod.com/B03/B03a.htm 翻译)


“就让我解释一下,信耶稣在科学上有什么问题。”一个无神论的哲学教授上课时说。他顿了一顿,叫了一个新生站起来,问:“孩子,你是基督徒吧,是不是?”

“是,先生。”

“那么你是信上帝了?”

“绝对是。”

“上帝是不是善的?”

“当然!上帝是善的。”

“对了。”

“那么你是善还是恶?”

“圣经说我是恶的。”

教授露齿而笑:“啊,圣经!”他想了一回,说:“给你一个问题。如果这里有个病了的人,你有能力医治他,你会医治他吗?起码试一试?”

“我会的,先生。”

“那么你便是善的了……”

“我可不会这样说。”

“为什么不会呢?当你有能力,你会去帮助生病和残废的人……事实上当我们有能力,我们大部份人都会这样做……但上帝不会。”

没有回应。

“祂没有这样做呀,祂有吗?我的兄弟是基督徒,他患了癌症,恳求耶稣医治,可是结果他死了。耶稣怎会是善的?唔? 你能答我吗?”

没有回应。

老人表示同情,“不,你不能回答,是吗?”他拿起书桌上的杯子,喝了一口水,好让那学生有时间喘一口气。教哲学时,得对初学者宽容一点。“年轻人,我们再开始过吧。”

“呃……是。”

“撒旦是不是善的?”

“不是。”

“撒旦从那里来?”

那学生支吾地说:“从……上帝那儿……”

“对了,上帝造了撒旦,是不是?”老人用瘦骨嶙峋的手梳梳稀薄的头发,对嘻嘻笑着的学生听众说:“各位,我想这个学期将会十分有趣。”他回过头来,对那个基督徒学生说:“孩子,告诉我,这个世界是否有恶存在?”

“是的,先生。”

“哪里都充满了恶,是不是?上帝是不是创造所有东西?”

“谁创造了恶?”

没有回应。

“世上有疾病,是不是?不道德呢?仇恨呢?丑陋呢?所有使人苦恼的事──存在于这个世界吗?”

那学生显得坐立不安,勉强答道:“是的。”

“谁创造它们?”

没有回答。

教授忽然提高声调说:“是谁创造它们的?请告诉我!”教授把脸凑到那基督徒学生面前。

一把轻而平稳的声音说:“孩子,上帝创造了所有的恶,是不是?”

没有回应。那学生尝试坚定地直视教授,但失败了。教授突然走开,在班前踱来踱去,活像一只老黑豹。全班都被迷住。“告诉我,”他说,“这个上帝不断地创造一切的恶,衪怎会是善的?”教授挥舞著双臂以包括著世上所有的邪恶。“这个善的上帝所造的仇恨、残酷、痛苦、折磨、死亡和丑陋,以及所有苦难充斥着这个世界,是吗,年轻人?”

没有回应。

“你看不见这一切都在吗?唔?”

教授走上前,对那学生轻声说﹕“上帝是善吗?”

没有回应。

“孩子,你信耶稣吗?”

那学生颤抖的声音出卖了他:“教授,我信。”

老人惋惜地摇摇头。“科学说你有五官去确认和观察你周遭的世界。你有看见过耶稣吗?”

“先生,我没有。我从来没看见过他。”

“那告诉我们,你有听见过耶稣吗?”

“我没有,先生。”

“你有否触摸过你的耶稣、尝到你的耶稣、或是嗅到你的耶稣……
实际上,你对上帝有没有任何感官认知(译按:请注意,教授没有说这个认知是直接还是间接、透过仪器等等的)?”

没有回应。

“请回答我。”

“没有的,先生。我恐怕没有。”

“你恐怕……你没有?”

“没有,先生。”

“你还信祂?”

“……是……”

“那真需要信心呀!”教授向学生微笑:“根据实证、可测试和可证实的定律,科学说你的上帝不存在。孩子,你以为怎样?你的上帝在哪里?”

那学生答不上来。

“请坐下。”

那位基督徒坐下来……被击败了。

另一个基督徒举手说:“教授,我可以发言吗?”

教授微笑着说:“啊,另一个基督徒先锋!来,来,年轻人,给大家说些恰当的见识。”

那基督徒环视房中四周,“先生,你正在提出一些有趣的论点。现在我有一个问题想问你。有一样东西叫热吗?”

“有,”教授答,“世上有热。”

“有一样东西叫冷吗?”

“有的,孩子,世上亦有冷。”

“没有的,先生,世上没有冷。”

教授的笑容凝结起来。班房突然变得很冷。第二个基督徒继续说:“你有很多种热,很热、超热、巨热、白热、少少热或是没有热,但我们没有一样东西叫‘冷”’。我们有零下458度(译按:华氏),这是没有热,但就不可以再降低些。没有一样东西是叫冷的,不然我们会有冷过零下458度的温度──先生,你看,冷只是一个用来形容欠缺热的字。我们不能量度冷。因为热是能量,热可用热量单位来量度。冷不是热的相反,先生,这只是热的欠缺。”

……一片死寂。

教授回应:“首先,我没有说过冷是热的相反。你暗示我有,硬说成是我说的。冷是热的相对量度方式,特别是低过零度时。所有零下的温度都可以用冷的定义来形容。如我所说,冷不是热的相反,仅是一个对热、涉及它在绝对零度的相对状态的描述。再者,我能引申你论点的前提,及将之应用在对体积的描述。没有一样东西叫收缩,因为小只是大的欠缺,或者体积增长的欠缺。宇宙中最小的粒子是在原子边缘的电子。所有收缩的东西都只能收缩到这个体积,不能再小,我们可以说收缩不存在吗?”

那基督徒困惑、迷乱起来。这个基督徒已准备放弃,不然他就会说出不知所谓的东西,在余下的学期成为别人的笑柄。

寂静掠过班房。一阵短暂的停顿后,听众开始骚动起来,靠在椅边跟邻座交换意见。

一张纸从那个基督徒的手中落下来。纸上是一份他预先准备好的问题清单;那些问题现在提出来就太荒谬了。由于那个基督徒差不多准备返回座位,他被要求留下来挑战教授。他只好不情愿地照做。

“教授,这个世上有没有一样东西叫黑暗?我知这现在是一条愚蠢问题。”

“孩子,这现在的确是一条愚蠢问题。如果没有黑暗的状态,夜晚是什么?你在指责什么……?上帝不是在你的圣经说‘让这里有黑暗’’吗?你在否认这个所谓上帝的举动吗?”

“那么你是说有一样东西叫黑暗了?”

“我会答‘是’──假如用你的说法、根据你的圣经;我会答‘否’──因为黑暗是一个状态而不是一件东西。”

“你又错了,先生。黑暗不是某种东西,而是欠缺某种东西。你能够有低光、正常光、强光、闪光,但如果你连续地没有光,你是什么都没有,而这叫黑暗,是不是?”

教授称:“笨蛋,这正是我所说的。我说黑暗不是一种东西,就像饥饿、细小、富有、贫穷、黑暗、光明都不是一种东西。黑暗可以是某东西相对存在的状态。”

“这是我们用来为字词定义的意思。在真实情况下,黑暗不是一样东西。如果它存在,你就可以造些较暗的黑暗及给我一瓶黑暗。教授,你可否……给我一瓶较暗的黑暗?”

“当然,只有像你的笨蛋才会问一条问题误导别人去表示黑暗是一样东西。你可否给我一瓶‘细小’、‘饥饿’。你的上帝自称全能又可否如此?”

尽管占了上风,教授还是对他眼前厚颜的年青人微笑。“这将会是一个很好的学期。年轻人,你介意告诉我们多些你的想法吗?”

“好的,教授。我的意思是,你的哲学前提一开始就错了,所以你的结论必定有错……”

教授生气起来:“错了……?你好大胆……”

“先生,我可以解释一下我的意思吗”

全班都竖起耳朵。

“解释……噢,解释吧……”教授帮那基督徒从刚才给教授智慧的表现镇慑的不稳状态恢复过来。

一如平常,他是如此和蔼可亲的。他挥动双手安静全班,让那学生继续说。

“你正在二元论方法的前提上下工夫,”那基督徒解释道,“例如有生存有死亡,有好神有坏神。你将上帝的概念看成有限的、我们可量度的东西。先生,科学连思想都解释不了。它用到电力和磁力,但这些都不曾被看见,对它们离完全了解还差得远。将死亡视作生存的相反,是忽视死亡不是一种实在的东西的事实。死亡不是生存的相反,仅是生存的欠缺。”

“我有说过生存是死亡的相反吗?我有说过用二元论方法来看待事物吗?没有一个状态是相反的。就像婴儿不是老人的相反、或健康的新生女婴不是患癌的老婆婆的相反。所有东西的状态只存在于一条连续统一体的线上。人类是四脚动物和植物的延续。这是进化,着眼于生长的科学。你从未见过人家写圣经,我们可不可说圣经是外太空生物写成的?”

那年轻人从书桌拿起一份邻座在看的报纸。 “教授,这是这个国家其中一家最下流的小报。是不是有样东西叫不道德?”

“当然不是,经验和事实的好坏只在于我们为它赋与的意义。没有东西是不道德的,就如没有东西是道德的。”

“先生,你又错了。你看,不道德仅是道德的欠缺。有没有一样东西叫不公义?没有。不公义是公义的欠缺。有没有一样东西叫恶?”那基督徒顿了一顿。“恶是否善的欠缺?”

“不是,不道德不是道德的欠缺。不道德是持有此看法的人眼中的道德。就是如此。”

那基督徒继续说:“教授,如果世上有恶,而我们都认同,那么上帝──如果存在──必定是透过一个有恶的机制在工作。那是什么工作呢?圣经告诉我们,这工作是看看我们每个人自由意志的意愿,是选择善还是恶。”

“邪恶与正义是一个零和游戏,原则上互相抵销对方。一个人的举动可以被同时考虑成邪恶和正义。它们同时存在,并非互相排斥。为什么你觉得即使上帝存在,祂也是在工作的?这只是你的假设,认为上帝不会袖手旁观。如果邪恶是那个机制,那它的目的是去减弱那所谓正义,因为这同样是一个零和游戏。”

教授面露愠色:“作为一个哲学科学家,我不会将这个情况视为可在任何选择上做任何事;作为一个实在论者,我绝对不承认上帝这概念或其他神学因素等可作为对世事解释之一部份,因为上帝是不可被观察的。”

那基督徒回应:“我觉得在世上,上帝道德准则的欠缺(译按:学生的意思是指不道德)大概是最能被观察的现象。”

“什么东西令你觉得,只因道德准则不是出自圣经这个世界就没有道德准则?”

“每周对它的报道为报纸赚来以亿计的金钱啊!”

“那么报纸对基督徒暴力举动的报道呢?我们经常读到类似的新闻。那些人给上帝的意愿控制了思想。”

“教授,告诉我,你会告诉学生他们是从猴子进化出来吗?”

“如果你是说自然进化过程,年轻人,我当然会。”

“先生,你有亲眼观察过进化吗?”

教授冷冷地瞪着他的学生。

“教授,由于连观察过进化的人都没有,连证明这个过程是在进行都不能,先生,你这岂不是在教授你的意见而已?抑或说你此刻不是科学家,而是传教士?”

教授不满地说:“你能证明你的胃已经吸收了你今天的早餐吗?五十年前的早餐又怎样?你能用肉眼证明地球是圆的而不需任何科学仪器?如果你目睹有人枪击一个受害者,由于子弹进入受害人的身体后就永远不能被你看见,你能证明那受害人真的被子弹所杀吗?如果你在法庭作证,指你目睹甲向乙开枪,你不只在提供意见。再者,子弹被枪管射出飞过空中,快得你永远看不见。如果我们连自己的观察都不能相信,你和你的上帝的精神连系还有啥值得相信。在哲学讨论中,我就即管不理你的无礼行为。现在你说完没有?”

“那么你不接受上帝的道德准则去衡量什么是正义?”

“如果任何人相信任何一套道德准则,他只会很易受影响去相信任何其他的道德准则──我选择科学!”

“啊,科学!”那学生露出鄙夷的笑容。“先生,你正确地指出科学是观察现象的学问。科学的前提同样有错……”

教授急促地说:“科学没有错,只是你现在对科学的理解有错。科学在人类在世上漫步前早已存在。所有的答案已在,它们只是在等待被发现。”

教授的洞察令全班骚动起来。那基督徒一直站着,直至骚动平息下来。

“为了引申你先前向另一位同学提出的论点,我可否给你一个例子来解释我的意思?”

教授明智地保持沉默。

那基督徒环视房中四周。“班上有没有人看见过教授的脑袋?”

全班爆发出巨大的笑声。

那基督徒指向他年老、渐渐垮掉的导师。

“这里有没有人听见过教授的脑袋……触摸过教授的脑袋、尝过或嗅过教授的脑袋?”

看来没有人试过。那基督徒惋惜地摇摇头。“看来没有人对教授的脑袋有任何感官认知。那么, 根据实证、可测试和可证实的定律,科学说教授没有脑袋。”

教授回应道:“让我纠正你的错误。就说一个盲人永远看不见你这实体,你能说你从未存在过吗?这个世界能被看见,但又能被一些糖衣包装、由一些不诚实、无原则的政客或宗教领袖放出的偏见所蒙蔽。”

班上一片混乱,为教授欢呼狂喜。

那基督徒惭愧地坐下……因为这正是他原本应有的状态。

下半段 (由网友 kcbbq 翻译)

学生的古怪言论引起了教授的兴趣。教授于是问他有没有阅读过任何关于科学的东西。

“没有啊,”
学生说。“我所知道的都从教会听回来。”

“孩子,那正好解释你对科学的无知。”教授说。“对一种东西的经验知识不一定来自直接观察。我们可以观察那东西引起的效果而知道它一定存在。电子从来未被观察,但它们能产生一道能被观察的痕迹,所以我们知道它们存在。”

“哦,”基督徒说。

“没有人观察过我的心脏,但我们能听到它跳动。我们也可从别人的经验知识得知,没有人可以没有心脏(真的还是人造的)而生存,最少在没有连接到一些医疗设备的情况下。所以我们知道我有心脏,就算我们未见过它。”

“哦。这很合理,”基督徒学生说。

“同样地,我们可以知道我有个脑袋。如果我没有的话,我就不能说话、走路等等了,不是吗?”教授说。

“大概不能了。”

“事实上,如果我没有脑袋的话,我就不能做任何事了。或许,除了成为一位电视传道家吧。”全场大笑,就连那位基督徒也笑了。

“进化论已被知道是真的,是因为証据。”
教授继续说。“它是对化石纪录最好的解释。就连有名的创造论家也承认,由爬虫类到哺乳类动物的演变,在化石纪录中有良好的证据。一个创造论家的辩论小组,包括Michael Behe和Philip Johnson等,在一埸电视转播的辩论中正承认这点。那是在Buckley的”Firing Line”节目中。你有收看吗?”

那位基督徒学生清清嗓子,然后低声说:“我的母亲不准许我收看教育电视节目。她认为那会削弱我的信心。”

教授摇头叹息。“知识确是削弱信仰的途径呢,”他说。“但无论如何,进化论是对已被观察的现象的最好解释。”

基督徒急忙问:“你-你指我们见过它?”

“当然了。进化就在最近发生过,而且还继续发生。并非在夏威夷土生土长的鸟和昆虫在数世纪前被送到该地。他们都已进化成能够适应当地的植物。所以,进化在有纪录的历史,而且是近代的历史中发生过。你知道吗?”

“病毒和疾病也进化成有抗药性。这不仅能被观察,更是科学家每日需要对抗的主要问题之一。伦敦地下铁路隧道里的蚊字因为与其他蚊子群隔绝而进化成另一个种类。但是,进化论谈够了。那和我们的论题-恶-没有关系,对吗?”

“嗯……”

“它和我们的论题有什么关系呢?”

“如果你不信上帝的话,你一定是相信我们从猿猴而来。”

教授笑着说:“进化论者并不相信人是由猿或猴而来。他们相信的是人和猿有共同祖先。”

“哇!”基督徒说。“教会不是这样告诉的。”

“我能肯定。他们不能反驳进化论,所以才散布关于进化论的谎言。但你不知道很多基督徒也相信上帝透过进化来创造人吗?”

“我不知道。”

“事实上,在我刚才提到的辩论会中,四位讲员中的两位都是有神论者。其中一位更是教士呢。”

“真的吗?”

“真的。很多基督教教派都接受进化论。天主教作为基督教最大的教派,也和进化论相容。所以进化论在这里不相干,对吗?”

“没错。”

“就算只有无神论才能相信进化论,而这不是真的,甚至就算没有証据支持进化论,而这也不是真的,这也不能解释恶,对吗?那是没有关系的。”

“我明白了,”基督徒说。“我也不知道为什么我会提出这论点。我想我以为那是没有証据而相信的例子。”

“嗯,”
教授说。“如你所见,并不是如此。进化论有很多支持的証据,就算它真的没有証据,这也和恶的论题无关。当我们继续哲学课时,你就会明白如何运用你的理解能力去把重要的和无关的问题分开。”

“我想我已在学习呢,”学生凝视着地上说。

“让我们回到恶的问题,”教授说。“你说恶是善的欠缺。那如何解决恶的问题呢?”

学生没趣地答:“如果恶是善的欠缺,那么上帝就没有创造恶。”很明显,这是他死记硬背,经常重复的答案。

教授耸耸肩膀说:“好了,现在就假设这是真的。但这仍然没有解释恶。如果一次海啸把一个城镇夷为平地,夺去十万人的性命,那是恶吗?”

“那是善的欠缺,”学生说。

“那就如何?问题是为什么上帝不阻止这场灾难。如果上帝是全能的,衪可以阻止它。如果上帝是全知的,衪也会知道它何时发生。所以他是否创造了那次海啸并不重要。我们要知道的是衪为什么不做任何事去阻止它。”

学生显得很困惑:“但衪为什么要阻止它?这不是衪的错呢。”

“如果一个人有能力去阻止海啸把城镇夷为平地,并这个人故意没有去阻止它,我们不会说这个人是善的。就算那人说,‘那不是我的错,’我们也会因为一个人在上千人要死去时见死不救而吃惊。所以,如果上帝能阻止天灾而没有做的话,我们按此推理就不应说上帝是善的。事实上,我们大概会说上帝是恶的。”

基督徒学生想了一会,说:“我想我需要认同。”

“所以把恶重新定义为善的欠缺,完全没有解决恶的问题,”教授说。“极其量,那只显示了上帝没有创造它,但没有解释为什么上帝没有阻止它。”

基督徒学生向教授摆动着手指说:“但这是根据我们人的标准。如果上帝有更高的道德观呢?我们不能用我们的标准判断他。”

教授笑了。“那么你的论辩就失败了。如果你承认上帝不符答我们对善的标准,我们就不应称他为善。论辩完毕。”

“我不明白啊,”学生皱着眉说。

“如果我在外面看到一辆有四个轮胎,一个金属车身,一个驾驶盘,一个马达等的车辆,而它符合汽车的定义的话,它是一辆汽车吗?”

“当然是了。”基督徒学生说。“汽车就是这样的。”

“但如果有人说,按照另一些定义,它能算是一辆飞机。那是否意味着它不是一辆汽车?”

“不,”学生说。“它仍然符合汽车的定义。那就是我们说它是汽车的意思。它不符合飞机的定义,所以我们不应那样称呼它。”

“正确。”教授说。“如果它符合那定义,它就是那东西。如果神上帝符合善的定义,衪就是善的。如果衪不符合的话,它就不是。如果你承认衪不符合我们对善的定义,衪就不是善的。说衪或许根据另一些定义是善的,毫无用处。如果我们想知道根据我们的定义,衪是否善的话,你已答了那问题。上帝不是善的。”

“我不能相信!”基督徒学生说。“换成数分钟前,我或许已经在取笑神不是善的说法。现在我却同意。上帝不符合善的定义,所以衪不是善的。”

“慢著,”学生说。“就算我们不称衪为善,根据另一些标准,上帝仍可以是善的。任凭我们如何想,上帝仍然可以根据衪自己的道德观说衪是善的。就算我们不能称衪为善,那不代表他在另一些标准中也不是善的。无论如何,衪可以有自己的一套定义呢。”

“唉呀,你不会想推进上帝可能在另一些标准中为善的看法的。”教授说。

“有何不可?”

“如果衪对事物的定义和我们的截然不同,衪也可能对其他的事物有着和我们不同的看法。衪可能对永赏、永生等都有自己的一套看法。你在天堂的永生可能只有一年,也可能是一千年的折磨。上帝可以说,衪有自己一套包括痛苦折磨的定义。”

“对啊!”基督说跳起来睁着眼说。“如果上帝可以重新定义任何词语的话,任何事情也可以发生。上帝可以把所有信徒都送进我们称为地狱的地方,然后说那里是天堂。衪可以给我们在天堂十天,然后说那是衪对永恒的定义!”

“现在你总算在思考了!”教授指著学生说。“这正是哲学课要为学生带来的。”

基督徒学生继续说:“上帝也可以答应给我们永生然后不给我们,说那是衪对遵守承诺的定义!”

“是的,是的,”教授说。

“我真不敢相信我曾经迷上基督教这东西。它是那么的不堪一击,”
学生摇头说。“只要想一阵子,教会在主日学中教我的所有论据全都崩溃了。”

“看来就是了”教授说。

“我今晚就要去我的教会,把我的想法告诉牧师。他们从没有把如此重要的事告诉我。而且他们肯定没有告诉我关于进化论的真相呢!”

那位学生,站起来的时候还是一位基督徒,现在坐下来时已变成一位无宗教信仰者。他还开始运用他的脑袋-因为这正是脑袋的作用。其他学生看到他坐在那里,都目瞪口呆好一阵子。他们知道,他们都见证了一个人生命的转变,就是一位年青人的心智从谎言和教条转向对真相朴实的追求。

学生你看看我,我看看你,然后开始鼓掌。这再变成了欢呼喝彩。教授也大笑着,满意地向学生鞠躬。当学生都安静下来后,教授继续讲课。从此,哲学课上每天坐无虚席,直到学期的结束。

 

附录1) 教授与学生的英文原版本 (转载自 http://www.myttf.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=31&replyID=1322832&ID=95844 )

Doug Kreuger has expanded the well-known Christian legend of the atheist
philosophy professor who is unable to prove that he has a brain.

“LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ.” The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new
students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So you believe in God?”

“Absolutely.”

“Is God good?”

“Sure! God’s good.”

“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”

“Yes.”

“Are you good or evil?”

“The Bible says I’m evil.”

The professor grins knowingly. “Ahh! THE BIBLE!” He considers for a moment.

“Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here, and you can
cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?”

“Yes sir, I would.”

“So you’re good…!”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could…in
fact most of us would if we could… God doesn’t.”

No answer.

“He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even
though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?”

No answer.

The elderly man is sympathetic. “No, you can’t, can you?” He takes a sip of
water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In
philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. “Let’s start again, young
fella. Is God good?”

“Er… Yes.”

“Is Satan good?”

“No.”

“Where does Satan come from?”

The student falters. “From…God…”

“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he?” The elderly man runs his bony
fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student
audience. “I think we’re going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies
and gentlemen.” He turns back to the Christian. “Tell me, son. Is there evil
in this world?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? Did God make everything?”

“Yes.”

“Who created evil?”

No answer.

“Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the
terrible things – do they exist in this world?”

The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

“Who created them?”

No answer.

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. “WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME,
PLEASE!” The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian’s
face. In a still small voice: “God created all evil, didn’t He, son?” No
answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an
aging panther. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues, “How is it
that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?” The
professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world.
“All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death
and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the
world, isn’t it, young man?”

No answer.

“Don’t you see it all over the place? Huh?” Pause. “Don’t you?” The
professor leans into the student’s face again and whispers, “Is God good?”

No answer.

“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor. I do.”

The old man shakes his head sadly. “Science says you have five senses you
use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your
Jesus?”

“No, sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

“No, sir. I have not.”

“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus… In
fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?”

No answer.

“Answer me, please.”

“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

“You’re AFRAID… you haven’t?”

“No, sir.”

“Yet you still believe in him?”

“…yes…”

“That takes FAITH!” The professor smiles sagely at the underling. “According
to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says
your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?”

The student doesn’t answer.

“Sit down, please.”

The Christian sits…Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. “Professor, may I address the class?”

The professor turns and smiles. “Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come,

come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering.”

The Christian looks around the room. “Some interesting points you are
making, sir. Now I’ve got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?”

‘Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

“Is there such a thing as cold?”

“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

“No, sir, there isn’t.”

The professor’s grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat,
super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t
have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no
heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as
cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 – You see, sir, cold
is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is
not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”Silence.

A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. “Is there such a thing as darkness,
professor?”

“That’s a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn’t darkness? What are
you getting at…?”

“So you say there is such a thing as darkness?”

“Yes…”

“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing
light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it’s
called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In
reality, Darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness
darker and give me a jar of it. Can you…give me a jar of darker darkness,
professor?”

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.

This will indeed be a good semester. “Would you mind telling us what your
point is, young man?”

“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start
with and so your conclusion must be in error….”

The professor goes toxic. “Flawed…? How dare you…!”

“Sir, may I explain what I mean?” The class is all ears.

“Explain… oh, explain…” The professor makes an admirable effort to
regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to
silence the class, for the student to continue.

“You are working on the premise of duality,” the Christian explains. “That
for example there is life and then here’s death; a good God and a bad God.
You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can
measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and
magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death
as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot
exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the
absence of it.” The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of
a neighbor who has been reading it. “Here is one of the most disgusting
tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?”

“Of course there is, now look…”

“Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is
there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is
there such a thing as evil?” The Christian pauses. “Isn’t evil the absence
of good?”

The professor’s face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is
temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. “If there is evil in the world, professor, and we
all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work
through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The
Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will,
choose good over evil.”

The professor bridles. “As a philosophical scientist, I don’t view this
matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely
do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being
part of the world equation because God is not observable.”

“I would have thought that the absence of God’s moral code in this world is
probably one of the most observable phenomena going,” the Christian replies.
“Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me,
professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,
of course I do.”

“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a
silent, stony stare. “Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process
of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a
scientist, but a priest?”

“I’ll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion.
Now, have you quite finished?” the professor hisses.

“So you don’t accept God’s moral code to do what is righteous?”

“I believe in what is – that’s science!”

“Ahh! SCIENCE!” the student’s face spits into a grin. “Sir, you rightly
state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a
premise which is flawed…”

“SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?” the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion
has subsided. “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other
student, may I give you an example of what I mean?”

The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has
ever seen the professor’s brain?”

The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone
here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain,
touched or smelt the professor’s brain?”

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any
sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to
the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the
professor has no brain.”

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits… Because that is what a chair is
for.

The professor, amused at the student’s antics, asks the student whether he’s
ever read anything about science.

“No,” says the student. “I only know what I’ve heard in church.”

“That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man,” says the
professor. “Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct
observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must
exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable
trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist.”

“Oh,” said the Christian.

“No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from
empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or
manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical
equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it.”

“Oh, I see. That makes sense,” said the Christian student.

“Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn’t be able to talk,
walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?” said the professor.

“I guess not.”

“In fact, if I had no brain I couldn’t do anything at all. Except maybe
become a televangelist!”

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

“Evolution is known to be true because of evidence,” continued the
professor. “It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent
creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well
documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including
Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS.
It was on Buckley’s “Firing Line” show. Did you see it?”

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, “My mom
won’t let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith.”

The professor shook his head sadly. “Knowledge does have a way of doing
that,” he said. “But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for
phenomena that have been observed.”

The Christian student sputters, “You–you mean we HAVE seen it?”

“Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to
occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple
of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different
flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent
history. Did you know that?”

“Uh, no.”

“Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not
only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every
day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London’s underground have evolved to become
separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos.
But enough about evolution. That doesn’t have anything to do with our issue,
evil, does it?”

“Well…”

“What does it have to do with our issue?” asked the professor.

“Well, if you don’t believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes.”

The professor laughed. “Evolutionists don’t believe that people came from
apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor.”

“Wow!” said the Christian. “That’s not what they told me at church.”

“I’m sure. They can’t refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation
about it. But don’t you know that many Christians believe that god made
humans by evolution?”

“I didn’t know that.”

“In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on
William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line,’ which I just mentioned, two of them were
theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact.”

“Really?”

“Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism,
the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So
evolution is not relevant here, is it?”

“I guess not.”

“Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution,
which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was
unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain
evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant.”

“I see that now,” said the Christian. “I don’t even know why I brought it
up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without
evidence.”

“Well,” said the professor. “As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of
evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no
bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course,
you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues
from irrelevant ones.”

“I’m guess learning already,” said the student, looking at the floor.

“But back to the problem of evil,” said the professor. “You stated that evil
is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?”

The student said lifelessly: “If evil is the absence of good, then god did
not create evil.” It was evident that this was something the student had
learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. “Okay, let’s suppose for the moment
that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes
out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?”

“There is the absence of good,” said the student.

“But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is
all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is
about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What
we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it.”

The student looked confused. “But why should he prevent it? It’s not his fault.”

“If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town,
and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the
person is good. Even if the person said, ‘It’s not my fault,’ we would be
appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if
god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should
not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably
say that god is evil.”

The Christian student thought for a moment. “I guess I’d have to agree.”

“So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem
of evil,” said the professor. “At best it shows that god did not create it,
but this does not explain why god does not prevent it.”

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. “But that’s according
to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can’t judge
him by our standards.”

The professor laughed. “Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god
does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case
closed.”

“I don’t understand,” said the student, wrinkling his brow.

“If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering
wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?”
“Of course it is,” said the Christian student. “That’s what a car is.”

“But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be
considered an airplane. Does that mean it’s not a car?”

“No,” said the student. “It still fits the definition of a car. That’s what
we mean by saying that it’s a car. It doesn’t fit the definition of an
airplane, so we shouldn’t call it that.”

“Exactly,” said the professor. “If it fits the definition, then that’s what
it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not,
then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good,
then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be ‘good’ in some
other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition,
you have answered that question. God is not good.”

“I don’t believe it!” said the Christian student. “A few minutes ago I would
have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually
agree. God doesn’t fit the definition of good, so he’s not good.”

“There you go,” said the professor.

“But wait a minute,” said the student. “God could still be good in some
other definition even if we don’t call him good. Despite what we think, god
could still have his own morality that says he’s good. Even if we couldn’t
call him good, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t good on some definition. He
could have his own definition anyway.”

“Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some
other definition,” said the professor.

“Why not?” “Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically
different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of
other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal
reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be
a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he
has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the
definition.”

“That’s right!” said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. “If
god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers
to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in
heaven and say that that’s his definition of eternity!”

“Now you’re thinking!” said the professor, pointing a finger at the student.
“This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students.”

The Christian student continued. “God could promise us eternal life and then
not give it to us and say that’s his definition of keeping a promise!”

“Yes, yes,” said the professor.

“I can’t believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It’s so
indefensible,” said the student, shaking his head. “Just a few moment’s
thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just
collapse.”

“So it would seem,” said the professor.

“I’m going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my
mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure
didn’t tell me the truth about evolution!”

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he
started using his brain–because that’s what it’s for. The other students in
the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had
witnessed the changing of a person’s life, the redirection of a young mind
from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave
way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students
calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the
rest of the semester.

附录2)﹕“教授与学生”(基督教原文版本)中译 (转载自 基版FAQhttp://julian_yeung.tripod.com/B03/B03a.htm)
“信耶稣不合科学。”一个哲学教授上课时说。他顿了一顿,叫了一个新生站起来,说:“某某同学,你是基督徒吗?”

“老师,我是。”

“那么你一定信上帝了?”

“当然。”

“那上帝是不是善的?”

“当然。上帝是善的。”

“是不是上帝是全能的?祂无所不能,对吗?”

“对。”

“你呢?你是善是恶?”

“圣经说我有罪。”

教授撇撇嘴笑:“哈,圣经。”顿了一顿,说:“如果班上有同学病了,你有能力医治他,你会医治他吗?起码试一试?”

“会。”

“那么你便是善的了...”

“我不敢这么说。”

“怎么不敢?你见别人有难,便去帮助...我们大部分人都会这样,只有上帝不帮忙。”

一片沉默。

“上帝不帮忙。对吗?我的弟弟是基督徒,他患了癌症,恳求耶稣医治,可是他死了。上帝是善的吗?你怎么解释?”

没有回答。

老教授同情他了,说:“你无法解释。对吧?” 他拿起桌子上的杯,喝一口水,让学生有机会喘一口气。这是欲擒先纵之计策。 “我们再重新来讨论。上帝是善的吗?”

“呃...,是。”

“魔鬼是善是恶?”

“是恶。”

“那怎么有魔鬼呢?”

学生不知道怎么回答。“是...是...上帝造的。”

“对,魔鬼是上帝造的。对吗?”老教授用瘦骨嶙峋的手梳梳稀薄的头发,对傻笑着的全体同学说: “各位同学,相信这学期的哲学课很有兴趣。” 回过头来,又对站着的那同学说: “世界可有恶的存在?”

“有。”

“世界充满了恶。对吧?是不是世上所有一切,都是上帝造的?”

“是。”

“那么恶是谁造的?”

没有回答。

“世界有不道德的事吗?有仇恨、丑陋等等一切的恶吗?”

该学生显得坐立不安,勉强回答:“有。”

“这些恶是怎么来的?”

没有答案。

忽然老教授提高声调说:“你说,是谁造的?你说啊!谁造的?”他把脸凑到该学生面前,用轻而稳定的声音说:“上帝造了这一切的恶。对吧?”

没有回答。

该学生尝试也直视教授,但终于垂下了眼皮。老教授忽然转过身来,在班前踱来踱去,活像一只老黑豹。同学们都进入被催眠状态。

这时老教授又开腔了:“上帝造这一切的恶,而这些恶又不止息的存在,请问:上帝怎可能是善的?”教授不断挥舞着他张开的双手,说:“世界上充满了仇恨、暴力、痛苦、死亡、困难、丑恶,这一切都是这位良善的上帝造的?对吧?”

没有回答。

“世上岂不是充满了灾难?”停了一下,他又把脸凑到该新生面前,低声说:“上帝是不是善的?”

没有答话。

“你信耶稣基督吗?”他再问。

该学生用颤抖的声音说:“老师,我信。”

老教授失望地摇了摇头,说:“根据科学,我们对周围事物的观察和了解,是用五官。请问这位同学,你见过耶稣没有?”

“没有。老师,我没见过。”

“那么,你听过祂的声音吗?”

“我没有听过祂的声音。”

“你摸过耶稣没有?可有尝过他?嗅过他?你有没有用五官来感觉过上帝?”

没有回答。

“请回答我的问题。”

“老师,我想没有。”

“你想没有吗?还是实在没有?”

“我没有用五官来接触过上帝。”

“可是你仍信上帝?”

“呃...是...”

老教授阴阴地笑了:“那真需要信心啊!科学上强调的,是求证,实验,和示范等方法,根据这些方法,你的上帝是不存在的。对不对?你以为怎样?你的上帝在哪里?”

学生答不上来。

“请坐下。”

该同学坐下,心中有说不出的沮丧。

这时,另一个同学举起手来,问:“老师,我可以发言吗?”

老教授笑说:“当然可以。”

学生说:“老师,世界上有没有热?”

教授答:“当然有。”

“那么,也有冷吗?”

“也有冷。”

“老师,您错了。冷是不存在的。”

老教授的脸僵住了。课室里的空气顿时凝结。

这位大胆的同学说:“热是一种能,可以量度。我们有很热、加热、超热、大热、白热、稍热、不热,却没有冷──当然,气温可以下降至零下四百五十八度,即一点热也没有,但这就到了极限,不能再降温下去。冷不是一种能量。如果是,我们就可以不断降温,直降到超出零下四百五十八度以下,可是我们不能。‘冷’只是用来形容无热状态的字眼。我们无法量‘冷’度,我们是用温度计。冷不是一种与热对立的存在的能,而是一种无热状态。”

课室内静得连一根针掉在地上也能听到。

“老师,”该学生竟又问:“世上有没有黑暗?”

“简直是胡混。如果没有黑暗,怎可能有黑夜?你想问什么...?”

“老师,您说世上有黑暗吗?”

“对...”

“老师,那么你又错啦!黑暗是不存在的,它只是无光状态。 光可分微光、亮光、强光、闪光,黑暗本身是不存在的,它只是用来描述无光状态 的字眼。如果有黑暗,你就可以增加黑暗,或者给我一瓶黑暗。老师,你能否给我一瓶黑暗?”

教授见这小子大言不惭,滔滔不绝,不觉笑了。这学期倒真有趣。“这位同学,你到底想说什么呀?”

学生说:“老师,我是说,你哲学的大前提,从一开始就错了,所以结论也错了。”

“错了...?好大的胆子!”老教授生气了。

“老师,请听我解释。”全体同学窃窃私语。

“解释...噫,...解释...”教授好不容易才控制住自己,待情绪渐渐平伏后,即使个手势,叫同学们安静。让该同学发言。

学生说:“老师,您刚才所说的,是二元论哩。就是说,有生,就必有死。 有一个好的神,也有一个恶的神。你讨论上帝时,所采用的,是一个受限制的观点。你把上帝看作一件物质般来量度,但是科学连一个‘思维’,也解释不了。科学用电力,又用磁力,可是却看不见电,看不见磁力,当然,对两者也不透彻了解。把死看作和生命对立,是对死的无知。死不是可以独立存在的。死亡不是生命的反面,而是失去了生命。”说著,他从邻坐同学的桌子内,取出一份小报来,说:“这是我们国内最下流的一份小报,是不是有不道德这回事呢?”

“当然有不道德...”

“老师,你又错了。不道德其实是缺德。是否有所谓‘不公平’呢?没有,‘不公平’只是失去了公平。是否有所谓‘恶’呢?”学生顿了一顿,又继续说:“恶岂不是 失去善的状态吗?” 老教授气得脸色通红,不能说话。

该学生又说: “老师,就是因为我们可以为善,也可以为不善,所以才有选择的自由呢。”

教授不屑一顾: “作为一个教授,我看重的是事实。上帝是无法观察的。”

“老师,你信进化论吗?”

“当然信。”

“那么你可曾亲眼观察过进化的过程?”

教授瞪瞪该位同学。

“老师,既然没有人观察过进化过程,同时也不能证实所有动物都还在进化之中,那么你们教进化论,不等于在宣传你们的主观信念吗?”

“你说完了没有?”老教授已不耐烦了。

“老师,你信上帝的道德律吗?”

“我只信科学。”

“呀,科学!”学生说。“老师,你说的不错,科学要求观察,不然就不信。但你知道这大前提本身就错误吗?”

“科学也会错吗。”

同学们全体哗然。

待大家安静下来后,该同学说:“老师,请恕我举一个例子。我们班上谁看过老师的脑子?”同学们个个大笑起来。

该同学又说:“我们谁听过老师的脑子,谁摸过、尝过,或闻过老师的脑子?”

没人有这种经验。

学生说:“那么我们能否说老师没...?”

全班哄堂大笑。

  1. […] 以下转载自教授与学生 […]

  2. […] 今天在FACEBOOK看到了以下分享,然后在REPLY的COMMENT上看到了这个《教授与学生》 […]

  3. Kang Kang says:

    上面这篇文章当中显露出了许多教授论点的缺陷
    并且在上面许多的论点中
    教授方面只是不断提出新论点
    并没有对于有疑问、待探讨的地方多做解释
    更有许多的事情是科学所无法解释的
    对于为了反对而提出一些无厘头论点的人
    我们需要作什么反应相信自在人心^^
    人类的语言本为有限
    上帝祂给每一个人生活中的体会不一样
    上帝是真实存在
    即使你再怎么去散播不当谣言
    即使你再怎么去中伤
    祂依然是存在
    即早悔改吧 共勉 !

  4. William Chan Wai Lam says:

    灾难那里不太同意
    灾难可以是善呢
    你又不是上帝
    你怎么知道这不是上帝的安排?
    灾难可以是给人的一种苦难
    如果人生平平无奇,没有困难
    那么他的灵性就得不到成长

    而且人类不可以质疑上帝的定义
    上帝的智慧比人类都高
    人类对圣经的解读还没全盘暸解
    你怎知道上帝的定义是错的?

    • RickyLO says:

      William Chan Wai Lam:
      你不要把从教会听回来的白痴言论在这里发表, 行不行:
      灾难那里不太同意
      灾难可以是善呢
      你又不是上帝
      你怎么知道这不是上帝的安排?
      灾难可以是给人的一种苦难
      如果人生平平无奇,没有困难
      如果上帝为了让你的灵性成长, 安排取去你儿女, 父母, 至亲的性命, 我倒想看你这耶胶是否要感谢上帝! 还有, 你死去的儿女还未成长, 如何增长灵性?

      上帝的智慧比人类都高吗? 我问你, 你在宣扬耶神的全能,全善时(虽然这个耶贼从来没有表现出这些属性), 你用的是什么标准? 你还不是用人类一些普世价值去量度!

  5. 偶然 says:

    6月1日定为国际儿童节
    为了悼念利迪策惨案和全世界所有在战争中死难的儿童,反对虐杀和毒害儿童,以及保障儿童权利,各国代表愤怒地揭露了帝国主义分子和各国反动派残杀、毒害儿童的罪行。为了保障世界各国儿童的生存权、保健权和受教育权,为了改善儿童的生活,会议决定以每年的6月1日为国际儿童节.

    为什么没有人揭露耶和华的耶经内无耻的记载着血腥杀戮婴儿,孩童的凶残,血腥,暴力悪行?

    何西阿书
    13:16 撒玛利亚必担当自己的罪、因为悖逆他的 神、他必倒在刀下、[婴孩]必被摔死、孕妇必被剖开.
    以赛亚书
    13:16 他们的[婴孩]、必在他们眼前摔碎.他们的房屋、必被抢夺.他们的妻子、必被玷污。
    列王记上
    14:12所以你起身回家去罢.你的脚一进城、你[儿子]就必死了。
    诗篇
    137 : 9 拿你的[婴孩]摔在磐石上的,那人便为有福
    利未记
    26:21你们行事若与我反对、不肯听从我、我就要按你们的罪加七倍、降灾与你们‧
    26:22我也要打发野地的走兽到你们中间,抢吃你们的[儿女],吞灭你们的牲畜,使你们的人数减少,道路荒凉‧
    出埃及记
    12:12因为那夜我要巡行埃及地、把埃及地一切头生的、无论是[人]是牲畜、都击杀了.又要败坏埃及一切的神、我是耶和华。
    12:29到了半夜、耶和华把埃及地所有的[长子]、就是从坐宝座的法老、直到被掳囚在监里之人的长子、以及一切头生的牲畜、尽都杀了。
    民数记
    31:17所以你们要把一切的男孩、和所有已嫁的女子、都杀了。
    申命记
    2:33耶和华我们的神将他交给我们,我们就把他和他的儿子,并他的众民,都击杀了‧
    2:34我们夺了他的一切城邑,将有人烟的各城,连女人带孩子,尽都毁灭,没有留下一个‧
    32:25 外头有刀剑、内室有惊恐、使人丧亡、使[少男、童女、吃奶]的、白发的、尽都灭绝。