By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜); June 19, 2013
Winston Churchill once said to his research assistant, “Give me the facts, Ashley, and I will twist them the way I want to suit my argument (Ref. 1).” The veracity of these words of the English statesman could be seen clearly by the ideologies of the two great philosophers of the modern times (Ref. 2).
Karl Marx: One of the most frequently quoted maxims in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital avows “Religion is the opium of the masses”. Marx attempted to explain religions in terms of political motivation of the rulers and people’s economic struggles. This claim had misled people to think that religions are for the weak, the discouraged, the disheartened, and the disenchanted people as they face the reality of life and that religions act as the most welcomed narcotic drug that provides consolation and emotional stability. In Marx’s terms, religions offer as the “balm in Gilead” (originated from Jeremiah 8:22) for the healing of people’s psychological illness. For to the masses, religions offer consolations and “spiritual” support and give people dignity and self-worthiness. Religions offer promises of milk and honey and golden streets in heaven for life-after-death in the future. With this thought, the desire for revolutionary revolt against the ruling class in Marx’s “classless” society would be suppressed and the rulers could now enjoy on earth the milk and honey and the wealth of golden. With this ethically framed false hope, the masses would be submerged in the intoxicating mist of this opium-like hallucination and remain contented to be exploited by the politicians.
Sigmund Freud: He was recognized as the father of psychoanalysis. Referring to the origin of religions, he embraced the idea that since men would be so helpless to deal with the inescapable natural disasters, they would personify the Mother Nature by means of inventing spiritual beings with personhoods. During the hurricane and flood, people would lay their burdens to these “beings” and obtain a crutch in a fatalistic way. With this as a starting point, human beings had gradually developed a rather complex believing system that ultimately evolved into monotheism. In this worldview, Freud insisted that people could ascribe their prayer, adoration, and services to these spiritual beings thought to be able to control Mother Nature. This ultimate “crutch” was viewed as God, the cosmic Father, and the Ruler of the universe. Nature has now been deified and all the threatening forces of the Nature are in the hands of this man-made God. (Ref.3)
We are not denying that Christian faith has no element of psychological make-up. People are indeed in need of the “balm in Gilead” too. As Christians, we ask for God’s help in times of danger, we pray for God’s healing in our sicknesses, we beg God’s provision in times of destitution; we need God’s direction in our lostness; we long for God’s consolation in our sad moment of bereavement. These kinds of cries and hunger are the reflection of the fact that the Christian God is a personal God and not a remote God.
Acknowledging that we need God is one thing; to say that such needs occasion us to create a God is a totally nonsensical thing. A baby craves his mother’s milk but we can’t say his mother is the product of her baby’s craving. If we say that theism is a product of human psychology then let me ask a simple question: Why there are so many atheists psychologically wish there is no God? The answer is that by denying the existence of God, they could do what they want to do without constraints (Ref. 6). These groups of atheists imagine that if God does not exist, there would be no judgment after death and they now can feel comfort in doing anything they want. Is this not another kind of the “balm in Gilead” for them?
The story is told of a man who was fishing. Every time he caught a big fish, he threw it back into the water. Every small fish he caught went into his bag. Another big one, back into the water; a tiny little one, into his bag. Finally, a man who had been watching him and was very perplexed by his unorthodox manner of fishing asked, “Can you please explain to me why you are throwing the big ones away? The fisherman did not hesitate: “Because I only have an eight-inch frying pan and anything bigger than eight inches does not fit my pain!”
We tend to explain away anything that doesn’t fit our prejudiced opinions and keep only those we like. (Story told by Ravi Zacharias in “Just Thinking” Volume 21.3). Many times, we extricate the things that which do not fit our tastes and preserve that which are of our delight (Ref. 6).
It was said that one phrase can summarize Jean Paul Sartre’s philosophy of Existentialism: “Existence precedes Essence (Ref. 5).” What Sartre meant was that what you do determine who you are. Christians, however, would disagree. We believe “Our essence determines our existence.” We are sinners not because we have committed sins; we commit sins because we are sinners. Jesus did not come to make bad men good but dead men alive. The gods of Marx and Freud are man-made gods—idols. The worshipers of these gods are motivated by self-interests. The folk-religions deeply ingrained in the Chinese culture are clear examples of these kinds of false worship. It was said that Jean Paul Sartre forsook atheism at his old age (Ref. 4).
At this point, I must point out some misconceptions that Christians might have. In the process of our spiritual pursuit, we are taught by the Bible to depend on God wholeheartedly and do not rely on our instincts. Undeniably, it is natural that when we are sick, we sought God’s healing; when we need a job, we asked God to open a way for us; when we boarded an airplane, we prayed that God may grant us safety. There is nothing wrong with these requests and God delights our prayers to Him. But on the other hand, we may subconsciously question ourselves, “Am I using God?” This thought causes us to consternate and become restless. But let me assure you: You don’t need to have such apprehension about whether you are using God or not; the fact that you ask yourself such question is a proof that you are not using God. As a matter of fact, when God allows sufferings to befall our lives, the circumstances become a touchstone to purify our motive. If we continue to trust Him, glorify Him, He will hold our hands to walk through the valley of the shadow of death. In this way, we shall know that we truly love our God and not merely use Him. Sufferings can engender many spiritual benefits and purify our motive of loving and serving God.
邱吉爾 (Winston Churchill) 曾對他的助手說, “給我一些事實, 我可以把它扭歪成乎合我心意的論證 [“Give me the facts. Ashley (his research assistant), and I will twist them the way I want to suit my argument”] (Ref. 1). 這一位英國政治家的話, 可以由影響近代思想最深 (特别是对宗教之源的看法) 的两位哲學大師的意識形態表達出來 (Ref. 2).
馬克斯 (Karl Marx) 在他的名著 “資本論 (Das Kapital)” 中有這樣一句最常不斷被人引用的名言, “宗教是人民的鴉片”—-就是以政治目標和經濟學的觀點為依據來解釋宗教. 這句話誤導了一般人對宗教的看法, 使人認為宗教對那些沮喪的, 灰心喪胆的, 和軟弱的人而言似乎是受歡迎的麻醉品. 當人被現實困苦所壓倒, 便轉向宗教來獲得安慰和情緒上的支持. 宗教對這些人便提供了 “基列山的藥膏.” [註: 引用聖經耶利米書八章廿二節所提到的基列的乳香 (balm in Gilead), 它可作醫治用.] 馬克斯主張宗教對弱者和有需要的人, 不但可提供安慰, 同時亦給那些受欺壓的人們一種 “精神上” 的尊嚴和支持. 宗教供給工人最大的賞賜是 “今世雖苦, 但來世享樂” 的應許. 當勞工消除了激烈的革命和愛財的念頭, 上帝就會獎賞他們牛奶與蜜及黃金街的天堂. 於此際, 富人今生就可享受奶與蜜及黃金了. 這倫理標準和應許便使大群廣眾好像被鴉片陶醉了一般. 當勞工們被宗教的药物麻醉並保持在心滿意足的麻木中, 富人便可以持續地剝削他們.
佛洛伊德 (Sigmund Freud) 是神經病學家和心理分析學 (psychoanalysis) 之父. 論到宗教之源的問題, 他認為: 人對不具人格的自然力量 (impersonal) 的處理方法是透過宗教來把它人格化: 人們發明了一個神靈, 它是住在暴風和洪水當中. 如果這些神靈是有人格 (person-hood) 的, 那麼所有個人的困苦就可以讓它們去承擔了. 從這簡單的思想, 人們便發展出更複雜精密的一套 “一神信仰” 的宗教 (monotheism). 在這一神信仰的系統中, 所有的祈求, 禱告, 讚美, 和事奉都聚焦在一位能控制所有自然界的個人神明身上. 那終極的拐掌就變成了個人的上帝了, 上帝被認為是慈愛的祖父, 宇宙的侍者, 和天體的護衛者. 透過宗教, 大自然變成神聖和有人性, 而大自然的威脅力也受到住在其中的神靈所約束了. (Ref. 3)
我們不能否認基督徒的信仰也有心理的成份, 我们是需要基列山的藥膏的: 在危難中我們求救於神, 在病痛中我們求医治, 在缺乏中我们求供應, 在失落中我们求方向, 在 喪親時, 我们求安慰. 這都是自然的事, 這些都說明了人的有限和人灵魂深處的渴望, 也反映出基督教的神是看顧人的神, 而非遥不可及的神. 但說這種心理需求是人渴想 “創造” 一位神來自我安撫, 那就本未倒置了. 嬰孩不是想渴奶而 “自我創造” 一位媽媽的. 如果相信有神論是出於心理作用, 那麼為何很多無神論者在心理上希望沒有神的存在 (Ref. 6) 因而使他们可以為所慾為, 並且在心理上不用再担心死後有審判的自我安慰; 這豈不是無神論者的 “另一種基列山的藥膏” 嗎?
有一位漁夫, 每當他釣到長過八吋的大魚時, 他便把它掉回水裡, 但每當他釣到短過八吋的小魚時, 他便把它放在桶中拿回家. 另外一位漁夫觀看了很久, 最後忍不住便问他, 才知道原來是因為他家中的煎鍋只有八吋寬, 無法容纳大魚. 多少時後我們豈不是把不合我們心意的東西排在外面, 只保留我们所喜歡的東西嗎? 無神論者薩特 (Jean Paul Sartre—Ref. 4) 的存在主義 (Existentialism) 可用一句話來描述: 存在决定其本質 (Existence precedes Essence—Ref. 5), 或作 “行動决定本質” 即你作甚麼事便决定你是誰. 基督徒不能苟同, 我们相信的是: 本質决定存在上的行動. 我們不是因犯罪而成了罪人, 我们是因巳有了罪人的本質而犯罪. 所以耶稣來到世上, 不是要把壞人改造成好人, 乃是把死人變成活人—這是本質上的改變, 也就是 “重生”.
馬克斯或佛洛伊德所描述的神是人造出來的神, 其實不是神. 敬拜這種神的人, 是出於功利主義的敬拜, 中國人的民間宗教是例也. 而基督徒所敬拜的神, 是啓示的神, 敬拜衪必需用心靈和真理去拜衪.
然而, 基督徒在追求靈命長進的過程中, 難免在信靠依賴神上有掙扎. 一方面聖經教訓我們要專心仰賴耶和華，不可倚靠自己的聰明; 但在另一方面, 當我們凡事仰賴耶和華 (有病時求神醫治, 沒有工作時求神開路, 坐飛機時求神保守等), 我們便下意識地開始懷疑自已是否正在 “利用” 神, 於是產坐懼怕, 甚至失去平安. 其實如果你有這類的懷疑或恐懼, 就證明你一定不是利用神了. 當神容許苦難臨到我們身上, 那就是最有效的試金石. 如果我們能在患難中仍然認定他, 榮耀衪, 相信衪必指引我們的道路, 那麼我們便知道我們是真的愛神而不是只愛衪的恩典了. 患難使我們看到屬靈的好處, 就是它能淨化我們愛主的動機.
References and Notes:
(1) “Has Christistian Failed You?” by Ravi Zacharias; p.122.
(2) 其實不只两位, 此文只以二人為例; 類似有關宗教之源的理論也被下列人物所提出, 如: 尼采 (Nietzsche), 費爾巴哈 (Feuerbach), 羅素 (Russell), 和薩特 (Sartre) 等無神論哲學家. 他們的理論雖然細節不同, 但都具有共同的基本論點.
(3) 以上資料出處可參考: “Reason to Believe” by R.C. Sproul; pp.61-64.
(4) 薩特 (Sartre) 死前似乎放棄無神論, 因他說, “Atheism is no longer tenable (無神論是站不住腳的).” 他的忠心跟隨者非常惱怒, 說, “他是因年老疵呆了.”
(5) “The Consequence of Ideas” by R.C. Sproul; p.174.
(6) Quotation from atheist Aldous Huxley, “I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning….For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. ” Source: “Searching for Truth” by Joe Boot; p.16.
