Sola Scriptura and Sola Experientia: A Methodological Analogy between Religion and Science

“只靠聖經”與“全憑經驗”：一個介於宗教與科學之間的方法論類比

10.7065/MRPC.200806.0029

苑舉正(Jeu-Jenq Yuann)

方法論 ； 只靠聖經 ； 全憑經驗 ； 費耶阿本 ； 范佛拉森 ； 不可共量性 ； Methodology ； Sola Scriptura ； Sola Experientia ； P. Feyerabend ； B. van Fraassen ； Incommensurability

哲學與文化

35卷6期（2008 / 06 / 01）

29 - 55

英文

本文中包含兩個目的。表面上，本文提出一個有關宗教與科學之間的類比，然後從更為深入角度而言，本文論證一個有關於科學知識成長的方法論原則。在本文開展的過程中，這兩個目的也將逐漸明顯呈現。首先，我們從分析科學與宗教的本質開始，然後從這個分析裡，本文將顯示，科學與宗教的本質可以經由兩雙概念作表述。第一雙概念是「理性與信念」，而第二雙概念則是「經驗與信仰」。我們想強調這兩雙概念的差別在於它們的深度不同，因為第二雙概念從更為實踐的角度上掌握科學與宗教的本質。然後，在第二節中，本文論證經由「經驗與信仰」這雙概念的鋪陳，科學與宗教展現了一種基礎論的立場。在第三節中，本文論證，科學以經驗為基礎，而宗教則以信仰聖經內容為主。當基礎論立場為科學與宗教所共享時，本文將從宗教改革的歷史中，從新教徒以「只靠聖經」批判天主教教會的理由，以及從耶穌會士的反擊中，提出在科學中一度也發生類似立場，即「全憑經驗」的類比。然後我們從「基礎論立場」將「只靠聖經」與「全憑經驗」之間作一比較。在比較中，我們發現這個基礎論立場之中，包含一個雙重的角色。一方面，因為基礎的訴求本身在邏輯上並不包含任何特定內容的緣故，所以它事實上可以被套以任何內容。但是在另一方面，正是由於這個基礎本身是空的，所以它被增添內容的可能性是持續開放的。這促成在科學中所期待的多元發展的可能。在最後一節中，本文將從實際與「非理性」的角度，進一步詮釋費耶阿本的多元方法論。在這個詮釋中，我們將為解決「不可共量性」的問題，提出一個解答。

This paper has a twofold intention. Apparently, it is about an analogy between science and religion. At a deeper level, it is about the growth of knowledge in general and science in particular. The deep intention will become explicit as the paper proceeds. It begins with an analysis of the nature of science and religion. The result of this analysis shows that science and religion can be respectively encapsulated by two pairs of concepts. The first pair is that of rationality and belief and the second that of experience and faith. We intend to stress that they differ in profundity as the second pair better captures the practical dimension of science and religion. Then, in the second section, the paper presumes that by referring to the idea of being empirical and being faithful, science and religion both demonstrated a position of foundationalism. Then in the third section we argue that science contains a foundational position claiming an empirical basis, whereas religion relies fundamentally on faith in Holy Scripture. This shared position is argued further by taking an example from the history of Reformation. We refer to the Protestant criticism of the Catholic Church claiming ”Sola Scriptura” (relying on the Holy Scripture alone) and the Jesuits' reactions to this claim. The paper attempts to show that an analogy (”Sola Experentia”) in the domain of science can be drawn from this historical example. We then move to the next section analyzing that the analogy contains a methodological function referring to the double-role of the ”foundation”. On the one hand, as both Scriptura” and ”Experientia” are empty ”foundations”, they can be filled with practically any idea. Yet, on the other hand, it is also due to this emptiness, the possibility of filling them with other contents remains open. This becomes obvious in the instance of science for the openness of pluralism is essential to its development. We finally move to the last section, explaining that Feyerabend's pluralistic methodology can be further elaborated by taking a practical and hence ”non-rational approach”. With this approach, the problem of incommensurability among theories before and after scientific revolutions is easily dissolved, not however on the philosophical basis, but on the empirical stance.

1. de Montaigne, Michel,M. Screech (trans.)(1987).The Complete Essays.New York:Penguin.
2. Feyerabend, P.(1995).Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
3. Feyerabend, P.(1981).Author`s Philosophical Papers Volume II.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
4. Feyerabend, P.(1981).His Philosophical Papers.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
5. James, W.(1985).The Varieties of Religious Experience.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
6. Neurath, O.,R. Cohen (eds.),m. Neurath(1983).Philosophical Papers: 1913-1946.Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Company.
7. Popkin, R.(1979).The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza.Berkeley:University of California Press.
8. Popper, K.(1985).Realism and the Aim of Science.London:Routledge.
9. Ryle, Gilbert(1949).The Concept of Mind.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
10. van Fraassen, B..Sola Experientia?-Feyerabend`s Refutation of Classical Empiricism.Philosophy of Science,64,385-395.
11. van Fraassen, B.(2002).The Empirical Stance.New Haven:Yale university Press.
12. Wittgenstein, L.,C. Barrett (ed.)(1955).Psychology and Religious Belief.Berkeley:University of California Press.