Theology, Jurisprudence and Science | 神學、法學和科學的理路

People tend to assume that theologians must all have faith. Not necessarily. Theologians are the father of jurists, and grandfather of scientists. They all formulate hypotheses, and prove — from existing evidence — an all-encompassing theoretical framework that is logically coherent.

一般人認為神學家必須有宗教信仰，其實不一定。神學家是法學家的父親，科學家的祖父。三者都是要製造假說，證明現存材料的背後存在邏輯一致的大統一基本理論。

If one manages to use Plato’s theory, or any other tools, to prove the fundamental coherence of all things Christian, s/he is a qualified Christian theologian. If one attempts to prove the inherent coherence of all custom, and comes up with a logically consistent theory, s/he is a jurist — although her / his jurisprudence is not a law in itself, and there is no guarantee that a jurist would not break any law. If one seeks to prove the inherent causality or correlation amongst all planets or diseases, s/he is an astrologist or biologist.

如果你用柏拉圖的理論或者任何工具，證明基督教的所有材料存在本質的一致性，你就是合格的基督教神學家。如果你企圖證明所有習慣法存在內在的一致性，而且能夠發明出一套自圓其說的理論，那你就是一個法學家，但你的法學理論並不是法律本身，也並不保證法學家自己不會犯法。如果你企圖證明所有星球或所有疾病存在內在的關係，而且也發明了一套振振有詞的理論，你就是天文學家或生物學家。

History develops from theology to jurisprudence, and from jurisprudence to science. The most difficult part, rather than proving or falsifying the validity of any specific fact, is how one justifies the inherent coherence from a large body of seemingly contradictory evidence. Most people would think that the world is in a natural state of chaos, and there is no all-encompassing law. Apparently, the existence of law in itself is a matter of faith…

歷史發展的順序是從神學到法學，從法學到科學。最困難的步驟不是具體內容的證實或証偽，而是你如何確定看似矛盾的各種材料為什麼一定存在本質的一致性？大多數原始人都認為世界本來就是混亂的，根本沒有什麼統一規律。顯然，規律的存在本身就是信仰問題⋯⋯

Theology, jurisprudence and science can all by their nature be viewed as faith, yet, technically speaking, it is not inconcievable that the practitioners — theologians, jurists and scientists — do not necessarily have faith or can shelve their faith in the theories they have invented. This is not dissimilar to lawyers who, when defending criminals, use the same set of evidence with the prosecutors but under a different explanatory framework, so as to make the lay jury unable to judge which explanation is more convincing — what Max Weber refers to as Wertuteilsfreiheit (value-freedom, freedom from value judgement, or ethical neutrality).

神學、法學和科學從性質上講都是信仰，但神學家、法學家和科學家從技術上講完全可能對自己發明的理論毫無信仰或擱置信仰。這種情況就像律師明知被告有罪，仍然可以根據檢察官掌握的同樣證據，發明一套不同於檢察官的解釋體系，使外行陪審員無法判斷，兩種解釋孰優孰劣。韋伯所謂價值中立，就是這個。

4-19 medium.com/@LiuZhongjing