普兰丁格的矛盾—— 普兰丁格的宗教排他论与有保证的基督教信念 周伟驰
<!--><xml><o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>3517</o:Words>
<o:Characters>20052</o:Characters>
<o:Company>hmi</o:Company>
<o:Lines>167</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>47</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>23522</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>14.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><!-->
<!--><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>10 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>ZH-CN</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:SpaceForUL/>
<w:BalanceSingleByteDoubleByteWidth/>
<w:DoNotLeaveBackslashAlone/>
<w:ULTrailSpace/>
<w:DoNotExpandShiftReturn/>
<w:AdjustLineHeightInTable/>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:NoLineBreaksAfter Lang="JA">$([{￡￥·‘“〈《「『【〔〖〝﹙﹛﹝＄（．［｛￡￥</w:NoLineBreaksAfter>
<w:NoLineBreaksBefore Lang="JA">!%),.:;>?]}￠¨°·ˇˉ―‖’”…‰′″›℃∶、。〃〉》」』】〕〗〞︶︺︾﹀﹄﹚﹜﹞！＂％＇），．：；？］｀｜｝～￠</w:NoLineBreaksBefore>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><!--><!--><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><!-->
<!-->
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:普通表格;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;}
</style>
<!-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(</span><span style="font-family:宋体;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">北京</span><span lang="EN-US">10073</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 【摘要】该文针对美国当代宗教哲学家普兰丁格（</span><span lang="EN-US">Alvin Plantinga</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）“有保证的基督教信念”①的宗教真理认识论，指出，按照普兰丁格的排他论的宗教真理认识论，并不能保证基督教信念在面对其他宗教信念时具有优越性，因为其他宗教也可以宣称它们符合普兰丁格的宗教真理标准，从而它们的信念为真。因此普兰丁格的认识论是自相矛盾的、失效的。相比之下，普兰丁格的老师阿尔斯顿（</span><span lang="EN-US">William Alston</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的实践的和生存论的宗教真理进路更为可取。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">【关键词】宗教信念</span><span lang="EN-US">;</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">宗教知识</span><span lang="EN-US">;</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">保证</span><span lang="EN-US">;</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">体证</span><span lang="EN-US">;</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">宗教排他论</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Abstract:In this article the author analysesPro.f Alvin Plantingas'
religious epistemology andexclusivism mainly embodied in his
recentbookWarranted Christian Belie,f pointout thataccordingtoAlvin Plantingas'
religious epistemology</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">—</span><span lang="EN-US">its standard and condition for religious truth, other reli-gions can
also claim their religious beliefs arewarranted </span><span style="font-family:
宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">, so
thatWarranted Christian belief</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US"> has no privilege to claim it is the only religious truth. As
Plantingas' religious epistemologycannotgetuniversal religious knowledge, or
evenworse, cannot rationally argue conflict truth-claimsto be false, itshows
effortless and self-contradiction. The author thinks thatPlantingas' mentor,
Pro.fW illiam Alstons' practical and existential approach to dealwith the
problem of conflict religious truth-claimswillbemore reasonable to be accepted
by people today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Key words:Religious belie;f Religious
knowledge; Warran;t Body - proved; Religious exclusivism<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">中图分类号</span><span lang="EN-US">:B712</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">·</span><span lang="EN-US">5</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 文献标识码</span><span lang="EN-US">:A</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 文章编号</span><span lang="EN-US">:1000-7660 (2007) 03-0099-13<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">..........................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 本文曾参加年月在北京大学哲学系举办的第十届中美宗教哲学会议由普兰丁格亲自回应普兰丁格承认他所面对的难题，但仍坚持他原有的观点。本文未有正式发表，这次仅是加了一个摘要。</span><span lang="EN-US">3</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">年来出现了一些相关的中英文新文献，中文主要有梁骏《普兰丁格的宗教认识论》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，</span><span lang="EN-US"> 2006</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">年，读者可以参考。笔者稍早些的相关论文有：“普兰丁格的问题”（加拿大《维真学刊》</span><span lang="EN-US">1999</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">年</span><span lang="EN-US">2</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">期）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“当代宗教多元论与宗教排他论之辩”，香港：《道风基督教文化评论》第</span><span lang="EN-US">21</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">期（</span><span lang="EN-US">2004</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">秋）。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 作者简介：周伟驰（</span><span lang="EN-US">1969</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">—）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">湖南常德人，哲学博士，中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所副研究员</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">①本文将在行文中称“有保证的基督教信念”（</span><span lang="EN-US">Warranted Christian Belief</span><span style="font-family:宋体;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）为</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">称“有保证的其他宗教的信念”为</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">Warranted OtherReligions' Belief</span><span style="font-family:
宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">分享</span><span lang="EN-US">0<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">引 论</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 普兰丁格面对的当代宗教多元处境跟两千多年前庄子面临的“百家争鸣”处境极其相似，因此，虽然普兰丁格可能根本没有读过庄子的著作，但我们在读他的著作时，却不得不为二者某些句子的高度相似性而惊讶。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 既使我与若辩矣，若胜我，我不若胜，若果是也，我果非也邪？我胜若，若不吾胜，我果是也，而果非也邪？其或是也，其或非也邪？其俱是也，其俱非也邪？我与若不能相知也，则人固受其黮闇。吾谁使正之？使同乎若者正之？既与若同矣，恶能正之！使同乎我者正之？既同乎我矣，恶能正之！使异乎我与若者正之？既异乎我与若矣，恶能正之！使同乎我与若者正之？既同乎我与若矣，恶能正之！然则我与若与人俱不能相知也，而待彼也邪？———庄子《齐物论》</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 根本的问题是，就我们的实际的理智与精神处境而言，完全不可能避免与他人发生严肃的意见冲突。如果有些人相信</span><span lang="EN-US">p,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而另一些人相信跟</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">不相容的</span><span lang="EN-US">q,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">那么就没有法子避免严肃的意见冲突。我们若认可</span><span lang="EN-US">p,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">就跟那些认可</span><span lang="EN-US">q</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的人意见相左；我们若认可</span><span lang="EN-US">q,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">就跟那些认可</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的人意见相左；如果我们提出高等的解决方案，宣称</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">和</span><span lang="EN-US">q</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">都不对（虽然它们可能“在神话意义上”为真）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">那我们就与两方意见都相左。但是，假如肯定</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">并因而得罪</span><span lang="EN-US">q</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的支持者是帝国主义做派，或如何地行为不端，那么，断言双方皆误并因而得罪两派为什么就更好呢？———普兰丁格，《有保证的基督教信念》，</span><span lang="EN-US"> 62</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">页</span><span lang="EN-US">)</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">①</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 我们暂且不去追究庄子和普兰丁格二人背后的哲学和宗教背景（如“道”与“上帝”、相对主义和传统的唯一真理观）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">只来探讨普兰丁格的认识论和宗教排他论能否解决宗教多元问题。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> （</span><span lang="EN-US">1</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）普兰丁格为宗教排他论辩护的后果：多元现象的再次涌现</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 普兰丁格说宗教排他论不是不正当的，不是非理性的，不是没有保证的，②假设他说得对，那又如何呢？一个置身于各大宗教之外的多元论者（如约翰·希克）③也许再也不会指责排他论者“不理性”了，但别的宗教的信徒不也可以同样地宣称，他们的信念是真的，与之不相容的信念是假的吗？他们不是也可以用普兰丁格所用的方法，来显示他们的信念乃是有保证的真信念，因此他们的信念乃是知识吗？当一个“有保证的基督教信念”（以下简称</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的持有者④遇到一个“有保证的犹太教</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">印度教</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">道教信念”（以下简称</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的持有者，会发生什么情形呢？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">.........................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①此处中译引自：普兰丁格。基督教信念的知识地位</span><span lang="EN-US">.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">邢滔滔、徐向东、张国栋、梁骏译，北京大学出版社，</span><span lang="EN-US">2004</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">。本书原名为</span><span lang="EN-US">Warranted Christian Belief</span><span style="font-family:宋体;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">N. Y.:
OxfordUni-versity Press, 2000</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">直译应为《有保证的基督教信念》。该书在本文中往后简称</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, pp. 443-457;</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">亦见“</span><span lang="EN-US">Pluralism: a Defense of Re-ligiousExclusivism</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”，</span><span lang="EN-US">
in:TheRationality ofBeliefand thePlurality ofFaith, ed. ThomasD. Senor, Ithaca
and London: CornellUniversityPress, 1995.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">普兰丁格所给出的规范性反驳（</span><span lang="EN-US">de jude
refutation</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）是，从一开始，基督教信仰者就不认识她的信念是与别的宗教的信念在认识论上是平等的，认为自己的信念是优于他们的，因此你不能说她之选择自己的信念而不选择别的宗教信念是“不理性的、武断的”等等。这样普兰丁格就避免了阿尔斯顿（</span><span lang="EN-US">W illiam Alston</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的“不小心”。阿尔斯顿认为，不同宗教的信念都是平等地由</span><span lang="EN-US">MP </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">mysticalperceptualdoxastic practice,</span><span style="font-family:
宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">神秘感知信念实践）产生的，所以他立刻就面临着这么一个“难题”，即解释他有什么理由优先选择</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（基督教的神秘感知信念实践）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而不选择别的</span><span lang="EN-US">MP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">。阿尔斯顿所给出的理由是实践的。比如，我仍然认为我的传统是可信赖的、我熟知它，等等。见阿尔斯顿，《感知上帝》（</span><span lang="EN-US">PerceivingGod, Ithaca and London: CornellUniversityPress, 1991</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US"> pp.
266-270; JohnHick,Dialogues in thePhilosophy ofReligion</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">N. Y.,
Palgrave, 2001</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">, pp. 26-28, pp.37-52.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ③以及别人的指责，这些普兰丁格在其“</span><span lang="EN-US">Pluralism: a De-fense ofReligiousExclusivism</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”一文都作了列举。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ④</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">整本书都是为了显示，根据普兰丁格的“知识”定义，基督教信念只要是真的，就是有保证的，就是“知识”。尤可参见：</span><span lang="EN-US"> WCB, pp. 256-257,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“信仰是知识”一章。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 在我看来，尽管普兰丁格成功地反驳了对（基督教）排他论的道德指责和认识论反对，宗教多元现象的困局都依然存在，甚至变得比以前更为严峻了，因为普兰丁格为排他论所作的辩护敦促他们维护并加强他们自己的信仰。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 倘若排他论只是哲学家头脑里的一种理论，也许它无关紧要，但它若是与社会实践紧密相连，尤其与亨廷顿所谓“文明的冲突”紧密相连，则会成为一个严重的问题。①（</span><span lang="EN-US">2</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）普兰丁格是怎样说</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">是知识的关于排他论的争论是与宗教认识论密切联系的。根据普兰丁格的“改革认识论”（“</span><span lang="EN-US">Reformedepistemology</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">知识是有保证的真信念（</span><span lang="EN-US">war-ranted true belief</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但此处“有保证”（“</span><span lang="EN-US">warran-ted</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”）并不意味着证据或证明：“在这模型里（指普兰丁格建立的</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模型）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">构成信仰的信念自然是基础信念，即是说，它们不需要从其他命题论证出来，也不需要其他命题作为证据”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, p. 250</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）那么什么是“有保证的”呢？“一个信念有保证，仅当它被恰当地起作用的认知过程或官能，在有利于认知能力活动的认知环境中，按照一种成功地导向真信念的设计方案所产生”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, xi</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。在另一处他补充说：“当一个信念满足（以上）这些条件，因此的确具有保证时，它所具有的保证的程度取决于那个信念的强度，亦即（某人）</span><span lang="EN-US"> S</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">拥有它的这种坚定性”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB,156</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。根据上面这个定义，基督教信念是有“保证”的：“基督教信念是在适当的认识环境中，按照一种成功地导向真理的设计方案，由一种恰当地起作用的认知过程</span><span lang="EN-US">[</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">‘圣灵的内在激励’（阿奎那）或‘圣灵的内在见证（加尔文）所产生。”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, xii</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）因此，基督教信念有“保证”。作为有保证的信念，如果它们是真的，它们就是知识②。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">...........................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①普兰丁格的“排他论</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">排他论者”定义：对宗教多样性意识有几种可能的反应。一种是继续相信他一直在相信的；你认识到了这种多样性但继续相信，就是说，认为象上面所说的（</span><span lang="EN-US">1</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）和（</span><span lang="EN-US">2</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US"> [</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">指基督教信仰的核心命题，如上帝存在、三位一体及道成肉身等</span><span lang="EN-US">]</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">这样的命题是真的，从而认为与（</span><span lang="EN-US">1</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）和（</span><span lang="EN-US">2</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）不相容的别的信念，无论它们是属于别种宗教的还是别的什么，都是假的。就目前的实践而言，我将这称作排他论；排他论者认为，一种宗教———如基督教———的原则或某些原则事实上是真的，他还自然而然地认为，任何与这些原则不相容的命题，包括其他宗教的命信念，都是假的。见“</span><span lang="EN-US">Pluralism: a De-fense ofReligiousExclusivism</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”。亦见：</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB,
440-441</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 希克指出，这个定义太狭窄了，“因而他通过约定定义忽略了数世纪以来教会立场的某些方面，即通过迫害和杀害犹太人、对穆斯林进行十字军东征、为欧洲帝国主义进行合法性辩护、以及对其他宗教的无知的诋毁而表现出来的那些方面。”见</span><span lang="EN-US">JohnHick:Dialogues in thePhilosophy ofReligion,p. 29</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 黄勇指出，一个宗教排他论者坚持其信仰是合理的（</span><span lang="EN-US">ration-al</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但在宗教多元环境下认为只有他的信仰为真而其他人的信仰为假则是“不合情理的”（</span><span lang="EN-US">unreasonable</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。见</span><span lang="EN-US">HuangYong,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">ARebuttal to Plantingas' Exclusivism</span><span style="font-family:
宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”，</span><span lang="EN-US">RegentChinese
Journal, 1999 /2.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但是，如果普兰丁格说，他的排他论只是一种理论，而不是一种排他的行为，则黄勇的指责就是无效的。所以黄勇应该补充说，假如一个排他论者并没有显示出对别的宗教的信徒的不宽容，那他支持其原有信仰也可以说是合乎情理的。但一个排他论者不在行为上表现出任何的排他行为，这样的排他论也就失去了意义。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 实际上，普兰丁格对排他论的辩护是有其实践上的考虑和动机的。多元论者一旦在教会掌权，则必然出现信徒信心下降、没有传教热情、甚至放弃信仰的问题。关于这，普兰丁格在</span><span lang="EN-US">1997</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">年初到温哥华</span><span lang="EN-US">U. B. C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的讲座中曾经谈及。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②两段更详细的话（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, pp. 256-257</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">:</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“（基督教）信仰是一个产生信念的过程或活动……它跟它们（指记忆、感知、理性、同情、归纳等标准的信念产生过程）是有分别的，它牵涉到圣灵的直接行动，所以，这信念的直接成因并不属于人的自然认知配备，这是圣灵的特别和超自然的活动。尽管如此，信仰仍然是一个信念产生的过程。正如我们在第七章看到的，知识所需要的，是一个信念被恰当地起作用的认知官能或过程所产生，按照一个导向获取真信念的设计蓝图（宏观的和微观的）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">知识环境要适切，并且这设计是有效地导向获取真理的。按照这模式，一个人凭信仰相信（这相信构成了信仰）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">就可满足这四个条件。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 首先，当我们因着圣灵的内在诱导，凭信仰接受这些信念，这些信念是由恰当地起作用的认知过程所产生的，它们不是认知失常的结果。那产生这些信念的整个过程———信仰，是上帝自己特别地设计出来，令它产生这样的效果，就如视觉是上帝设计出来产生某些感知信念的。当这过程的确产生这些效果时，它就是恰当地起作用了，因此这些信念都享有外在合理性，这本来就是保证的第一个条件。其次，按照这模型，我们处身的宏观认知环境，包括罪所引致的认知污染，正是这过程被设计来起作用的环境；一般的微观环境也是适切的。第三，这过程的设计是要产笨真信念的。第四，它所产生的信念（福音里的伟大真理）的确是真的，信仰是一个可靠的信念产生过程，这过程有效地导向获取真信念。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">如果你的信仰是坚定的，则真理就会更真。①</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">然而，与所有别的种类的信念（如感觉、记忆、道德信念）不同，基督教信念含有超自然的因素（圣灵的内在激励或行动）。普兰丁格认为，超自然因素并没有破坏“知识”的定义：“在本来的描述里，我们没有暗示过那些认知机制必须全部是自然的”。（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, 258</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）所以，基督教的有保证的信念作为知识是从上帝本身那里来的。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 这是奥古斯丁和加尔文神学，尤其是内在恩典论和光照说的典型的认识论翻版。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 倘若有保证的基督教信念是一种知识，为什么只有一小部分人拥有这种知识呢？为什么绝大多数的人（别的宗教背景的人）的宗教信念是错的呢？为什么会出现宗教多元的现象呢？根据</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模型，这种可悲的情形是由罪所造成的。②</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">3</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）普兰丁格能够驳倒</span><span lang="EN-US">WOC</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">认识论专家吗？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 普兰丁格如何能驳倒别的宗教的认识论专家，表明只有他（作为一名加尔文宗的认识论专家）的信念才是真的，而他们的信念都是假的？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 也许他不会“表明”或“证明”这点。因为他相信的东西都是“恰当地基本的”。但是那些认识论专家也可以宣称，他们的</span><span lang="EN-US">WOC</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">信念是“恰当地基本的”，是真的，是知识。那么</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">和</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">怎么还冲突呢？所以他们还是应该辩一辩。不过，由于这些信念是“恰当地基本的”，这些彼此冲突的信念就无需为其真理性而辩了。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 所以他们虽然辩论，却不能显示论证。这样，他们所能做的，就只是宣称“我的信仰是真的，你们的信仰是假的”了。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 这样一来，这句玩笑话就是真的了：“按照陀斯妥耶夫斯基的讲法，如果没有上帝，什么事都是可能的；按照这种反对论点（指‘大南瓜’</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 反对意见）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">如果对上帝的信念是基础信念，任何信念都可以获得保证了”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, 344</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 然而，普兰丁格认为他还是能够给出一些理由选择</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而不是</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB:</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“对上帝的信念作为基础信念，并不会有一刻可以免于论证、反对论点、或否决因子，我的基础主义或</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模型的后果并不会认为这些基础信念超越了理性的审视”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, 344</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 那么，他作了什么说明，显示出他选</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而不是</span><span lang="EN-US">WOC</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的理由呢？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 在“改革认识论对自然神学的反对意见”（“</span><span lang="EN-US">The reformed objection to natural theology</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”）一文中，在反驳“大南瓜”反驳时，普兰丁格说：</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 相应地，恰当基本性的标准必然是从下面而不是从上面来达到；它们不应该被表现得象是附带的格言，而必须由一套相关的例子来加以论证和检测（</span><span lang="EN-US">butargued to and tested by a relevant setofexamples</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">不过，没有理由预先假设每一个人都会同意这些例子。基督徒当然会设想，对上帝的信念是完全恰当的和合理的；倘若他不是在别的命题的基础上接受这个信念，他就会得出结论说，它对他乃是基本的，且是非常恰当地基本的。罗素（</span><span lang="EN-US">Bertrand Russsell</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）和奥黑尔（</span><span lang="EN-US">MadalynMurray OH' air</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的追随者也许不会同意；但那又有什么关系呢？难道我的标准，或基督教共同体的那些标准，必须与他们的例子一致吗？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 当然不了。基督教共同体为它自己的那套例子负责，而不必为他们的例子负责。相应地，改革认识论者就可以恰当地认为，大南瓜信念不是恰当地基本的，即使他坚持上帝信念是恰当地基本的，即使他没有充分完满的恰当基本性的标准。当然，他必得认为，倘若他认为上帝是恰当基本的，而大南瓜信念不是，则在上帝信念和大南瓜信念之间有一种相应的不同。但这并没有什么窘迫的；还有许多可选项。所以改革认识论者可以跟加尔文一道，坚持上帝在我们里面栽下了一种在世界之中看见他之运作的天然倾向；但对大南瓜却不能这么说，并没有大南瓜，也没有接受关于大南瓜的信念的天然倾向。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">....................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">①当然，普兰丁格并没有认为自己能够证明基督教信念为真，他在这里说，如果它是真的，那么</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模型为真。他的意图在</span><span lang="EN-US">xii</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">页有所表露：“对于扩展的</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模型，我正式断言的不是它为真，而是它有认识上的可能性（就是说，所有我们所知的，都不会使它非假不可）</span><span lang="EN-US">;</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">再补充一句：如果基督教信念为真，那么非常可能这个模型或与其类似的东西也是真的。我这些断言若是正确，那就不存在任何与基督教信念的真实性相容的切实的规范性批评；就是说，没有任何独立于事实性反驳的切实的规范性反驳。果然如此，那么如下的态度，‘好吧，我不知道基督教信念是不是真的（话说回来，谁能知道这种事情？</span>
<span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但我的确知道那是不合理性的（理智上未经辩护的，毫无道理的，或理智上有疑问的）’———这种态度，如果我没弄错，就根本站不住脚。”</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②</span><span lang="EN-US">See chapter 7 of WCB:</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Sin and its cognitive conse-quences</span><span style="font-family:
宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”。</span><span lang="EN-US"> See also</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Pluralism: a
Defense of ReligiousExclusivism</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 可以这样作结：改革认识论对自然神学的反对意见，尽管还未完全成形，却与它对经典基础论的反对一致。改革派思想家认为，自明、不可错、感觉的明晰，都并非恰当基本性的必要条件。他还进一步说，上帝信念是恰当地基本的。这样，即使他还没有恰当基本性的普遍标准，却仍无需设想，任何或几乎任何信念———象大南瓜这样的信念———都是恰当地基本的。象任何人一样，他也是从例子开始的；他可以将大南瓜信念当作一个不理性的基本信念的范例。①</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 因为上帝信念是“恰当地基本的”，它自己就是基础，无需别的信念作为它的基础，因此它也无需论证或证明去证明它。但别的人不也能宣称他们的信念是“恰当地”基本的吗？什么是</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的标准，来区分“恰当的”和“不恰当的”呢？普兰丁格不能给出一个“恰当基本性的普遍标准”。他所能提供的，只能是一套相关的“从下面来的”例子。但尽管我们不能找到一个“普遍的标准”，却可发现某种标准（如相关的例子所显示的），是他用来排除掉“不恰当地基本的”信念的。这个标准是什么呢？当然是基督教的标准了。我们在这里看到普兰丁格提到了“基督教共同体”。这是不是指一个持守同一套信念的信仰共同体或宗教团体，其信念是前后一贯，因此可以用来作为一套例子来排除与其信念系统不相容的大南瓜信念？看来是这样。所以，判断一个信念是否“恰当”的标准是信仰内的标准。它并非各个宗教的人都可以接受的普遍标准，至少大南瓜信徒不会接受这个基督教信仰内的标准。因为你的标准是在你的信仰之内的。你们俩（基督徒与大南瓜信徒）并没有同样的基础或“理性”。因此庄子所说的情形就出现了：你们彼此并不相知，你们俩没有共同的标准。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 信仰内的标准无法解决争执。难道“大南瓜之子”，尤其是他们中间类似于基督教认识论专家普兰丁格这样的认识论专家，就不能显示根据他们的信仰内标准，普兰丁格的信念是“不恰当地”基本的？他们当然能够如法炮制。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 在</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">里，普兰丁格再次讨论了大南瓜反对意见。在那里他举的例子是伏都教认识论。②然而，就我们此处的目的来说（显示</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">并没有优越于</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的认识论地位）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">当你读到下面的段落时，你可以用“高级宗教”来代替“原始宗教”。这里我所说的“高级宗教”指犹太教、伊斯兰教、佛教、印度教等等。倘若你是一名加尔文宗的新教徒，你还可以将此处“伏都教”读成天主教、东正教，或甚至路德宗新教。尽管它们和你一道享有许多共同的“主要的”信念，却总是在某些信念上与你有异。对一个天主教徒来说，也许万福马利亚是一个恰当基本信念，但对你来说它却并非恰当的，所以你会认为她所持有的是一个“不理性的基本信念”。对一个东正教徒来说，也许索菲亚是一个恰当基本的信念，但你仍然会认为她所持的不是“恰当地”基本的，它乃是一个“不理性的”基本信念。假如你说你们之间的差异是很微小的，根本就不算什么，我可以回答说，不管你们之间的差异有多小，只要有差异，在你和她之间就总是有某种不同的东西。这意味着她拥有你所不具有的洞见，它对她乃是基本的，但你却着不到它，或虽然看到了，但却不恰当！当然，也可以设想你是西藏的一个佛教徒，你所属的宗派是藏传佛教数个宗派中的一个。你的宗派在许多观点上与其他宗派有异，而且你们都不能在这些观点上获得共识，无法决断哪一派的观点是正确的。然而，你却在这种情况下宣称只有你的观点是正确的而别人的都是错误的，你认为只有你自己的特殊的洞见才是恰当地基本的，对他们却非基本的（他们在这点上是瞎眼的）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">或对他们是不恰当地基本的（他们扭曲了它）。但是，这种论证（倘若算得上论证的话）有作用吗？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">........................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①“</span><span lang="EN-US">The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”，</span><span lang="EN-US">
in:Philoso-phy of religion</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">ed. MichaelPeterson, etc., Oxford University Press,2001</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">, p. 340-1;
also in: Religious belief as</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">‘</span><span lang="EN-US">properly basic</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">’，</span><span lang="EN-US">in:Philosophy of Religion-a Guide and Anthology, ed. Brian Davies,Oxford
University Press, 2000. pp. 83-86.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②</span><span lang="EN-US">See</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Son of great Pumpkin?</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”，</span><span lang="EN-US"> in: WCB, pp. 342-351.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 让我们玩一玩“替换游戏”。让我们先把普兰丁格行文中的“伏都教”替换为“犹太教”。会出现什么结果呢？普兰丁格原话是这么说的：</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 当然，我们不能因此推论出伏教认识论专家亦可有保证地声称，伏都教信念是有保证的恰当基本信念。假设伏都教信念的确是假的，再假设这是起源于某类错误或混乱，或出于对某种自然现象的恐惧，或是出自那些希望藉此获得或延续个人政治力量的一群人。如果这样，那么这些独特的伏都教信念就不会享有保证了。让我们再进一步假设，这些伏都教信念借着见证和教导一代又一代的传下去，现在，如果有一见证人作证说，某信念</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">对他是没有保证的，那么</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">对于凭他的见证而相信</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的人，就不会有保证的了；如果</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">在那见证人是没有保证的，接受见证的人也就不会有保证了（尽管后者的官能是完全恰当地起作用的）。我的父母教导我一大堆垃圾（他们因为十分无知，教导我天上的星星其实是幅巨大画布的针孔，这画布在每一晚都会覆盖在地球上，让人类可以安睡；又说弗里西人在政治上是低级的，他们不应有投票权），那么，即使我自己的认知官能恰当地起作用，其条件又满足了保证的要求，我从这些见证所获得的信念仍是不正确的。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 因此，想想那位伏都教认识论专家，假设他是基于别人的见证（与改革宗认识论专家类似的）接受这些伏都教思想，并且由此加上其他前提，推论这些信念相对于保证是基础信念。这样，他的结论（伏都教信念都是有保证的基本信念）就不能享有保证了，因为支持这结论的论证里，对他来说，至少有一个前提是没有保证的，这是因为在推论中，转移保证的结构与见证的结构是相同的。我相信</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">和</span><span lang="EN-US">q,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">这两个命题产生（演绎地或以其他方式地）</span><span lang="EN-US"> r,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">如果</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">和</span><span lang="EN-US">q</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">对我来说都是有保证的，那么</span><span lang="EN-US">r</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">便有保证（或者我们必须要加上“如果</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">和</span><span lang="EN-US">q</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">对我来说都是有保证的，那么‘</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">我</span><span lang="EN-US">q</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">’便有保证”。然而，如果</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">或</span><span lang="EN-US">q</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">其中之一对我来说是缺乏保证的，那么</span><span lang="EN-US">r</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">也会是缺乏保证的。（这是清楚可见的，我不能够从一些我不知道其真假的命题推论出某命题，并知道该命题的真假。）伏都教的哲学家错误地相信伏都教信念，而且，他们对伏都教信念是有保证的基本信念的讲法，也是假的，本身亦缺乏保证。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 因此，改革宗认识论专家在保证来说是合法的，而伏都教认识论专家虽然用同一结构来达到他们的结论，他们的观点却不是合法的。这肯定是有可能的。例如，如果基督教信仰的核心教义是真的，而伏都教信念是假的，就会有这结果。所以，即使“对上帝和福音伟大故事的信念是有保证的基本信念”，而这声称亦是有保证的，我们了不可以就此说“伏都教信念也是有保证的基本信念”，这声称是缺乏保证的。因此，按我们现在的诠释，马丁的论证是失败的，因为第一前提是假的。①。</span>
<span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB,348-349</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）除了可以将上面的“伏都教”替换为“犹太教、伊斯兰教、佛教、印度教”等等外，你还可以将基督教替换为伏都教，将伏都教替换为伊斯兰教，而无须担心有什么不妥。因为反正大家都没有任何共识或共同的基础来达成一致。这样一来，事情就变成了一个伊斯兰教认识论专家（或犹太教的）如何看待基督教信念了。他会认为基督教是没有保证的，因为他也会“假设”基督教信念在某个环节出现故障了（比如第一个作见证的人作了假见证）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而在这点上他自己却是正确的。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 我们都知道犹太教认识论专家不会在“耶稣是上帝”这一点上同意改革宗认识论，尽管他们共享“上帝存在”这一个信念。就本文的目的来说，他们之间的共识（“上帝存在”）并不重要。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 我们所谈的是使得两个认识论专家不同的东西。由于他们有不同的洞见，不同的基本信念（一个肯定“耶稣是上帝”，一个否定它）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而他们都宣称只有自己才是正确的。从他们自己的视角来看，从他们自己信仰内的立场来看，当然他们是对的；但是从相反的立场来看，当然他们是错的。因为并不存在一个共同的立场来达到在这点上的共识（普兰丁格承认他们不能通过论证来说服对方）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">因为他们原先的洞见或基本信念是如此不同，他们的争辩和分歧就会永远持续下去。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 庄子将这种情况称为“辩无胜”。庄子说，以物观之，一切事物都贵己而贱它（《秋水》）。换到辩论上来，争辩的每一方都认为自己正确而对方错误。庄子当时主要是针对儒墨两家的争辩而发。他还说，道隐于小成，言隐于荣华。故有儒墨之是非，以是其所非而非其所是（《齐物论》）。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 儒墨尚且是通过论证的方法在政治、伦理和宗教礼仪的事项上争辩。今天的基督徒、穆斯林、犹太教徒，却是在超越的事项上展开争辩。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 作为一个主题，它比政治的、伦理的、仪式的主题要困难得多。比当初儒墨之争更难达成一致，那么普兰丁格关于</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">优于</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的定论如何？从他的认识论</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模式出发，他必定认为他的上帝是上帝本身给予他的，因此是“神授的”，出自上帝本身的信念（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）当然要优越于其他的信念（</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）了。因此，一个</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的持有者从一开始就不认为他的信念是与</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">在认识论上同等的，这样，他之选择</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而排斥</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">就是完全合理的，你不能说他是“任意的、武断的”：</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 其理由如下：在上述各种情况下（指在宗教多元的处境下，我无法说服其他宗教的信徒相信我的信念才是真的———笔者）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">信徒都不认为所谈的那些信念在认识上是相关等同的。他也许同意，他和那些不同意见的人同样确信其信念是真的，甚至同意它们具有内在的同等，同意内在的可利用资源是相似的或者十分接近。然而，他肯定认为，二者存在着重要的认识上的差异：在某种程度上，其他的人犯了错误，或者有盲点，或者留意不够，或者缺乏他所具有的恩典，或者受到野心、骄傲、母爱等其他东西的遮蔽；他一定认为，他可以获得那些有保证的信念，而其他的人则未获得。如果信徒承认，有关基督教信念，他没有任何特殊的知识或真信念的源泉———如果没有神圣感应（</span><span lang="EN-US">sensus di-vinitatis</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">没有圣灵的内在激励，没有受圣灵鼓舞和保护的教会的布道，没有任何与其观点不同的人不具有的东西，那么，也许可以恰当地指控他为任意的自我中心主义，那么，也许他就会得到基督教信念的否决（</span><span lang="EN-US">defeater</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。但是他为什么要承认这些东西呢？一般他会认为（至少应该认为）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">确实存在着有保证的信念的源泉，该源泉导致了这些信念。（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, pp. 453-454</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">..................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①马丁的论证是这样的：</span>
<span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（</span><span lang="EN-US">1</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）假如改革宗认识论专家能合法地宣称他们的上帝信念在理性上可接纳，可成为基本信念，那么在某些群体里被接纳的任何其他信念，那些群体的认识论专家都可以合法地宣称这信念是恰当地基本的，不管它有多么古怪；但是（</span><span lang="EN-US">2</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">这条件句的后件是假的；所以（</span><span lang="EN-US">3</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）改革宗认识论专家不能够合法地宣称其上帝信念是理性上可接纳的。见</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, p. 345.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 这样，由于</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">信念来自上帝本身（</span><span lang="EN-US">IIHS,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">圣灵的内在激励）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">它们就是绝对真理，当然要优越于别的宗教的信念了，你当然不能指责他（改革宗排他论者）在多元处境下选择</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">是“任意”“武断”的了。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 我们能不能说他的“理由”</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“论证”来自于他的信仰内经验，尽管她拒绝用“论证”这样的词？①当然了，他最后的标准只能是来自于其信仰内的信念体系。在这里，信仰内的因素，诸如神圣感应、圣灵的内在激励，教会的教导，圣经，等等，构成了他用以判断别的宗教正确与否的标准。这些标准对于具有同一信仰的人是有说服力的，但对于信仰外的人则没有。因此普兰丁格对希克这样的多元论者的反击的成功之处在于，显示了在多元处境中信徒可以不必放弃自己的标准和放弃自己的信仰身份（因为你总得采取一个立场）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但同时，他又不能成功地说服非本教信徒（其他宗教的信徒和中立者）相信只有该信徒的信念才是真理。所以普兰丁格的成功是消极的，不是积极的。老问题马上就会回来。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 别的宗教的信徒不也可以宣称他们的信念有其神圣的来源，诸如“佛性”、安拉、耶和华、梵吗？有的人还宣称接触到或已与终极实在合一了（如新柏拉图主义者柏罗丁，神秘主义者艾克哈特、以及印度教神秘主义者）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">有些甚至说他们自己就是终极实在。②他们都声称他们的信念是真的，而你也无法说服他们其信念是假的（因为他们都没有共同的基础来判决谁是正确的）。所以在这一点上（真理的来源上）</span><span lang="EN-US"> WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">并没有优越于</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的特权。由于普兰丁格的</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模式并不能有效地阻挡</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">宣称自己是真理，信仰内的</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">之原教指主义将激发起信仰内的</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">之原教旨主义。也许这对一个宗教共同体是福音，因为它促进了凝聚力，坚定了信仰，但对于存在着诸多信仰的社会来说未必是好事。如果我们承认在思想</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">信仰与行为之间有着紧密的联系，则</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">或</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的意味大致会是这样的：我的信念是绝对真理，是上帝给定的，它是真的，而你的信念是错的、假的。在多元处境下我坚持我的信念是理性的，虽然我不能说服你或向你显示你是错的而我是对的。既然你是错的而我是对的，则我还能向你学什么呢？我只能向你输出真理，教导你了（因为我认为你是错的）。我们不需要对话（多么虚伪啊！因为我们本质上都是排他论者啊！</span>
<span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">对普兰丁格的认识论，我们能说什么呢？它看起来象是当代的马勒布朗士或贝克莱哲学，它将基督教神学（如“圣灵的内在激励”）与当代认识论以及别的因素混合在一起，构成了一个前后一贯的理论体系。但是它更象是普兰丁格所景仰的奥古斯丁的基督教哲学，它从一个统一的基督教立场来看待一切。然而，跟一切的哲学体系一样，它也有它的阿基里斯之踵。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> （</span><span lang="EN-US">4</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）宗教信念作为一种特殊的知识</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">我们业已看到，普兰丁格的“知识”定义过于宽泛，或仅只是形式的，以至于</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">也能获得</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">所得到的一切（如有保证）。它不能阻止别的宗教宣称它们的信念（有些是与</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">不相容的）也是知识。它还缺乏感觉、数学、逻辑、自然科学知识所享有的“知识”的普遍性（当我们用到“知识”一词时，这是我们所想到的它的第一个特征）。这意味着宗教信念作为“知识”是一种特殊的“知识”，因此我们不能将它与别种知识相提并论。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">...................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①看看普兰丁格是如何反驳</span><span lang="EN-US">GaryGutting</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的：“（</span><span lang="EN-US">GaryGut-ting</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）声称信徒是在自我循环……但她（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的持有者）怎么会自我循环呢？她并不是在提出一个论证；也不是在提出一个定义；所以，哪里有什么循环呢？</span><span lang="EN-US"> WCB, p. 456.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②如当代大儒牟宗三，就说人有理智直观，因此可以成佛成神，达到圆善。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">阿尔斯顿（</span><span lang="EN-US">W illiam Alston</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）指出，在宗教经验与感觉经验（以及宗教信念与感觉信念）之间有三种不同。（</span><span lang="EN-US">1</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）前者不是普遍的，而后者是。感觉经验是人人都享有的，因此关于具体事物人们可以达成一致，但宗教经验却非如此。比如，我觉得宇宙的和谐是上帝的作为，但有人并不认为宇宙是和谐的，有人虽认为宇宙是和谐的但并不认为这是上帝的杰作，反而认为宇宙是一部自己运作的大机器。漫长的宗教史还显示，即使在信宗教的人们中间，也有持续的异议与冲突。有时不同的宗教共同体会为了一个词（如“和子”句）争论甚至打仗。关于这，想一想同出一源的“亚伯拉罕宗教”犹太教、基督教、伊斯兰教之间的冲突即可。（</span><span lang="EN-US">2</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）“一切正常的成年人，不管他们的文化如何，在客观化他们的感觉经验时，都基本上用的是同样的概念框架”，①而关于终极实在，不同的信仰群体却有着有时完全不同的看法。（</span><span lang="EN-US">3</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）基于感觉感知的个别信念可以通过观察得到检测。对此希克曾举过一例：“倘若你相信你看到了一棵树，这是可以由进一步的感觉经验以及别人的经验得到确证或否证的。事情也常常可以令人们（共同体）满意地解决———我们总是设定了它是值得信任的，这种信任是我们习惯性地给予感觉经验的。但在宗教经验的情况里，并没有普遍接受的检测程序。当某人宣称经验到了上帝的现身时，并没有一个可接受的方式来让别人也肯定确实如此。”②正如我们已经看到的，根据普兰丁格，在彼此冲突的宗教信念中，信徒并不能为他们的知识（有保证的信念）提供论证。所以，如果你认为宗教信念象感觉、记忆，③或道德一样，那为什么当宗教争论出现时，你不能象通常人们所做的那样，为你的“知识”作论证</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">证明呢？④就别的“知识”种类而言，当我们产生争执时，我们原则上是可以通过论证、检查、检测、观察和其他手段获得一致的。⑤例如，你是不是看到了一匹马⑥，这个问题可以通过观察、触摸等经验的手段来回答。来自不同文化背景的不同的人可以知道你是否真的看到了一匹马。但当你说你看到（感觉到）了一个人格神，却有许多人无法验证这一点。不同文化的人可以看见同一匹马，却无法看见同一个终极实在。一些人看到了阿多乃（</span><span lang="EN-US">Adonai</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">一些人看到了安拉，一些人看到了三位一体，一些人看到了梵、湿婆，等等。倘若你真的认为宗教知识类似于别的知识，那你就可以以它们为类比项来说明你的宗教认识论，则你就应该回答这么一个问题：为什么不同的宗教群体在数千年的漫长历史里不能就终极实在达成一致？倘若你说只有你的信念为真而其他人的信念为假，同时你却不能用论证或证据向他们显示确实如此，则你说自己为真还有什么意义呢？⑦这样，人们就会自然而然地认为，宗教是一种特殊的信念。倘若它是有保证的，它也仍然是一种特殊的知识。所以我们应该严格地区分宗教信念和感觉</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">记忆</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">道德信念。当我们把它们当作类比项来显示宗教观念时，必须细心地认识到它们的局限性。普兰丁格在其对多元论的反驳中，用了一个道德故事来说明他的宗教排他论态度。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 大卫王强占乌利亚之妻拔示巴并害死乌利亚。先知拿单给大卫王讲了一个有着许多羊群的富人强夺一个穷人唯一的一只羊的故事，令大卫王听了很生气，要把这个富人处死。拿单伸手指向大卫王说，“你就是那人！”大卫王终于悟到自己的过失。普兰丁格用这个例子说明，一个（基督教）排他论者在宗教多元的处境中，就如大卫王在明知道有人不同意自己的信念（“那个富人错了”）且自己无法说服他们相信自己的信念的情境下仍坚持自己的信念一样，乃是合理的。⑧不过，用这样的道德方面的例子来说明宗教问题，本身是不是合理呢？可以用道德例子来类比宗教的事情吗？普兰丁格的这个道德类比，隐含着这么一个意思，即在宗教多元情境中，也象在道德多元情境中一样，只有一个正确的信念（大卫王的信念）。我认为这种类比是不当的。因为在大卫王的例子里，一般有正常道德感的人，想来都会大卫王的看法，况且道德上的争执和分歧，往往是可以通过说理和论证来减少，从而达成共识的。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 而且，就其作为类比来说，我相信各大宗教的人都会说自己就如大卫王一样，在宗教多元的情境中，仍然是唯一正确的信念。宗教共识的达成远较道德共识的达成，这是一个明显的事情。因为在道德争执中，两边（如果有）都可以给出他们的论证，显示他们的选择是正确的，对方的选择是错误的。但是宗教信念呢？如普兰丁格的认识论所示，是“恰当地基本的”，你无需向人出示论证或证据，令他信服只有你是正确的。但你既然不能出示，又如何能说你对而他错呢？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">..............................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①</span><span lang="EN-US">SeeW illiam Alston,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Religious experience as a ground ofre-ligiousbelie,f</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”</span><span lang="EN-US">p. 44.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">我是从</span><span lang="EN-US">JohnHick</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">那里转引来的，见其</span><span lang="EN-US">Phi-losophy
ofReligion, 4th edition, p. 78.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②引自</span><span lang="EN-US">John Hick,Philosophy ofReligion, 4th edition, p.78.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">我加了一些话。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ③“</span><span lang="EN-US">What can experience show?</span><span style="font-family:宋体;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”</span><span lang="EN-US">in: WCB, pp.
331-335.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ④</span><span lang="EN-US">JohnHick,Philosophy ofReligion, 4th edition, 1990.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ⑤当然，这只是说原则上如此，事实上总是会有些例外的。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ⑥这个例子普兰丁格在“</span><span lang="EN-US">What can experience show?</span><span style="font-family:宋体;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”</span><span lang="EN-US">in:WCB, 333-334</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">提到过。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ⑦当然，如果某一个宗教更具传道热情或有更好的办法和组织来传播其信仰，则或许在一个较长的时期后，它征服了其他所有的宗教，变成地球上唯一的宗教，在那时它当然可以宣称它是唯一真教了。但是，若是我们回顾历史，这不难以想象的。即使是在一个宗教之内，也往往孕育着分裂的种子，有着不同的派别，有时其差别之大，绝不亚于不同的宗教。从基督教、儒家、佛教、伊斯兰教均可看到这点。宗教异见者总是存在的。不过，尽管如此，当代全球化仍给了许多大宗教全球性地传播其信仰的绝好机会。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ⑧</span><span lang="EN-US">See</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Pluralism: aDefense ofReligiousExclusivism</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”。</span><span lang="EN-US"> Also:WCB,
p. 452.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 所有或几乎所有的感觉</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">逻辑</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">自然科学的例子都难以套用到宗教事项中，因为如我们上面所说，在这些例子里，人们几乎都可以达成共识。（没有听说过有“科学多元论”的）但在宗教的情景里事情却正好相反：几乎在每一个事情上，各大宗教都无法达成共识。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 尽管如此，让我们仍旧假设可以用道德二难困境（</span><span lang="EN-US">moral dilemma</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）来类比宗教多元困境。在道德二难困境中，在同一问题上，不同的人有着不同的处理方式，有时是截然相反的。他们互有其选择的理由，但并不能说服对方唯有自己的理由才有说服力。</span><span lang="EN-US">2003</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">年初，国内著名的杂志《家庭》曾登过一件事。一家三口落入急流之中，在危难之际，丈夫应该先救妻子还是先救儿子？先救妻子就很可能失去儿子，先救儿子就很可能失去妻子。无论先救哪个，都可以有许多理由。设想这位丈夫并非一位哲学家，先要深思熟虑各种论证和证据，设想在那生死存亡的一刻他只是凭着他的直觉或洞见（这岂不正与普兰丁格的“恰当基本信念”相似？</span>
<span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）作出选择，或只是碰巧作出选择（看碰巧是儿子还是妻子离自己近），或只是凭着本能作出选择———会发生什么事情呢？如果他选择了先救妻子，就会有人指责他对儿子残忍；如果他先救儿子，也会有人指责他对妻子残忍。不管他先救的是谁，对指责他的人来说，他都是“非理性的”（</span><span lang="EN-US"> irrational</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">），对赞成他的人来说，他都是“理性的”（</span><span lang="EN-US">rational</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。倘若他说先救妻子对他是“恰当地基本的”，那先救儿子就是“不恰当的”吗？倘若他说先救儿子对他是“恰当地基本的”，则先救妻子便是“不恰当的”吗？如上所述，无论他选择哪个，两个“恰当地基本的”信念</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">洞见都有相等的价值</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">重要性。我们很难判定哪一个是“更恰当地基本”。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 宗教多元要比这种道德二难困境更为复杂。在上面的例子里，人们至少还可以给出他们选择</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">拒绝某个信念</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">决定的理由</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">论证（尽管有时这些论证是事后才想出来的）。在宗教的情况里，你甚至不能讲出一些理由或论证（根据普兰丁格的认识论）。你发现自己只是如是选择了。但你不能说选择了相反之事的人是错误的或“不理性的”，或有某种认识上的“欠缺”。因此那看上去是绝对真理的</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">就成了问题。它所导致的只会是全然相对主义。而这本是普兰丁格所激烈地反对的。他反对罗蒂那样的文化相对主义者。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> （</span><span lang="EN-US">5</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）“信仰寻求理解”：价值及其局限</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">也许是为了避免阿尔斯顿的实践合理性理论的缺陷，①普兰丁格放弃了基督教信念是由宗教经验（</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）产生的观点，宣称“我们所说的经验乃是我们所说的信念产生的场合（</span><span lang="EN-US">occasion,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">或可译为机缘）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而不是如下一种现象，即其存在只是起到了论证那信念（的合理性）的前提的作用”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, 265</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。因此，经验只是让绝对真理（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）得以闪耀的一个机缘。它并非我们接受一个信念时的最关键因素。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">.................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①由于实践上的原因，继续坚持原有的信仰对于我来说是合理的，比如：我谙悉它，它业已证明了对我的生活是可信赖的，等等，见</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, pp. 117-134,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">尤其</span><span lang="EN-US">128, 131-133.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">阿尔斯顿的观点仍旧被普兰丁格和希克两人看成“任意的”。亦见</span><span lang="EN-US">Hick,Dialogue in the Philosophy of Religion, p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">·</span><span lang="EN-US">26.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 让我们假设宗教信念是一种特殊的“知识”。在中国思想里，有一个词叫作“体证”。这个词常常用在道家和儒家著作里。如果一个人接受了一个信念，但仅只是将之当作一个命题（尽管该命题是真理）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">则那信念是“空的”，未能“落实”。但若那人某一日在其实践或生活中忽然体悟到了那信念的真实性，则此人便得到了“体证”。那先前是“空”的信念现在得到了其意义，其真实性得到了“实现”。你不能说这命题先前不是真理；但它有待体证。中国的这一思想接近于奥古斯丁和安瑟伦的“信仰寻求理解”的进路。①比如，某人接受了“基督是救主”这个命题（相信其为真）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但在他体证它之前，它仍旧可说是“空”的。②只有他体证了它，他才可说是得到了“真知”。该信念得到了实现。“基督是救主”这个命题，无论你是否体证了它，都是真的，但若你并没有体证，则它对你仅只是一个信念，其时你还没有获得对它的“理解”。宗教真理不是一个客观的东西，而是需要一个“机缘”得到实现的。倘若没有体证，则其真理无法显出。有些人在长期没有体证的情况下，就放弃了其信念，或仅仅只是将之当作信念（我不知道它是不是真理，但我把它权且当作真理）。还有的人（也许是大多数的信徒）只是因为相信权威（比如基督徒之相信耶稣门徒为耶稣复活所作的见证，或者相信保罗这个人）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">才接受他们本身并没有体证的信念为真理。如果你有了体证，则你会自然而然地领悟到你已持有的信念本是真理，是不以你一己的经验（机缘）为转移的。我不敢确定这是否就是普兰丁格的“奥古斯丁式的基督教哲学”的意思。但他看来确实是要宣称基督教信念的普遍性的（适用于一切的文化）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">当他作为一个排他论者说唯有</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">为真而</span><span lang="EN-US">WOB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">为假，</span><span lang="EN-US"> WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">持有者对那唯一真理是有特权的，因为他们体证了他们的</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（他们有“圣灵的内在激励”，故而亲身认知到了</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的真理性）。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 倘若没有个人的体证呢？</span><span lang="EN-US"> WCB</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">也仍旧是客观地真的。这也许就是普兰丁格说经验只是真理得以显现的“机缘”的意思。就此而论，与林贝克那样的将宗教真理限定在各自的传统里的语言游戏说和库比特那样的将宗教真理等同于人的虚构的理论不同，普兰丁格的真理观可谓典型的传统的命题真理观。这种真理观认为一个命题是放之四海（各可能世界里）而皆准的客观真理。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">.............................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">①关于“信仰寻求理解”的进路，可以参见我的《记忆与光照———奥古斯丁神哲学研究》一书（北京：社科文献出版社，</span><span lang="EN-US"> 2001</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">, pp. 60-86.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">将单纯的命题真理（如</span><span lang="EN-US">A</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">即</span><span lang="EN-US">A, 3+2=5</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）与宗教命题（信念）分开的，乃是后者除了一般的理性认知外，尚需要对上帝的爱，包括祷告、感情等。对上帝的爱可以深化我们对上帝的知识。因此宗教知识是一种动态的知识，而不是静态的。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②我想这正是普兰丁格的意思，当他说“除了理智力、敏锐、睿智、精细、深度以外，在恰当地讨论宗教话题时，还需要有其他的东西”。</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, 455.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">这其他的东西就是体证（或基督徒所相信的圣灵的见证，或由圣灵激励起来的对上帝的爱）。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 但是应当如何理解普兰丁格下面的这些话呢？“你或许会想，广义来说，这（</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模型）模型是一个基督教信念如何借着宗教经验可以得到保证的模型。这说法并不准确，如果这是对的，那么记忆和先天信念之所以可得到它们的保证，也是借着经验。……这模型并不是这样的。我们所讨论的经验只是用来引发我们所讨论的信念的（场合</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">机缘）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而不是说一个现象的存在可以成为支持某信念的论证的前提。（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, 265. </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）也许他认为信念命题业已为真，因此我们可以称之为“真”，但它们仍有待我们去“落实”（体证）其真？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 举一个平行的例子。一个佛教徒相信“空”的教义为真，但并未体证之。他虽未体证它，却不妨碍它为真。一旦该信徒体证其真，其真便得到了实现。因此对一个人来说，同一个教义有两种“真”：体证之前的，可称为“命题真理”；体证之后的，可称为“生命真理”。因此普兰丁格这里的意思等于：一个教义（如“基督是救主”）在被某人体证之前已是真的，不管它能否被我体证到（就此而论，普兰丁格是古典意义上的真理论者）。我之体证（经验）仅只是它的真理性得以显露的一个“场合”或“机缘”。尽管我的体证是很重要的，但它并非我接受该信念为真的来源或前提。根据普兰丁格的</span><span lang="EN-US">A/C</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">模型，真理是由圣灵的内在激励告诉我的。这令人想起奥古斯丁的“光照说”中的“内在的教师”（基督）。倘若我的罪藉由重生而被洗涤，则我将重新发现永恒的宗教真理。正如奥古斯丁所说，我们并未发明真理，而是发现真理。当我们发现真理时，他们就革新我们（论真宗教，</span><span lang="EN-US"> 39: 72-73</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）。这是与罗蒂的相对论的真理观完全相反的。见</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, p. 433-434.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 为什么在谈到信念与经验的关系时，普兰丁格要加上这些话？也许是为了避免阿尔斯顿的覆辙。阿尔斯顿认为一切的</span><span lang="EN-US">MP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（神秘感知）都产生认识论上等值的信念，因此他就必须解释为什么</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">（基督教的神秘感知）要优于其他的</span><span lang="EN-US">MP?</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">他给出的理由是实践的理由，如我习惯了我已有的信念，等等。希克和普兰丁格从左右两方都对他进行了反驳。见</span><span lang="EN-US">JohnHick,Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion, p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">·</span><span lang="EN-US">26.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">亦见</span><span lang="EN-US">Plantinga,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">rationality</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”，</span><span lang="EN-US"> in:WCB,
pp. 121-134, discussion aboutAlston</span><span style="font-family:宋体;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">’</span><span lang="EN-US">s idea of</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">practicalrationality</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 然而，问题在于存在着诸多彼此冲突的宗教。倘若它们都或几乎都分别地在其信众那里得到了“体证”，被“体证”为真，倘若信众都是虔诚的、诚实的，则我们该如何解释它们彼此冲突这一事实？命题</span><span lang="EN-US">p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">和</span><span lang="EN-US">-p</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">能够同时客观地、普遍地为真吗？①故而“信仰寻求理解”的进路是有其局限的：起点问题困扰着它。怎么选择你的第一步呢？不管你的“原点”是什么，你都将堕入阿尔斯顿落入的困境里。②倘若你宣称你的信念之为“真理”是融贯论意义上的（它与你的别的信念相洽，没有自相矛盾）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">这便较易为人们所接受。如果你邀请人们“尝试”着相信你所信为真，首先尝试着将它们接受为命题真理（即尚未被体证的真理）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">然后在生活中实践之，也许某一天他会“体证”它，得到“真知”，随后有越来越多的“理解”，加深其“信仰”。这便是“信仰寻求理解”。但是存在着许多“信仰”，因此就有许多的“信仰寻求理解”。倘若每一种信仰都是朝向宝库的一扇门，你怎么能说只有你的门才是真正的门而别的门不是真的呢？一种宗教或者一个小宗派里面的真理即足以耗尽一个人的一生，通往它的旅程是无尽的，在这种情况下，我们怎么能说只有自己碰巧找到的路（这多半也正如希克所说，是由出生的偶然性决定的）才是真的，而别的路都是歧途呢？</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 尽管如此，我们也还是不妨设想别的可能性：倘若一切的信仰（由恰当基本的信念构成）都能平等地找到它们的理解（体证）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但只有一种信仰的信众有着最大的传教热情和活力，让最多的人知道其“真理”，则也许有朝一日世上只有这一种宗教了。我们不知道这是一件好事还是一件坏事。它是基督教，佛教，还是伊斯兰教？或某种新宗教？它又会分裂成几派吗？预言未来是困难的。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 正如普兰丁格的消极护教学成功地显示的，一个基督教排他论者在宗教多元的处境中继续坚持其信仰，这在认识论上并非不理性的，在道德上并非自大的。他有权这么做。但是，也正如希克所指出的，他也要清楚，别的宗教的信徒也有权这么做。所以，如果普兰丁格想建立起作为积极护教学的“奥古斯丁式的基督教哲学”（我相信他几乎已建好了）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">他还有大量的工作要做，尤其是要通过论证来显示他的真理比别人的更真。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> （</span><span lang="EN-US">6</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）实践的智慧与生存论进路</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 普兰丁格的排他论的好处在于论述清晰，信仰坚定，立场鲜明，或许可以保留或复兴一种伟大宗教传统（奥古斯丁</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">加尔文基督教传统）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">但它亦不可避免地坠入了多元论陷阱。笔者看不出他有什么方法可以摆脱这个陷阱，除非加尔文宗某一天成为世上唯一的宗教。普兰丁格的排他论导致的一个后果，必将是“诱发”或激发其他宗教的排他主义倾向：我是真的，你是假的，尽管我不能理性地向你证明事实如此。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 在关于宗教多元现象的诸多理论中，笔者比较欣赏普兰丁格的老师阿尔斯顿（</span><span lang="EN-US">W illiam Al-ston</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的实践理性理论（</span><span lang="EN-US">theory of practical ration-ality</span><span style="font-family:
宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">尽管它也有自身的理论问题（正如希克和普兰丁格所指出的，这我们在前面已提过了）。但世上有完美的理论吗？尤其在宗教哲学领域？希克的多元论和普兰丁格的排他论也都有自身的问题。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">....................................<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①对宗教多元现象的解释也是多元的。希克的多元论主张彼此冲突的信念在现象层面上都是真的，但在本体层面上则否。库比特（</span><span lang="EN-US">Don Cupitt</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的非实在论主张它们全都是假的，都是我们所造出来的幻象。林贝克（</span><span lang="EN-US">George Lindbeck</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的文化语言理论主张，宗教经验本身是由宗教语言产生出来的，这与阿尔斯顿的理论是完全相反的。也许各大宗教都可被体证为真，并且实际上它们只是一个宗教？中国一直有人主张三教合一，儒释道实际上是一个道理。当代也有人在做这样的工作，如耶稣会士潘尼卡就宣称他既是天主教徒，又是印度教徒和佛教徒，还是无神论者。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, p. 126, 128, 132.</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“就</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">而言，其原点要么是广义的，要么是狭义的。若是广义的，则它包括</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">是可靠的这一信念；这样一来，显然，合理的决定就会是继续坚持</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">。但这丝毫不能减轻人们就</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">的合理性或合乎情理性所抱的焦虑。倘若原点是狭义的，则是否应在那个点继续坚持</span><span lang="EN-US">CMP</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">就会无关紧要了。”（</span><span lang="EN-US">WCB, p. 132. </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 阿尔斯顿的理论显示出一种特别的实践智慧。它承认这么一个事实，即各大宗教都有它们的神秘感知，在神秘感知基础上得到的宗教信念在认识上是等价的。那么，当面对多元情境时，为什么我要继续持守我的信仰呢？因为迄今为止它尚未表现得不可靠，①因为我对它是谙悉的，对它是有感情的，等等。也许别的宗教对其信徒也是可靠的，②但因为一些实践上的原因（如生命是短暂的，没有兴趣，没有接触，等等）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">我不能实践它们而只能实践我自己的宗教。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> 然而，假如一个宗教个体或共同体觉得，他的传统信仰不能解决生存危机或挑战，不能为他的生活的意义、为他的新遭遇提供更好的解释，那么他就可能失去对固有信仰的信，转而选择其他的信念模式。这是对宗教真理的一种生存论的</span><span lang="EN-US">/</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">实践论的解释。有时候我们的所谓“选择”看上去就是“任意的”和“非理性的”，但为什么不将它们视为上帝所赐的礼物呢？宗教是历史的、生命的真理，不是脱离了信者生活形式的抽象真理。③也许利科（</span><span lang="EN-US">PaulRicoeur</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">）的话是正确的：</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">为什么要恪守某个哲学学派，这是可以论证和讨论的，至少在某些问题上如此。与此不同，恪守某个宗教信仰是有其鲜明特点的。首先，对大多数人来说，这是一桩由出生的偶然性决定了的事，对另一些人来说，是一桩冒改宗之险的事。随着事情的深入，偶然性就转化成了一种理性的选择，最后圆成为一种天命，在对他人、自我、世界的整全领会中留下烙印，在表明接受一个绝对他者的圣言的情况下，通过长长的阐释之链聚集于其历史的和有中介的踪迹之中。这就是生存论循环：一个偶然的事件，通过一个不断进行的选择，转化成了天命。信者保证这个循环不是恶性的，而是有益的、生机勃勃的。④</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">我想补充的是：利科此处所谈的，也一样适用于亚伯拉罕宗教之外的其他各大宗教。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ①基督教主要是从启蒙运动起遇到了其危机。在现代，基督教信仰的主要敌人不是其他宗教，而是现代虚无主义和非实在论（或自然主义）</span><span lang="EN-US">,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">见普兰丁格，“</span><span lang="EN-US">The Augustinian Christianphilosophy</span><span style="font-family:
宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:
宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”。参：</span><span lang="EN-US">The Augustinian
Tradition, ed. Gareth B. Mat-thews, Berkeley: University of California Press,
1999.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ②但许多宗教遭遇到了现代性危机，如儒与道。中国于</span><span lang="EN-US">1911</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">年左右抛弃了儒家。这是文革后伴随着马克思主义原教旨主义消亡而出现“信仰真空”的重要背景。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ③本文将近完成时，有机会与黄勇教授及吕子德博士进行讨论。吕博士认为宗教信念的选择并非真值假值的选择，而是一种类似于中西餐的选择。我之所以在面对多种餐饮时仍旧坚持我的中式餐，是因为我习惯了这种味道，我的胃也适应了它，美国餐虽然我也喜欢，但始终有不适应处（比如吃了拉肚子，刀叉用不惯）。因此这种解释是生存论的，或实践的，与阿尔斯顿和利科观点相近。普兰丁格的问题，在于将宗教的“选择”等同于“真假”。而实际上我们生活中的绝大多数选择并不涉及真假，而仅仅是生活的方便而已。</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> ④</span><span lang="EN-US">PaulRicoeur,</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">Experience and Language in Religious Dis-course</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:
Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”，</span><span lang="EN-US">
in:Phenomenology and the</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“</span><span lang="EN-US">The ological Turn</span><span style="font-family:宋体;mso-ascii-font-family:
Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:宋体;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">”：</span><span lang="EN-US"> the French Debate, For dham University Press, 2000. p. 135.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<!--EndFragment-->
页:
[1]