【2016-07-23】 @linsantu 发表了博文《科学家和哲学家的宗教信仰》（6月24日改自去年知乎回答，7月10日发表于腾讯大家）一我们生活在一个科学主义的时代，科学家（尤其是自然科学家）常常被视为理性与真理的化身。因此一般人在讨论“神 http://t.cn/R5gmmgp @Drunkplane-zny: @whigzhou 辉总也许会对这文章感兴趣。我感觉挺有趣的。 @whigzhou: 这主要是个文化现象，不从文化方面入手没啥意思 @whigzhou: 我见过一些信仰调查问卷，基本观感是，通常它们的问题都问的很蠢，让我无从回答，比如『你认为上帝存在吗？』这种问题，若不澄清其操作性含义，便毫无意义，『你有宗教信仰吗？』也差不多，『你觉得下列哪顶帽子更适合你：无神论者、怀疑论者、不可知论者、基督徒……』稍微好一点，但信息量也不大。 @whigzhou: 假如1950年的一位数学家说自己是基督徒，2010年的一位数学家说自己是无神论者，依我看，这一不同表态对于我们判断他们在基本哲学立场上有何差异毫无帮助。 @whigzhou: 因为如何表态主要取决于他们是否喜欢『基督徒』和『无神论者』这两个词所沾上的文化气味 @whigzhou: 宗教信仰主要是一种文化认同，跟哲学立场没什么关系，或者说两者间关系是高度任意的，『全知全能的上帝规定了物理定律并通过这些定律运行世界』和无神论有什么经验上可辨认差异吗？反之，无神论者照样可以相信灵性、感质和各种天钩。 @whigzhou: 所以，假如你要把宗教当成一个哲学问题来问，那么你的问题就不能这么幼稚或暗含立场，假如你要把它当成文化认同问题来问，那么像『你经常去教堂吗？』『假如你没受过洗，你会在未来受洗吗？』『你常阅读圣经吗？』『教会生活对你重要吗？』『你希望自己的葬礼遵循基督教仪轨吗？』之类的问题会更好。 @whigzhou: 当代美国社会的语境中，信仰问题其实已经收窄到了其伦理方面，即，争议参与者所关切的，主要是其伦理方面，其中要点可表述为：在判定某一人类行动应该与否时，除了个人欲望、理性及其集体表达之外，是否存在某个更高（或最高）的外部指引，若是，它具体给出了哪些指引？ @whigzhou: 多数坚守信仰者所意图坚守的，其实是这个，尽管他们自己往往也表达不清楚。  

【2016-06-18】 @希波克拉底门徒 今天听说一个朋友要退党，我问他有没有读过圣经，他说没有，我说去信这个的人大多数没完整读完圣经。我最后跟他讲：我尊重你，尊重你的信仰自由权利，但不会尊重基督教信仰。我替你最后选择基督教信仰感到惋惜。希望你在选择一种信仰前，先了解它的来龙去脉、真实面貌，完全不了解就去信，跟不知道对方性格、历史就去领结婚证有什么区别？over @黄章晋ster: 宗教提供的价值体系的非理性化，恰恰是一个社会道德伦理体系能相对稳定的保证。如果一个社会的道德伦理是可以讨论的，是服从理性的，它必然是不稳定甚至是无从建立的，它必然很快会讨论人肉是否好吃这样的话题。我们反对器官人肉的自由买卖，其实是自觉使用了宗教提供的绝对伦理。 @黄章晋ster：从社会功能而言，除了为一个社会提供稳定的价值锚链，它还早就衍生出为社会提供反哺和救济功能，社区的化精神纽带功能，跨阶层交流沟通的调适功能……这些社会功能，都是世俗政府无法有效提供的，而西方社会提供类似功能的非宗教社会组织，本身就是宗教组织启发的产物。 @黄章晋ster：我们不用去做历史表现的对照，仅从将来的可能性而言，在彼岸建立天国的信仰和在现世建立人间天国的社会，必然是前者造成灾难的可能性更小。 @黄章晋ster：基督教诞生前的希腊罗马世界，只有崇拜英雄、强者、理性的价值取向，并无同情弱者之类的价值取向，虽然多数人有共情同理心，但不意味着它能上升为稳固的群居规则，尤其是在生产力低下的时代。虽然中国两千年来儒表法里，但儒家伦理若不成意识形态，以韩非子价值观造就的社会必然是斗兽场。 @whigzhou: 前面几点我都没意见，这条不同意 @whigzhou: 需要注意到，所有文明都经历了一个残忍行为逐渐减少的过程，特别是人牲和肉刑的普遍消亡，这个过程发生的很早，宗教在其中似乎并未扮演关键角色 @whigzhou: 去残忍化的过程可能是社会大型化及和平秩序长期持续的自然后果，宗教或意识形态未必是前导因素 @whigzhou: 类似对战场（和角斗场）上的失败者缺乏同情的残酷文化在罗马存续得较久，可能和他的普遍兵役义务有关，当军事职业与其他职业分化更明确，壁垒更森严之后，军事阶层之外的文化就会改变 @whigzhou: 另一方面，就『同情弱者』的经济方面而言，罗马帝国向其公民大派面包可是福利国家的先驱 @baidu冷兵器吧: 希腊和基督教前罗马世界有着长期的慈善行为和组织，这不可能是没有同情价值观的社会 @whigzhou: 对，以后世标准，罗马人表现得缺乏同情心的方面主要是针对战斗中的失败者，依我看这是尚武精神与普遍兵役的结果 @whigzhou: 说起同情心，想到个事情，轿子从北宋开始流行，起初士大夫都鄙视坐轿子的，认为太残忍（也太娘炮），程颐还说『吾不忍乘，分明以人代畜』，但此后轿子地位不断提升，到清代已是官绅富家主要交通工具，是个官没有不坐的，毫无压力，原因显然不是儒家意识形态衰弱，而是人口压力提高，人力益发便宜了。 @whigzhou: 明廷已重新控制北方，清廷更控制了草原，所以这事情不能以缺驴马解释，只能说人比驴便宜。

【2016-05-15】 @whigzhou: 从上世纪中后期开始，基督教在全球范围的扩张势头逐渐消退…………除了其中最保守、生育率最高的那些教派，目前，加纳有6万多摩门教徒，肯尼亚有15万贵格派教徒，门诺派在埃塞俄比亚有47万信徒（其中26万已受洗），当然，对于主流媒体，这些事情根本没有发生。 @zeroclyy:去年埃博拉病毒感染的医生全家都是传教士，一边治病教书一边传教，感召上帝，奉献自己，传播福音。媒体不在乎，美国福音派和摩门教一直坚持在全球传教，而且都是自愿的，竟然有人说是强迫的!!!,你去强迫试一试？ @whigzhou: 非洲少有的一股积极力量  

【2016-04-26】 @人造史诗:假设一个要求信徒尽可能降低物质消费的宗教或教派在当代西方世界大规模发展，那么这个宗教或教派算不算反对当代西方世界?算不算从经济社会基础上与西方社会无法相容? @whigzhou: 你说的就是Amish人啊，当然不算反西方，而且只要他们一直像现在这样保持和平主义，就与西方世界完全相容 @whigzhou: 实际上Amish人过去几十年的历史很好的演示了这个相容过程会如何发生，随着人口急增，土地价格上涨，多数Amish人已无法坚持传统家庭农业，但他们是和平主义者，不能去抢土地，而且按教规不能领福利，于是只好转向制造业和服务业，为此不得不接受越来越多的现代元素，今天2/3以上Amish人已经不务农了。 @whigzhou: 但这一转变不是均匀和整体的，而是以教派分裂的方式发生，每当一组新的现代元素引进来时，就会针对是否接受这些元素（比如能不能用手机）而发生一次分裂，若干次分裂之后，便产生几十个分支教派，构成一个从最保守到最开明的连续光谱， @whigzhou: 这个光谱被称为“Amish自动扶梯”，对个体来说，选择站在扶梯的哪个位置是完全自由的，但从整体看，由于人口迅速增长，往上走的人流必定称为主导趋势，否则新增人口无法生存 @whigzhou: 实际上，Amish自动扶梯只是新教保守派这部大扶梯的最底端那一截，从Amish扶梯的顶端（即最开明端）再往上走，就是普通门诺派（Mennonites），再往上走就是福音派（evangelical），由于越下面生育率越高，所以这部大扶梯一直在为美国社会源源不断的输送保守派。 @whigzhou: 类似情况（教派分裂-形成光谱-生育率驱动下变成扶梯）也发生在摩门教中，这里有份摩门教的教派列表，以感受一下摩门自动扶梯 @人造史诗:我想进一步请教:如果有个亿人级的群体，知识，生产率和技能都不低，但因为教义要求苦行。所以故意采用降低生产率，减少劳动时间的方式来避免无用劳动。那么对社会会有世俗意义上的负面影响吗？ @whigzhou: 如果这种（或类似）教义被90%人奉行，那文明无疑会萎缩 @whigzhou: 可是你只要想一想支撑现有文明社会的基本条件，就会发现这种情况根本不会发生，所以认真讨论它没什么意义，重点是：在考虑社会长期演变时，你不能把某个因素（或趋势）单独放大一万倍，同时假定其他都不变，这么想没什么意义 @whigzhou: 关键是，“其他条件”一定会变，自动扶梯就是变的一种方式 @whigzhou: 比如你问：按目前的生育率，长此以往等到Amish占美国人口90%会怎么样？但怎么不想想：这些人住哪里？土地怎么得来的？他们仍然不肯投票吗？掌握全部选票的另外10%公民仍然愿意为他们提供安全保障和司法系统？此时北美大陆仍能抵御入侵者？在丧失现有安全保障后Amish人仍然会坚持和平主义任人宰割？  

Tom Holland: We must not deny the religious roots of Islamic State Tom Holland: 我们不能否认伊斯兰国的宗教根基 作者：Tom Holland @ 2015-3-17 译者：Horace Rae 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：News Statesman，http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/tom-holland-we-must-not-deny-relgious-roots-islamic-state Its jihadis call for a global caliphate. So why deny religion drives Isis? 伊斯兰圣战者呼吁建立一个全球哈里发帝国。所以，我们何以否认伊斯兰国乃由宗教所驱动？ in 1545, a general council of the Western Church was convened by Pope Paul III in the Tyrolean city of Trent. The ambition of the various bishops and theologians in attendance was to affirm Catholic doctrine in the face of the Protestant Reformation. Accordingly, when the council issued its first significant decree on 8 April 1546, it was targeted very precisely at what the delegates saw as most noxious about Luther and his followers. 1545年，教皇保禄三世主持的天主教会大公会议在提洛尔地区的塔兰托召开。与会的主教和神学家们想要在新教改革如火如荼之际巩固天主教信条的地位。于是，1546年4月8日，当会议发布第一条重要教令时，其对象很明确，就是被代表们视为罪大恶极的路德及其追随者。 Whereas Protestants, following Luther’s lead, aspired to strip away the cladding of tradition and learn the will of God from scripture alone, the Council of Trent condemned this ambition as a pernicious heresy. Divine revelation, it declared firmly, was not confined to the Bible. Tradition, too, “preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession”, expressed the essence of Christ’s teachings. To doubt this was no longer to rank as Christian. 跟随路德指引的新教徒们决意打破传统，只从经文中领悟上帝的意志。塔兰托大公会议谴责这种想法，称其为罪大恶极的异端邪说。会议坚持，神圣启示并非只存在于《圣经》之中。传统——“经由连续传承而被保存在天主教会中”——也同样能传达上帝教导的实质。质疑这一说法的人将被剥夺基督徒身份。 It is in a kindred spirit that Mehdi Hasan, in his article in last week’s issue of the New Statesman, would deny the title of Islamic to Islamic State, also known as Isis. That Isis militants, in justifying their actions, can quote the Quran, or the example or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, does not necessarily make them orthodox Muslims. 在上周New Statesman 杂志刊登的一篇文章中，Mehdi Hasan也表达了类似的想法：否认伊斯兰国的“伊斯兰”特性。尽管伊斯兰国的战士们在为其行为辩解时大可引用《古兰经》或先知穆罕默德的行迹或言论，但这并不能令他们成为正统的穆斯林。 Islam, like Christianity, is more than the sum of its scriptures. Over the course of its near 1,500 years of existence, an immense corpus of commentary and interpretation has accrued. “. . . the religion’s teachings in every age are determined by scholarly consensus on the meaning of the complex scriptural texts.” So declares Timothy Winter, the director of the Cambridge Muslim College, as quoted by Hasan. It is an assertion that would not have looked out of place in the decrees of the Council of Trent. 就像基督教一样，伊斯兰教的内涵远比经文总和丰富得多。在它1500余年历史中，无数人对它做过解释和评论，“……在每个时代，教义都是由关于复杂经文之内涵的学术共识决定的。” Hasan 引用剑桥穆斯林学院院长Timothy Winter如此说到。这种主张如果插到塔兰托会议的纲领中去，也不会令人觉得格格不入。 The problem faced by the orthodox religious authorities in the Muslim world, however, is very similar to that which confronted the Catholic Church in the 16th century: escaped genies are tricky things to get back into bottles. The same impulse that prompted Luther to affirm the primacy of scripture over Catholic doctrine has also long been at work in Islam. 然而，正统穆斯林权威现在面对的问题与16世纪困扰天主教会的问题很相似：逃脱的精灵很难回到瓶子里。促使路德把经文置于天主教信条之上的念头在伊斯兰教中也是由来已久。 As far back as the 13th century, a scholar based in Damascus by the name of Ibn Taymiyya proposed that the surest way to know God’s purpose was to study the practices of the first three generations of Muslims: the “forebears”, or “Salafs”. Reports of what Muhammad and his earliest followers had done, so he argued, should always trump subsequent tradition. Like Luther, Ibn Taymiyya was condemned as a heretic; but he also, again like Luther, blazed a momentous trail. 早在13世纪，大马士革一位名叫Ibn Taymiyya的学者就认为，领悟真主意图最稳妥的方法就是研习最早三代穆斯林（“先贤”，或称“萨拉菲”）的事迹。他宣称，关于穆罕默德及其最早期追随者所作所为的记载，永远比后来形成的传统更为权威。正如路德一样，Ibn Taymiyya也曾被斥为异端；但是，还是跟路德一样，他同样开辟了一条重要道路。 Salafism today is probably the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world. The interpretation that Isis applies to Muslim scripture may be exceptional for its savagery – but not for its literalism. Islamic State, in its conceit that it has trampled down the weeds and briars of tradition and penetrated to the truth of God’s dictates, is recognisably Salafist. 萨拉菲主义可能是当今世界扩散最迅速的伊斯兰教运动。伊斯兰国对伊斯兰经文的解释，在其野蛮性上或许颇为罕见，但是在字面主义上却绝对正宗。伊斯兰国幻想自己消灭了宗教传统中的毒草，洞悉上帝的旨意，这很明显是萨拉菲主义的特质。 When Islamic State fighters smash the statues of pagan gods, they are following the example of the Prophet; when they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are following the example of the warriors of the original caliphate; when they execute enemy combatants, and impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not glory in. 当伊斯兰国战士毁坏异教神祗的雕像时，他们效仿的是先知的先例；当他们宣称自己是未来统治世界的帝国的骁勇之师时，他们效仿的是最早的哈里发国的军队。当他们处决敌军战士，对基督徒征收歧视性的税目，以及把被打败对手的女人当作奴隶时，没有一件不是初代穆斯林引以为豪的。 Such behaviour is certainly not synonymous with Islam; but if not Islamic, then it is hard to know what else it is. 这种行为与伊斯兰教肯定不是百分之百相符的；但要是说这种行为不是伊斯兰的，那就很难说它到底是什么了。 Admittedly the actions of those signed up to Islamic State are unlikely to have been inspired exclusively by religious teachings. Many of those fighting for Isis may indeed, as Hasan points out, be varnishing their taste for violence or power with a sheen of piety. But the same was true of those inspired by Luther’s teachings – not to mention the early Muslims themselves. 诚然，伊斯兰国的这些行为不可能仅仅由宗教教义驱动。Hasan指出，isis的许多斗士，可能仅仅是将他们对权力和暴力的欲望粉饰为了对神的虔诚。但是，被路德的教导所鼓舞的人也是如此呀——更不要提那些早期的穆斯林们了。 Back in the time of the Salafs, avarice and religiosity frequently coincided. When a slave revolt erupted in Syria and Iraq less than 50 years after the death of Muhammad, the Arab conquerors were outraged. “These slaves are our booty,” one of them exclaimed. “They were granted us by God!” 在萨拉菲们的时代，虔诚与贪婪往往同时发生。穆罕默德去世不到50年，叙利亚和伊拉克爆发了奴隶起义，阿拉伯征服者们大发雷霆，其中一人宣称“这些奴隶是我们的战利品，他们是真主赐予我们的！” Jihadis in Raqqa have tweeted in similar tones about uppity Yazidi slaves. To imagine that religious motivation can somehow be isolated from the complex swirl of ambitions, fears and desires that constitute human nature is to fall for an illusion: that religions, contingent as they are, and as subject to evolution as any other manifestation of culture, exist as abstract ideals. 在推特上，拉卡的圣战者对不易控制的雅兹迪奴隶也有相同的论调。如果我们假想宗教驱动力可以从构成人类本性的野心、恐惧、欲望所组成的复杂漩涡中独立出来，我们就会陷入一种幻觉：宗教飘忽不定，并且如同其他文化表现形式一样总在持续演变，只是作为抽象理念而存在。 The truth is that in Islam today, as in Christianity during the Reformation, the spectrum of those who practise the faith is widening to convulsive effect. Hasan’s dismissal of two Isis recruits from Birmingham as “religious novices” echoes the horror of Catholic scholars such as Thomas More at the pretensions of Protestant tailors and tinkers. 真相是，今日的伊斯兰教就如同宗教改革期间的基督教一样，信徒们的思想差异极大，造成了令人震惊的后果。Hasan对Isis从伯明翰招募的两名成员不屑一顾，称之为“宗教菜鸟”，这种反感与Thomas More等天主教学者面对新教裁缝和修补匠的主张时的感觉一样。 Just as in the early 16th century the printing press and the efforts of translators such as Luther and Tyndale served to democratise knowledge of the Bible, so in the 21st century has the ready availability on the internet of the Quran and the hadiths in the vernacular enabled rappers, security guards and schoolgirls all to bandy scripture. 正如16世纪时出版印刷业以及路德和廷代尔等翻译者曾对《圣经》知识平民化作出过贡献一样，在21世纪，网络上译成本地语言的《古兰经》及《穆罕默德言行录》唾手可得，这也使得说唱艺人、保安和女学生们都能把经文挂在嘴边。 To complain that quranic verses which mandate crucifixion or beheading are being cited without reference to the traditions of Islamic jurisprudence is to miss the point. It is precisely because Isis militants imagine themselves the equivalent of Muhammad’s companions, blessed with an unadorned understanding of God’s commands, that they feel qualified to establish a caliphate. 指责他们不参考伊斯兰教法传统就直接引用那些鼓励刑罚和砍头的《古兰经》经文，这种批评没有抓住要点。正是因为Isis战士认为他们自己等同于穆罕默德的同伴，被赐予了对真主旨意的准确理解，他们才认为自己有资格建立哈里发国。 “My people,” so Muhammad is once said to have warned, “are destined to split into 73 factions – all of which, except one, will end up in hell.” Who, then, Muslims have often wondered, will gain paradise? Isis, like so many of the various other sects that have emerged in the course of Islamic history, appears confident of the answer. 据说穆罕默德曾经警告过：“我的人民注定要分裂成73个派别，除了一个，其他的都要下地狱。”穆斯林们一直在疑惑：究竟是谁会上天堂？正如历史上涌现出的其他伊斯兰教派别一样，Isis对这个问题的答案似乎很自信。 It is not merely coincidence that IS currently boasts a caliph, imposes quranically mandated taxes, topples idols, chops the hands off thieves, stones adulterers, executes homosexuals and carries a flag that bears the Muslim declaration of faith. If Islamic State is indeed to be categorised as a phenomenon distinct from Islam, it urgently needs a manifest and impermeable firewall raised between them. At the moment, though, I fail to see it. 现在，IS夸口自居为哈里发，征收《古兰经》要求的税目、推倒偶像、砍掉盗贼的手、把通奸者石刑处死、处死同性恋者，并且采用穆斯林的见证言作为旗帜，所有这些都并非巧合。如果伊斯兰国一定要被定义成与伊斯兰教毫无关系的现象，那么两者之间就需要树立一堵明白无误、密不透风的防火墙。现在，我还没有看到这堵墙。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The Decline of Witch Trials in Europe 欧洲猎巫审判的衰落 作者：James Hannam @ 2007 译者：Yuncong Yang 校对：慕白 来源：作者个人网站，http://jameshannam.com/witchtrial.htm Preliminary considerations 绪论 Alice Molland was sent to the gallows at Exeter in 1684 and became the last witch to be executed in England. Scotland closed its account with Janet Horne in 1722 while trials wound down across Europe. However, it would not be until 1782 that the last witch to be legally executed met her fate at Glarus in Switzerland. 1684年，艾丽丝·莫兰在埃克塞特被处以绞刑，她是最后一个在英格兰被处决的女巫。 1722年，珍妮特·霍恩成为苏格兰最后一个被处决的女巫，此时，全欧洲的猎巫审判案件已经在减少，不过要等到1782年，全欧最后一个经法律程序被判死刑的女巫才在瑞士的格拉鲁斯被处决。 But by the late 17th century witch trials were already reasonably rare occurrences even in the same localities where, in the earlier part of that century, the greatest hunts had taken place. The crime itself was extinguished in France by royal edict in 1682, repealed in England in 1736 and abolished in Poland as late as 1776. 但是到17世纪晚期时，在那些之前猎巫运动最盛行的地区，猎巫审判已经是相当罕见的事情了。法国于1682年就通过王室敕令废除了巫术罪。英格兰取消巫术罪是在1736年，而直到1776年波兰才废除这一罪名。 However, the decline in trials and hunts did not necessarily presage a corresponding decline in the belief in witches just as their start did not correspond to any increase. Belief is a notoriously hard thing to measure, but almost all societies appear to have some tradition of witches and fear of magic has been nearly universal. The questions about witches in early modern Europe are not so much why people believed in them at that time and place, but why that belief manifested itself into the hunts and executions. 然而，正如猎巫审判和猎巫运动的兴起并不代表人们比以前更加相信巫术及巫师的存在一样，它的衰落也并不一定代表人们变得更不相信巫术及巫师的存在了。众所周知，信仰是非常难以度量的，而几乎所有社会里都存在着某种巫师传统，人们对魔法的恐惧也是处处有之。要研究近代早期欧洲的巫师这一题目，重要的问题不是为什么彼时彼地的人们相信有巫师存在，而是为什么彼时人们的这种信念导致了猎巫运动及对巫师的大规模处决。 The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to examine the reasons that trials for the crime of witchcraft, from being relatively common before 1650, had, across Europe, become a rarity fifty years later and had died out altogether within another century. This rapid decline and then extinction is at least as puzzling as the widespread appearance of the phenomena in the first place at the end of the fifteenth century. 本文的宗旨是探讨这一问题：为什么在1650年前相当普遍的对施行巫术者的审判50年后就变得颇为罕见，而到了18世纪晚期就彻底绝迹了？猎巫审判在这一时期的急剧衰落与它在十五世纪末的急剧盛行一样令人费解。 Witch trials only became common during the Renaissance and the fiercest hunts took place in the 1620s and 1630s in German speaking areas. Contrary to popular belief, they were not a phenomenon of the Middle Ages. Although magical belief and practice were just as common during this earlier period, they did not often lead to trials, let alone executions. 猎巫审判要到文艺复兴时期才开始普遍出现，而最最激烈的猎巫高潮出现在十七世纪二三十年代的德语地区。与普遍的认知相反，猎巫运动不是中世纪的事情。在中世纪，人们对魔法的信仰和使用与猎巫运动时期一样普遍，但那时很少有巫师被送上法庭，更别说被处决了。 Until recently popular views of this subject were confused both by the agendas of rationalists who wanted to find examples of superstition and by neo-pagans seeking their own foundation myth. 直到最近，对猎巫运动的流行观点都相当混乱。其原因在于，一方面，理性主义者们希望找到迷信带来恶果的实例，另一方面，新异教的信徒们希望在历史中找到他们教义的根基。 The “Burning Times”, when, according to the most extreme polemicists, nine million women lost their lives after dreadful torture, has become an essential part of neo-paganism’s self identity. They also had Margaret Murray to assure them that witches really were the survivors of the old religion that neo-pagans were continuing in the present day [NOTE]. “大火刑时代”已经成为了新异教主义自我身份认同的核心部分。据一些最极端的论者说，这一时期有九百万女性在承受酷刑后被杀。除此之外，玛格丽特·穆雷断言巫师们是古老宗教的孑遗，而今天的新异教正是继承了这些古老宗教。 Murray’s thesis of the existence of a pre-Christian fertility cult remains influential outside the academy but, despite seeming to have gained some support from Carlo Ginzberg’s work on the benandanti who do appear to have had some of the attributes of a religious cult, it is dismissed by noted modern authority Robin Briggs as having “just enough marginal plausibility to be hard to refute completely, yet is almost wholly wrong.” [NOTE]. 穆雷认为，猎巫时代存在着一种源于前基督教时期的生殖崇拜。这一观点至今在学术圈外仍然颇有影响。尽管卡洛·金斯堡对于“善之行者”（benandanti）的研究结论（“善之行者”的身上确实存在某种宗教崇拜的特征）似乎部分支持穆雷的观点，现代的权威学者罗宾·布里格斯依然对穆雷的观点嗤之以鼻，在他眼里，穆雷的学说“只有刚好够使它难以被彻底驳斥的那么一点点说服力，但基本上是完全错误的。” This reassessment of the myth of the Burning Times has even reached neo-paganism’s own scholarship [NOTE] which is challenging the idea that the validity of their religion depends on its antiquity. Meanwhile, estimates of the total number of executions over three centuries has shrunk to about 60,000 or so [NOTE] which is of a similar order of magnitude to what the Jacobins managed in just three years of terror during the French Revolution. 即使新异教主义自己的学者们也开始重新审视“大火刑时代”，他们开始挑战这一令其信仰能够合理的建基于古代传统的观念了。同时，现今对猎巫运动在三个世纪内处决人数的估计已经下降到约六万人，这一处决规模和法国大革命时雅各宾派在三年恐怖时期内做到的不相上下。 There is very little agreement about the reasons for the end of witch trials and the scholars have tended each to be an advocate for their own ideas based on the study of particular localities rather than trying a more synoptic approach to bring some order to the myriad of available suggestions. It is not even clear whether we are looking for some new causes that helped end witch trials or simply the absence of whatever it was that had started them in the first place. 对于猎巫审判结束的原因，学术界没有什么统一意见。很多学者仅仅是在努力研究某一地区的情况，并以此支持他们自己的观点，而不是尝试进行综合研究以给各种可能假说梳理出头绪。我们甚至都不知道在研究中应该寻找什么。是某些新生因素结束了猎巫审判，还是某些在过去推动了猎巫审判的因素已经不复存在？ So, if we could identify the conditions that brought about the trials, the subsequent decline might simply be explained by their later disappearance. An example of this would be the religious confusion and violence of the Reformation that had largely worked itself out after the Treaty of Westphalia in the mid-seventeenth century. 如此说来，如果我们能够找到最初猎巫审判产生时的种种条件，那么猎巫审判后来的衰落或许就可以归因于这些初始条件的不复存在。举例来说：宗教改革带来了宗教观点的混乱和大量暴力冲突，而这种混乱状况在十七世纪中叶威斯特伐利亚条约后大为缓解。 It has also been widely noticed that hunts tended to take place in areas and periods where central control had largely broken down or during interregnums between regimes. For example, the activities of Matthew Hopkins took place in the chaos of the English Civil War, the Great Hunt in Scotland in 1661 when English justices were replaced, and even the Salem of 1692 outbreak occurred in a temporary vacuum of authority. When control was restored, goes this theory, the witch hunts largely ceased. 很多人也都注意到，若一个地区中央统治秩序崩坏或正处于改朝换代时期，猎巫审判就比较易于在此地盛行。举例而言：马修·霍普金斯活跃于英国内战的混乱时期；1661年苏格兰的大规模猎巫运动发生时，当地的英格兰法官正遭到大规模替换；甚至1692年的萨勒姆大审判也是发生在当地短暂处于权力真空的时期。如这一理论预言的，在以上地区一旦秩序得到恢复，猎巫审判就大大减少了。 On the other hand, the original causes might long since have been removed without their effects likewise disappearing so that the decline of witch trials will be brought about by entirely different means. Examples frequently cited are the rise of secular rationalism or social trends that led to the discounting of devilry. It has been suggested that witchcraft simply became too old hat for the intelligentsia of the early Enlightenment to countenance and that they were wont to sneer at such outdated nonsense so as to reassure themselves of their own intellectual superiority. 另一方面，也有很多猎巫运动的初始动因早早消失，但其效力并未消失，在这种情况下，导致猎巫审判衰落的就应该是其他因素。经常被引用的例子是世俗理性主义的兴起，或社会潮流导致魔鬼信仰的自然衰落。一些人认为在启蒙运动早期的知识精英眼里，巫术罪太老套了，不值得他们支持；相反这些精英乐于鄙视这些过时的无稽之谈，从而获得智力上的优越感。 A good deal of recent work has concentrated on the social reasons for witchcraft accusations and has looked for the causes of both their rise and fall at a local level. For instance, Alan MacFarlane and Keith Thomas set out a complex web of interactions between vulnerable single women and other villagers motivated by guilt [NOTE]. They suggested that the full implementation of the Poor Laws sufficiently alleviated the situation so that the accusations ceased. While their careful research of depositions suggests they have accurately portrayed the mechanism by which social tensions manifested themselves, I do not think that they have explained why, at that particular place and time, it should be through witchcraft accusations. 许多近期的研究工作着重研究巫术罪指控背后的社会因素，并通过对局部地区的研究来寻找巫术罪指控增加和减少的原因。麦克法兰和基斯·托马斯的研究描述了一些村子中弱势单身女性与其他村民之间基于罪恶感而展开的错综复杂的互动。他们认为济贫法的全面贯彻实施大大缓解了此类困境，因而减少了巫术罪指控。尽管他们对各种证词的细致研究表明，他们确实精确地描述了当时社会矛盾的表现方式，我认为他们并没有解答“为何彼时彼地这些矛盾偏偏以巫术罪指控的形式表现出来”这一关键问题。 The era of the witch trials was one of great change and disruption but we must not forget that it was bracketed by the disastrous fourteenth century and the enormous social upheavals of enclosure and the industrial revolution. Any social explanation for witch hunts has to be specific enough to differentiate between the early modern period and those on each side of it, while also being general enough to apply to much of Europe over two centuries. 猎巫审判时代确实是一个剧烈变迁、社会失序的时代。但是不应忘记，这个时代之前是灾难不断的十四世纪，而后面则跟着圈地运动和工业革命这样的重大社会变迁。若要从社会角度解读猎巫运动的兴衰，这种解读必须足够具体，否则难以把近代早期和它前后的时期区分开来。同时这种解读又要有足够的一般性，能被应用来解释二百余年间的大半个欧洲发生的诸多相关事件。 The commonalties of witch beliefs are greater enough to make having lots of different social explanations for different environments unconvincing. For this reason I will be looking for general reasons for the decline that can be applied across Europe rather than seeking an individual cause for each locale. 当时的诸种巫术信仰存在非常之多的共同点，因此在解释猎巫运动的兴衰时，试图为不同地区不同环境的猎巫现象找出许多不同社会原因的思路是缺乏说服力的。所以，我要找到一般性原因来解释整个欧洲范围内的情况，而不是为每个不同的地方发生的事情找出一个特定的解释。 By a witch, I mean someone who is believed to have received magical power by some form of diabolical means. The diabolical source of this power is important because the mentality of most Christian intellectuals allowed only the devil as a source of supernatural power, except of course from God, and it led witchcraft to be viewed in much the same way as heresy. 在本文中，巫师一词指的是那些被认为通过某种与恶魔有关的方式得到了魔法力量的人。这种超自然力量的根源是魔鬼，这一点非常重要，因为除了上帝之外，魔鬼是唯一一个被当时的基督教知识分子接受的超自然力来源。也正是这一点使得巫术在很大程度上被当作一种异端行为来处理。 The connection between diabolism and magic is found in the documents of the Christian elite including, most famously, the Malleus Malificium (1486) of Kramer and Sprenger, but has an older provenance. The straightforward dichotomy between God and the devil was already present in late antiquity with the labelling of all pagan gods as demons but once they had been seen off, the church took a more sceptical attitude. Belief in magic was considered to be a sin but consequently actually practising it was nothing more than delusion. 魔法和魔鬼之间的联系载于许多当时基督教知识精英的著作中，最有名的是克拉默和斯普伦格著的《巫师之锤》一书。但这一观念的来源比这些著作更为古老。在古典时代晚期，上帝-魔鬼的简单二分法就已经出现了，当时基督教会把所有异端神祗都目为魔鬼。但击败异教信仰后，基督教会却转而采取一种更具怀疑色彩的立场。信仰魔法被认为是一种罪，但施行魔术不过是一种幻术而已。 This attitude is very much an intellectual one and reflects the continuing rejection of most forms of supernatural belief by theologians even when witchcraft was accepted. That is to say that rather than believing in the innate potency of ritual magic or in nature spirits, they insisted that God and the devil were the only possible agencies for magical or miraculous power. 这种态度很大程度上是基于智识的，它反映着自古以来神学家们对绝大多数超自然信仰的否定，即使后来巫术的存在被接受了，神学家们的态度也依然如此。也就是说：神学家们坚持认为上帝和魔鬼是仅有的能够施行魔法或奇迹力量的存在，而不承认各种仪式魔术或自然精灵本身具有某种能力。 This was not just a question of theology but also arose from the Aristotelian paradigm of natural science that had no room for spirits, magic or other such phenomena. We should note, however, that the word ‘magic’ was also used in medieval works like the Speculum Astronomiae of St Albertus Magnus to describe certain legitimate natural practices. 这种态度不仅是一个神学问题，它也来源于亚里士多德的自然哲学范式。在这一范式中没有精灵、魔法或其他类似现象的存在空间。然而我们也应注意到，一些中世纪著作也使用“魔法”一词来描述某些合法的、并非超自然的行为，例如圣阿尔伯特·马格努斯的《天文之镜》一书。 Later, the hermetic systems that became popular during the Renaissance did allow for spirits and angels to be summoned so consequently their practitioners were always vulnerable to accusations of devilry. This ambiguity about what was and was not acceptable remained a feature of intellectual debate throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern period with both sides using magic to make their own polemical points. In the late seventeenth century we find Joseph Glanvill and Henry More, representing learned science and theology, defending the belief in witchcraft against occultist and radical sectarian John Webster [NOTE]. Webster is keen to deny diabolic involvement in great part because he does not want his own ‘natural magic’ to be confused with witchcraft while Glanville and More are defending the mechanistic new philosophy which, like Aristotelianism, insists all magic must be supernatural - and that can only mean God or the devil. 晚些时候，文艺复兴期间广为流传的赫尔墨斯派哲学系统允许信者召唤天使和精灵，这就使得其信众更容易被指控为魔鬼信者。在中世纪及近代早期，知识界一直在就何种形态的超自然存在可以接受展开辩论。辩论双方都会使用“魔法”一词来阐述论点。在十七世纪后期我们可以看到约瑟夫·格兰维尔和亨利·摩尔代表神学和科学阵营肯定巫术的存在，与神秘主义者兼激进的宗派主义者约翰·韦伯斯特辩论。韦伯斯特努力否定巫术中的魔鬼因素，因为他不希望他的“自然魔法”和巫术扯上关系。而格兰维尔和摩尔捍卫的是新的机械论哲学，这种哲学和亚里士多德派一样，认为魔法一定是超自然的，因而只可能来源于上帝或魔鬼。 At a popular level, beliefs about the supernatural were far more varied and indeed, one of the only commonalties appears to be that they did not involve the devil, at least without prompting from educated interrogators. MacFarlane mentions that the devil hardly figured at all in the depositions to the Essex assizes and in other English cases, he makes few appearances even in confessions [NOTE]. Elsewhere, especially in confessions under torture, diabolic themes are much more prevalent. This seems likely to have been due to the use of torture, together with leading questions, causing the defendants to start echoing the more learned views of their prosecutors. 在大众中，对超自然力的信仰更加五花八门，诸种信仰仅有的一个重要共同点似乎就是，它们都与魔鬼无关，起码在没有遭到博学的审判者追问时是这样。麦克法兰提到：在埃塞克斯郡巡回法院及其它英格兰案件的证言中几乎没有人提起魔鬼，即使在罪人的供词中魔鬼都没怎么露面。在其他地方，特别是那些刑讯之下获得的供词里，魔鬼的主题则明显得多。这种现象看起来应归因于刑讯和诱供。在这二者的共同作用下，被告人们开始重复指控者嘴里的高深说法了。 Restrictions in space make a discussion of how witch trials started impossible here, but it seems likely that a key factor was the overlaying of the elite mentality of diabolism and its associated perversions onto the pre-existing magical beliefs and social tensions among the people. This had happened before with the heretics of the Middle Ages when much of what was believed about them came from ancient authorities rather than their actual activities. It was the combination of learned thought with real factors on the ground (as there really were heretics and people claiming magical powers) that turned deadly. 材料来源的空间限制使得我们难以讨论猎巫审判是如何起源的，但看起来一个重要因素是精英阶层和普通民众的合力。精英们对超自然力来源的“魔鬼说”理论把魔鬼帽子扣在了很多已有的超自然信仰身上，而民众之间的矛盾需要一个发泄的出口。类似的现象在此前也曾发生在中世纪的异端们身上，人们对他们的许多认识并非源于异端们本身的行动，而是来自古老的权威观点。当知识阶层的思想和底层存在的现实因素（因为社会上确有异端，也有号称拥有魔法能力的人）结合起来，其效果是致命的。 Many, but by no means all, so-called witches seem to have been healers, wise women and cunning men who previously would have been of no interest to the higher clergy or secular legal authorities. If they were brought before any authority it would tend to be the local church court that would prescribe some penance like walking around the parish wearing sackcloth. 许多——但绝非全部——所谓的巫师似乎是一些治疗师。在猎巫运动之前，教会高层或者世俗法律体系对这些聪慧的女性或头脑灵活的男性是没有什么兴趣的。如果真可能有什么权威机构想审判他们，那十有八九是当地的教会法庭，判处的刑罚也就是一些类似穿着麻衣绕教区走一周的赎罪行为。 The village healers indulged in a wide variety of ritual magic, healing or mediation with spirits but they had little or no idea of any theory attached to these actions. In other words, to the lower orders, magic was a question of practice while to the elite it was something that required explanation with the devil usually the only explanation available. 当时这些乡村治疗师使用很多仪式魔法，用于治疗，或者让活人与死去的人对话，但是他们头脑里并没有什么关于这些做法的理论。换句话说，对于下层社会，问题的关键是怎么使用魔法。而对上层社会，问题的关键是如何解释魔法，通常魔鬼是唯一的备选答案。 The topography of the decline in trials and executions strongly suggests there were two distinct phases. The first phase, which takes place from the first half of the seventeenth century, is a large falling of in the number of accusations and a corresponding decrease in the proportion of capital convictions obtained. Thomas states that the large majority of executions in England had already taken place by 1620 [NOTE] and in Spain the Basque hunt marks the end of large scale prosecutions. Appeals heard by the Parlement of Paris after about 1610 show a large reduction in the number of capital sentences that were confirmed and after about 1630 an equally precipitous drop in the number of cases heard (even though all witchcraft cases at this time were subject to automatic appeal to Paris) [NOTE]. 猎巫审判及处决的减少并不是平均的，其分布表明猎巫审判的衰落经历了两个不同的阶段。第一阶段自十七世纪中叶开始，其标志是巫术罪起诉数大大减少，及与之相应的死刑判决比例下降。托马斯的研究表明，英格兰的绝大多数巫师处决都发生在1620年前，在西班牙，巴斯克大猎巫标志着大规模巫术罪起诉时期的终结。1610年后，巴黎高等法院的上诉记录显示，在巫术罪案件中死刑判决比例大幅下降。到1630年后，巫术罪案件的数量也出现了同样的大幅下降（尽管在此时期，所有下级法院审理的巫术罪案件都会自动上诉到巴黎高等法院）。 The pattern is repeatedly seen in almost all localities although the time scales are often different. The last hunt in Scotland took place 1661 – 2, large-scale scares continued to claim many lives in parts of Germany through the 1630s but became much rarer thereafter. This is not the end of the prosecution of witches - that continued even with sporadic outbursts of panic - but it is rather the normalisation of the crime as it fades into the background of early modern life. 同样的变化模式出现在欧洲几乎所有地区，尽管时间先后常常不同。苏格兰的最后一次大规模猎巫是在1661-1662年间。1630年代，德国部分地区还时有大规模的猎巫运动，很多人因此丧命，但在那之后就很罕见了。当然，这并不代表对巫师的审判已经消失。审判依然在进行——而且还有间歇性的恐慌带来的小高潮，但这更应解释为这种罪行的常态化。巫术罪行已不是社会关注的焦点，它正在渐渐隐入近代早期社会生活的背景之中。 The second phase is the complete cessation or abolition of prosecutions for witchcraft and this tends to take place in the eighteenth century. It can either take the form of a gradual petering out; some form of legislative act such as Louis XIV’s decree extinguishing the crime after a poisoning plot panic; or the English Act of Parliament abolishing it in 1736 [NOTE]. Often, it had become impossible to secure a conviction before the crime itself was removed from the statute book. 第二阶段是各国彻底停止起诉（或取消）巫术罪的时期，发生在十八世纪。这一阶段，各国停止猎巫的方式各有不同。有的国家逐渐停止了对巫术罪的起诉审理，有些国家采取某些立法措施取消了巫术罪，如路易十四在一次投毒阴谋引起的恐慌后颁布敕令取消了巫术罪，英国国会在1736年通过法案取消了巫术罪。即使在巫术罪被正式从刑法里取消之前，想要说服法庭判决被告巫术罪罪名成立已经很难了。 It seems extremely likely that in looking for causes we must treat these two phases as separate events to be handled individually and that consequently we will not find any single reason for the end of witch trials. 由此看来，在寻找猎巫审判衰落原因时，我们应把这两个阶段分开来看。这也就意味着，猎巫审判的消失不是任一因素单独作用的结果。 Explaining the decline of witch trials and executions 对猎巫审判及处决减少的解释 Under Roman law, to achieve a capital conviction required a full proof consisting of material evidence, witnesses of good standing or a free confession. Torture could be used to extract a confession if sufficient partial proofs had been accumulated but the defendant had to repeat themselves after they recovered and then again in court. Even if they later retracted their confession they were not supposed to be put to the question again [NOTE]. 在罗马法下，要判处死刑需要一条完整的证据链，支持证据链的可以是物证、合格的人证或被告自由自愿提供的证词。如果已经有足够的间接证据指向嫌疑人，则可以使用刑讯取得供诉，但犯人在养好伤后必须再次重复他们在刑讯下作出的供诉，此后还要当庭再重复一次。即使犯人后来撤回了自己在刑讯下作出的供词，他们也不应就同一问题再受到讯问了。 English common law forbade the use of torture in criminal cases altogether unless with the permission of the privy council (effectively meaning only for treason) but had similar systems of evidences and proofs of witchcraft as codified by William Perkins [NOTE]. 英格兰普通法在刑事案件中严格禁止刑讯，仅有的例外是由枢密院审判的案件（通常都是叛国案）。然而，根据威廉·珀金斯的案例汇编，在巫术罪案件中，英格兰有着一套和罗马法相似的取证和证明方式。【编注：威廉·珀金斯是16世纪英格兰著名教士和神学家，清教运动先驱，著述颇丰，曾编有一部三卷本的信仰审判案例集】 In the case of witches, material evidence was usually lacking, as the village healers did not go in for the kind of occult paraphernalia that characterised higher magic. It is also hard to see how the social interactions thought to lead to the initial accusation by Thomas and Briggs could give rise to witnesses able to say they had caught the witch casting a spell red handed, let alone flying through the air. 在审判巫师时，一般都没有物证，一般的乡村治疗师是不会去搞那些高等魔法式的繁琐神秘学仪式的。托马斯和布里格斯认为社会互动可能导致巫术罪指控的出现，但这些通常没法让一个证人到法庭上作证宣称他抓到了一个正在施法术的巫师，更别说亲眼看到巫师在空中飞翔了。 That said, when a witness was produced before the dubious English judge Sir John Powell, declaring that the defendant had been seen travelling on her broomstick, his lordship is said to have dryly remarked that there was no law against flying (sadly the provenance of the story is doubtful [NOTE]). In short, to get a capital conviction if the proper procedures were followed was extremely difficult. 话虽如此，当一个证人被带到对巫术问题持怀疑态度的英格兰法官约翰·鲍威尔爵士面前时，他宣称看到了被告骑着扫帚飞行，据说，鲍威尔爵士不动声色地答道，没有哪条法律禁止人飞行。（可惜这个故事的来源可疑，未可尽信。）总而言之，如果遵循正当的法律程序，受指控者被判处死刑罪名成立是非常困难的。 That is not to say that one could not be punished in other ways where the proof was deficient and the grounds of suspicion that could lead to the application of torture were considerably wider. Simply having a bad local reputation could land someone in a lot of official trouble. This was due to an important reform in the legal system in the late Middle Ages when the accusatio was gradually replaced with the inquisitio. To modern ears this immediately summons up images of the Inquisition although it was secular rather than clerical courts and certainly not papal inquisitors that were responsible for the vast majority of fatal witch trials. 当然， 这并不是说在证据不全且使用刑讯的条件颇为宽松时，被疑为巫师的人无法以别的方式受到惩罚。仅仅是在当地名声不好就可以给人带来很多麻烦了。这种情况的原因是中世纪晚期的一项重要司法改革，在案件审理中控诉制逐渐被纠问制所取代。听在现代人的耳朵里，“纠问制”会让人立即想起宗教裁判所。但这里的裁判官是世俗职务而非宗教职务，在绝大多数巫师被处决的庭审中，作出裁决的也不是宗教裁判官。 When before the Inquisition, a confession and willingness to do penance was always supposed to be sufficient to avoid the death penalty for a first offence while no such leeway existed in most secular courts [NOTE]. Instead, iniquisitio was a method of legal proceedings used in all courts outside England which dropped the dependence on an accuser to bring a complaint. The accuser (who could be punished himself if the defendant was acquitted) was replaced by an inquirer whose role was slowly taken over by professional magistrates. 在宗教裁判所里，初犯的嫌疑人通过忏悔和表达赎罪意愿通常就可以逃过死刑。但在大多数世俗法庭里，是没有这等出路的。在英格兰之外的所有国家，纠问制是被法庭普遍采用的司法程序，这种程序中，不需要一个起诉人来提起诉讼。起诉人（若被告被判无罪则可能受到反坐）被换成了讯问人，讯问人又逐渐被职业地方法官代替了。 This inquirer was expected to investigate matters brought to their attention or the subject of rumour, and was equipped with various powers to enable them to do so. Once they had a case it was presented before a court for consideration and sentence. Provided the procedures were followed and the magistrate was fair and competent, this was a huge improvement over the system of personal accusation and trial by ordeal that preceded it. 讯问人的工作是调查那些引起他们注意的事或流言的源头，并被赋予种种权力以便履行他们的职责。如果他们有足够的理由，相关案件就会提交给法院供审理判刑。如果能够遵守程序，并且地方法官公正且能胜任，这一改革相对于过去的个人起诉及神判法而言将是一个巨大进步。 But it is clear that during the great hunts the rules were not followed. Torture was liberally applied and the atmosphere was one of siege where it was felt the circumstances demanded extreme action. It is interesting to note that the Matthew Hopkins episode, where pseudo-torture such as sleep deprivation and ‘pricking’ was used, was the closest example to a full-scale continental witch hunt that occurred in England. 但是很明显，在大规模猎巫运动期间，司法程序并未得到遵守。刑讯逼供是家常便饭，而且当人们认为事态严重到需要采取极端行动时，全社会的气氛就好像被围在孤城里一样，什么极端行为都不在话下。很有意思的是，在英格兰发生的最像欧陆大规模猎巫的事件就是马修·霍普金斯主导的猎巫运动。在这场运动中使用的大多是一些“类刑讯”手段，比如睡眠剥夺和使用穿刺法鉴别巫师（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricking）. The most prolific hunters tended to be lay magistrates and middle ranking clerics of some education while in the higher and appeal courts such as at Paris the conviction rate was much lower, mainly because the sense of panic was absent, torture kept to the statutory limits and evidence examined with a cooler eye [NOTE]. The actual abolition of torture took place too late in most jurisdictions to have had a significant effect on reducing convictions of witches [NOTE]. 成果最为卓著的猎巫者通常都是未受训练的地方法官和受过一点教育的中层牧师，而在较高等的法院和上诉法院里（如巴黎高等法院）判决率明显低得多。主要原因是在这些法院里没有恐慌气氛，对刑讯的法律限制遵守的较好，法官检视证据的态度也较为冷静。在多数地区，取消刑讯对于减少巫师判决率没有什么影响，因为这一改变来得太晚了。 Neither was it the case that most senior judges denied the very possibility of witchcraft for if they had it is hard to see how they could have countenanced any executions at all. Rather, they were removed from the panic on the ground so they could take a more objective and professional stance. 高等法院的判决率较低并不是因为高等法官们本身就不相信巫术，如果他们真的不信巫术，那他们大可以一个巫师都不判。真正的原因是他们没有受到底层的恐慌气氛感染，因而可以在一个较为客观和职业的立场上审理案件。 It was not just lawyers who could become more lenient as they became more expert in their subjects. In Geneva, when the devil’s mark became an accepted form of evidence, the city’s surgeons were delegated to carry out the examination. However, no doubt as a result of having seen a huge range of moles, growths and boils on patients of unimpeachable character, they simply refused to be drawn as to whether a particular lump was of diabolic or purely natural origin. This made a capital prosecution almost impossible and only one witch was executed after 1625 [NOTE]. 都说律师随着对自身所从事领域了解得越多就会变得越宽容，其实不止律师，很多职业都是这样。在日内瓦，当“恶魔的印记”被认定为可接受的证据时，法院授权本地的外科医生检验被告身上有无恶魔的印记。然而，无疑是由于他们平日见多了那些人品端正无瑕的病人们身上的痣、增生和烫伤，医生们拒绝对某一肿块是恶魔的印记还是自然原因所致做出判断。其结果就是想根据恶魔的印记判处死刑基本上成了不可能的任务。1625年之后，日内瓦只有一个巫师被处决。 So the reduction of witch trials from epidemic to endemic proportions requires little else than the assertion of central control over convictions to ensure the legal forms were being adhered to and that local courts could not execute people without sufficient evidence. This central control could be achieved either through allowing appeals to higher courts (or even making them mandatory) or else by ensuring the proper training and oversight of local magistrates. In particular, the strict controls over the use of torture had to be reinstated, notwithstanding the status of witchcraft as a crimen exceptum (an exceptional crime) in most states, and confessions achieved through torture treated with the necessary scepticism. 由此看来，要把猎巫审判由传染性变为地方性不需要什么高深手段，只要有一个中央权威来控制地方法院，确保他们遵守法律程序，不在证据不足的情况下处决犯人就可以了。这种中央控制可以通过设置上诉程序（或像法国一样规定巫术罪案件自动上诉）来达到，也可以通过确保地方法官受过合适的训练且有合理的监督来达到。尤为重要的是要严格控制刑讯，而不是像很多地方一样把巫术罪看作一种“例外犯罪”而放松刑讯控制。法官对由刑讯得来的供词应有足够的怀疑态度。 In either case, this was extremely difficult during times of political upheaval, which explains the prevalence of hunts in the areas of the Holy Roman Empire most affected by the fragmentation of control up to the Thirty Years War and the same situation in France during the Wars of Religion. Although war itself distracted from witch trials as they were no longer the most pressing concern, the feelings of uncertainty and insecurity engendered by possible conflict could increase them. 不管采用哪种方法，建立此类中央控制在政治混乱时期都非常困难。这解释了猎巫为何在三十年战争期间中央权威破坏最为严重的神圣罗马帝国领地最为盛行，同样的情况也发生在宗教战争期间的法国。尽管作为新的麻烦来源，战争从猎巫那边吸引走了世人的一些注意力，但它带来的不确定感和不安全感也会使得人们对猎巫更加狂热。 At first sight, the abuse of judicial process was not so prevalent in England and a crack down on the use of torture can hardly explain anything in a jurisdiction in which torture was not used. The reasons for the hotspots of witch prosecutions in Essex and Lancashire also remain a mystery now that the theory of proxy persecutions of religious minorities has been called into question. 乍一看，在英格兰司法程序的滥用并不是那么厉害，对刑讯逼供的打击也很难解释在一个不允许刑讯逼供的地区出现的猎巫减少。在英格兰的猎巫高发区埃塞克斯和兰开夏，猎巫运动的起因依然是一个谜。目前有人已开始怀疑，这些地区的猎巫审判只是个幌子，实际上针对的是少数教派。 It is ironic that English witch trials faded at much the time that a king who was personally interested in them came to the throne. The North Berwick trials and his publication of Demonologie (1597) suggest that when he became James I of England, he would have been as concerned in his new realm as he was in his old. Perhaps the events surrounding the state opening of Parliament in 1605 focused his mind on more concrete threats to the royal person. The constant danger from Spain that was present during the rule of Elizabeth, as well as fears about the succession, might well have contributed to an atmosphere that encouraged trials. The ascension of James solved the later problem as well as closing off Scotland as a bridgehead for foreign invaders. 颇为讽刺的是，英格兰猎巫运动的衰落居然主要是在一位个人热衷于猎巫的国王在位期间发生的。由北贝斯维克发生的一系列审判以及詹姆斯一世本人于1597年出版的著作《恶魔学》来看，在他当了英王之后可能仍然和在苏格兰时一样热衷于猎巫。也许1605年国会开会前后的一系列事件所表现出的对国王本人的威胁吸引走了他的注意力。自伊丽莎白一世在位期间就长期存在的来自西班牙的威胁，以及对女王继位者问题的恐慌，都可能在伊丽莎白时期导致了一种鼓励猎巫的不安气氛。詹姆斯一世的继位解决了继承者问题，而且也使得苏格兰再不能成为入侵者的桥头堡了。 While the lack of judicial torture in England made witch prosecutions more difficult, the use of juries of laymen probably had the opposite effect. Whereas in the higher continental courts, the entire trial process, including reaching a verdict, was in the hands of professionals, in England a conviction had to be obtained through a jury of commoners (although they were landowners and burghers) who were often more credulous than the judge. The judge did have a considerable ability to influence the juror and, as he was a professional travelling around the circuit, could considerably reduce the number of convictions. 虽说在英格兰因为没有刑讯，要以巫术罪定罪较为困难，但由非专业人士组成的陪审团参与审理可能产生了相反的效果。在大陆上的高等法院里，整个审理程序包括定罪在内都是由专业人士来掌握的。而在英格兰，定罪工作是由一个一般民众（虽然通常都是地主或体面市民）组成的陪审团来做的。这些人比法官要轻信得多。不过法官对陪审团有相当大的影响力，而且当时的法官又是在辖区内巡回审理案件的专业法官，因此可以有效减少定罪的数量。 In the mid-seventeenth century guides like Robert Filmer’s An Advertisement to the Jurymen of England Touching Witches (1653) and reprints of Reginald Scot’s Discoverie of Witches (1584) were used as guides to the evidence that took a much more sceptical line than Perkins’ effort. But the jury could also reach a verdict of guilty no matter what directions came from the bench as happened during the last successful prosecution in England in 1712 [NOTE]. 在十七世纪中期，陪审员们使用断案指南来帮助他们衡量证据。常用的断案指南包括罗伯特·菲尔莫的《英格兰巫师案件陪审员须知》（1653）和雷吉纳德·斯科特的《发现女巫》（1584）的重印版。这些书对证据的怀疑态度比起珀金斯的著作来要强得多了。但是陪审员们也有权无视法官的指引而作出有罪裁定，在1712年英格兰最后一次成功定罪的猎巫审判中就出现了这种情况。 Rationalism and the final end of the witch trials 理性主义和猎巫审判的终结 By 1700, witch trials had become rare things across much of Europe although they remained reasonably common in Poland until 1725 [NOTE]. When they did occur, they excited a good deal of interest and usually ended with the liberty of the witch. The position of even the lower judiciary was now that maleficia was extremely hard to prove and it was not acceptable to accept lower standards of evidence simply because the crime was so serious. 到了1700年，在欧洲的大部分地区猎巫审判已经很少见了——尽管在波兰猎巫审判要到1725年才变得稀少。这一时期的猎巫审判一旦举行总能吸引众人的兴趣，而结果通常都是巫师嫌疑人被无罪开释。即使较低层的法院都开始认为要证明巫术诅咒是非常困难的事了，不能因为此类犯罪性质严重就采用较低的证据审查标准。 But from time to time, for one reason or another, a conviction was achieved and the statutory punishment was usually death. There were ways around this, such as the judge in England’s last case personally and successfully petitioning for a royal pardon for the accused in 1712 but even ten years after that the Scots executed Janet Horne [NOTE]. 然而间或还是会因为种种原因判决一个两个的巫师，而法律规定的刑罚一般都是死刑。当然即使判了死刑也不是没有办法，比如在1712年英格兰那最后一次成功定罪的巫师案判决后，法官通过个人的努力从王室拿到了特赦令。但在十年之后，苏格兰人还是处决了珍妮特·霍恩。 Positivist historians have long looked upon the end of witch trials as victory for rationalism over superstition. Michael de Montaigne’s scepticism about reports of witchcraft and the veracity of confessions in his essay On the Lame （1588） is a popular example of Renaissance humanism. 一直以来，实证主义历史学家把猎巫审判的终结看作是理性主义对迷信取得的胜利。米歇尔·德·蒙田在他的散文《论跛子》中表现出的对巫术及巫师供词的怀疑态度，是文艺复兴时期人文主义思想的一个著名例子。 However, closer examination of the rationalists has frequently found them to be something of a disappointment for their champions who do not share their mentality. Learned sceptics are often advocates of a mystical or hermetic point of view and are seeking to defend magic from the taint of diabolism rather than claiming that it is impossible. 然而，对理性主义者进行的仔细观察，时常会让他们的支持者们失望，因为这些理性主义者们想的和他们的现代支持者不是一回事。当时学者们之所以对巫术表现怀疑态度，时常是因为他们要推销自己的神秘主义或赫尔墨斯派观点。他们希望从魔法身上揭去魔鬼的污名，而不是认为魔法根本不存在。 The best known sixteenth century critic of witch trials, Johann Weyer, was a pupil of the great neo-Platonist magician Cornelius Agrippa as well as being a radical Protestant. In his De praestigiis daemonum (1583), Weyer was completely orthodox in his belief in devils and his condemnation of almost any kind of magical practice, but just did not think it was the kind of thing that old ladies got up to. 十六世纪最有名的猎巫审判批评者约翰·韦尔是伟大的新柏拉图主义魔法师科尔奈利乌斯·阿格里帕的学生，他也是一位激进的新教徒。在他的《论恶魔幻觉》（1583）一书中，韦尔表现出的相信魔鬼存在和谴责各种魔法实践的观点完全是正统派的。他只是认为，他说的魔法和老太太们做的那些不是一回事。 His English contemporary, Reginald Scot appears at first sight to be more conducive to the views of modern sceptics, but on closer examination his thought also turns out to be almost entirely a function of his Puritan theology [NOTE]. A century later John Webster had a remarkably similar outlook as he too is a sectarian and defender of alchemy. 与他同时代的英国人雷吉纳德·斯科特乍看起来好像更倾向于近代怀疑主义观点，但仔细审视就会发现，斯科特的观点完全是他清教信仰的衍生品。比他晚一个世纪的约翰·韦伯斯特看起来和他异常相似，而韦伯斯特也是一个宗派主义者和炼金术的捍卫者。 The argument was between, on one side Aristotelians and their heirs, the mechanical philosophers, and on the other neo-Platonists and hermetists. As we have seen, it was usually the former, with what we might call the more scientific attitude, who defended belief in witchcraft. This causes a serious problem for traditional explanations for the end of witch trials as there is almost nobody whose particular bundle of motivations and beliefs are entirely comfortable to positivist sensibilities. 论争的一方是亚里士多德派及他们的继承者，机械主义哲学家们，另一方则是新柏拉图主义者和赫尔墨斯派。正如我们前面看到的，通常总是前一派人——也就是我们可能会觉得态度更科学的那一派——相信巫术的存在并努力为之辩护。对女巫审判终结的传统解释在这一点上遇上了难题，因为在这场论争中没有任何一位参与者的信念和动机完全合乎现代实证主义者的口味。 There certainly is a rise in scepticism as Glanville and More (who was a mechanistic Platonist and thus demonstrates the impossibility of fitting anyone’s beliefs into a neat box) are both keen to combat it but, as far as the positivist is concerned, it is not always the right people being sceptics. 当时对巫术持怀疑态度者确实有所增加，以至于格兰维尔和摩尔要努力与之斗争（摩尔是个机械主义派的柏拉图主义者，这又一次证明了想把人的信仰套进方便的模式里是不可能的）。但是困扰实证主义者的是：持怀疑主义的不总是合适的人。 Likewise, Cotton Mather manages to receive both excretion and exoneration for his conduct in the Salem witch trials and later his work on smallpox immunisation. Even a bona fide freethinker like Thomas Hobbes thought that it was justified to convict someone of witchcraft if they had knowingly tried to carry out maleficia even if they were incapable of it [NOTE]. 与之类似，科顿·马瑟既因他在萨勒姆审判中的作为被人痛诋，又因他推广天花疫苗的功劳为人称颂。即使一个托马斯·霍布斯这样十足真金的自由思考者也认为：如果有人有意试图施加诅咒，那尽管他实际上没有巫术能力，判他个巫术罪也是正当的。 The pamphlet wars give us some idea of the motivations of both sides of the argument. Defenders of the belief in witches, such as Sir Thomas Browne in Religio Medici (1634), seemed more worried about atheists than the devil. 当年的小册子论战可以让我们对论战双方的动机略作管窥。为相信巫师存在者辩护的人似乎更担心否定巫师会让无神论者——而非魔鬼——得势。此类思维的例子可参见托马斯·布朗尼爵士的《一个医生的宗教观》（1634）一书。 Similarly, in Saducismus Triumphantus (1681), Glanvill did not appear to be so much concerned about witchcraft being a serious threat to life and limb, especially after his careful investigations revealed rather feeble examples, but instead that a denial of the witch was a big step towards the denial of all religion. 格兰维尔在他的著作《巫师及鬼怪的完整直接证据》（1681）中也表达了类似的意思。他仔细调查了他书中举出的那些巫术例子之后，发现它们都不太经得起推敲，在书中他并不认为巫术对人的生命或肢体能够造成什么实质威胁，更使他担心的是对巫师及巫术的否定可能导致对所有宗教的全面否定。 Even a hundred years later John Wesley had much the same concerns saying “giving up witchcraft is in effect giving up the bible” [NOTE]. Clearly the intention of these writers is not the same as earlier demonologists like Jean Bodin. 甚至在一百年之后，约翰·韦斯利也表达出了相同的担忧。他写道：“否认巫术实质上就是否认《圣经》。”很明显，这些作者支持巫术存在的目的与早期的恶魔学者如让·博丹等人大相径庭。 So, while Cotton Mather’s The Wonders of the Invisible World (1693) fits the bill as a the work of old fashioned cleric, seeing devils under the bed, convinced there is a vast diabolical conspiracy that justifies desperate retaliatory measures, many of the learned defenders had a much narrower interest. 所以，虽然科顿·马瑟的《不可见世界中的奇观》一书的确够得上老派教士著作的标准——书中他认为魔鬼就在我们身边、坚信存在一个魔鬼策划的大规模阴谋且人们应以极端手段对抗这一阴谋，但很多颇有学识的巫术捍卫者所感兴趣的领域则要窄得多。 Ultimately it was these learned men, who simply did not care about old women and their muttered curses, who had to be won around for the prosecutions to stop altogether. What eventually defeated the likes of More and Glanville was the same thing that has invalidated so many of the last ditch defences conducted in the name of religion. 归根结底，要结束猎巫指控和审判，反猎巫派必须把这些饱学者争取过来。而这些人并不关心村中的某个老妇是不是女巫，或她们口中咕哝的诅咒是否灵验。最终击败摩尔和格兰维尔及其同道的，此前也曾扫清过无数以宗教之名誓死捍卫某种信念的人。 There are always a few people who become fixated on a piece of doctrine and insist that the world will be imperilled by giving it up. This happened over the movement of the earth and is happening today over women priests. 历史上不论何时总有一些人执着于某些教条，并宣称如果放弃这些教条世界就会大难临头。围绕着地球是否在转动发生过类似的论争，而今天我们还可以在关于女性牧师问题的讨论中找到这些人的影子。 But once the dogma has in fact been dropped de facto despite the protestations of its defenders, it usually becomes clear that the terrible consequences of which they warned have not come to pass and a new generation has no concerns about amending the writ to conform with practice. 但是，尽管这些人誓死捍卫旧教条，一旦这些旧教条的死亡成为事实，人们就会发现捍卫者们拿来吓唬人的那些严重后果一样都没发生。这种情况下，新一代人就不惮于修改教条来使之适应新的现实了。 Essentially, most people were able to see that the church could sail serenely on despite the loss of an occasional doctrine and that its problems were rather more fundamental than just a matter of believing in witches. 最重要的是，大多数人都能够看到：虽然教会失去了某个教条，但它依旧安然无恙，而教会面临的问题也比巫术问题要深层的多。 While the contention of some scholars that there was a wholesale withdrawal of the elite from popular culture seems to me to be thrown into doubt by the enormous unifying effect of the English bible, it is true that certain beliefs can drop out of ‘high’ culture – especially when they become associated with vulgarity or lack of sophistication. In late seventeenth century England this happened to nearly all magical ideas as the New Philosophy became the in-thing. 虽然英文版《圣经》表现出的巨大文化统合力已使得某些学者声称的“精英阶层大规模退出大众文化圈”这一结论遭到质疑，但不可否认，有些时候一些信念确实会逐渐从“高等”文化的范畴里被排斥出去——尤其是当人们开始认为这些信念太过鄙俗或太过粗浅的时候。在十七世纪晚期的英格兰，这种现象导致了几乎所有与魔法相关的思想被思想界扫地出门，因为这一时期新哲学才是最时髦的。 While actually understanding the scientific results of Boyle or Newton was beyond most people, anyone could attack the superstitions of peasants and thus reassure themselves of their membership of the intelligentsia. Just as the learned ideas about the devil were absorbed by the middling classes who then put them into practice by hunting witches, so the New Philosophy, percolating into the middle class consciousness, helped instil them with scepticism. 虽然大多数人都很难准确理解牛顿或者玻义耳的科学发现，随便什么人都可以通过攻击农民的迷信而获得“自己是个知识分子”的自信。正如之前大众接受了学者们关于魔鬼的理论而置身于猎巫运动，新哲学也渐渐被大众接受，在他们的头脑里种下了怀疑主义的种子。 Even those who were willing to accept the existence of witches in principle did not feel they could countenance any specific examples. As Joseph Addison wrote in the Spectator in 1711 “I believe in general that there is and has been such a thing as witchcraft; but at the same time can give credit to no particular instance of it” [NOTE]. 即使那些愿意在理论上接受巫术存在的人也开始变得难以支持某个特定的巫术案例了。比如约瑟夫·艾迪逊在1711年的《观察家》中写到：“在一般意义上，我相信过去和现在都存在巫术，但与此同时我难以相信任何巫术案例。” To actually abolish the crime required more than the belief that proof was difficult to obtain. The twin pillars of witchcraft were maleficia and the pact with the devil - both aspects needed to be dealt with. Witchcraft had to be thought impossible (in the case of maleficia) and irrelevant (in the case of the pact with the devil). 要废除巫术罪名，只让人们相信其证据难以获得是不够的。巫术罪的两大要件是诅咒行为和与魔鬼所定的契约，必须把这两点都打倒才能废除巫术罪。人们必须认识到，巫术罪是不可能的（打倒诅咒行为）并且和魔鬼并无相干（打倒魔鬼契约）。 Belief in magic was largely absent from the elite long before the existence of the devil himself was being denied although he was becoming a spiritual being whose abilities were far more limited than they had been in the past. He could not really do anything miraculous but only foster illusions in the gullible. Eventually, his power became merely the ability to tempt Christians into sin by mental suggestion and so his threat was but a moral challenge. 在人们开始否定魔鬼的存在以前，知识阶层早已不信魔法存在了。而且现在魔鬼虽然还没被彻底打倒，但它已经成了一种精神性的存在，它的威能已经大不如前，目前它已经无法展示任何奇迹，它能做到的只是用幻觉蛊惑那些容易上当的人了。最终，魔鬼的能力只剩了以精神暗示诱惑基督徒犯下罪孽这一项，这样他对人们的威胁也就只停留在道德层面，而与法律无涉了。 It is also possible that the near complete lack of any solid evidence for devil worship finally began to make itself felt and that consequently fears of a fifth column in the midst of society faded but they would reappear from time to time, most recently in Orkney and Rochdale in the 1991. 另一个可能是，人们终于发现了他们对恶魔信仰的恐惧其实没有任何现实证据，因此，对社会中可能存在一个魔鬼势力第五纵队的恐惧也就消退了。当然，类似的恐惧日后还是会不时爆发出来，最近的例子就是1991年在奥克尼和罗什戴尔发生的“从魔鬼崇拜的家庭中解救儿童”的丑闻。【编注：参见维基词条Orkney child abuse scandal】 Neutering Satan and turning him into a more transcendent figure is often ascribed to Protestantism although Luther himself claims he suffered many physical encounters with the devil who threw excrement at him. Whatever the causes, the devil faded from view and this turned the question of what to do about his alleged disciples into a purely religious matter. 把撒旦无力化并使他成为一个更加虚幻的存在一事时常被记到新教的账上——虽然马丁路德本人宣称撒旦曾多次与他相遇并扔大便攻击他。不管原因为何，魔鬼从人们眼中消失了。这样，如何处理那些被指控是魔鬼信徒的人就变成了一个宗教性的问题，而与社会安全无关了。 The process was a drawn out one that should perhaps be studied in parallel with the decline of heresy and blasphemy as a crime against the state. This slowly faded as the eighteenth century wore on although there were isolated prosecutions, such as the La Barre case of 1766 in France made famous by Voltaire [NOTE]. （巫术罪的消失）这一过程相当漫长，或许较好的办法是把它与“异端诽谤危害国家罪”的消失一同研究。虽然仍有零星的异端指控（如因伏尔泰而大大出名的拉·巴尔案），异端罪在十八世纪已经慢慢淡出了人们的视野。 In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there might simply have been a change in the jurisdiction for witch trials from secular to ecclesiastical courts but during the seventeenth century heresy had gradually ceased to be seen as a crime deserving temporal punishment and the church courts could no longer expect the secular arm to carry out their orders. 在十五至十六世纪，巫术罪的管辖权可能确由世俗法院转到了宗教法庭。但到了十七世纪，异端信仰已经渐渐不再被人视作一种需要神罚的罪行了。与此同时，宗教法庭也渐渐不能指望世俗法院执行它的判决了。 Even in countries which retained strong church courts, most especially Spain and Portugal, sentences became lighter as the eighteenth century progressed with a return to the medieval idea of penance and reconciliation rather than punishment. The stalemate that had ended the wars between Catholics and Protestants, coupled with the fostering of national over religious identity, meant the ideals of tolerance expressed as early as Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) were finally implemented. 即使在那些仍保留了相对强势宗教法庭的国家如西班牙和葡萄牙，进入十八世纪后对异端罪行的定罪也逐渐变轻了。以忏悔和赎罪代替刑罚的中世纪思想逐渐回归。天主教徒和新教徒长年战争结束后，两派进入了对峙局面，再加上人们的头脑中国家意识也开始取代宗教意识而成为主要的身份认同，这似乎意味着早在1516年托马斯·莫尔在《乌托邦》中写到的宗教宽容理想终于得以实现。 This is not to say that atheism or devil worship were socially acceptable, but rather that if a man or woman minded their own business and kept their views quiet, nobody would hunt them down. Essentially ones private religion became a private matter and, as long as one did not cause a public disturbance, the public sphere had little interest. 当然，这并不意味着无神论或恶魔信仰得到了社会的承认。只是如果一个人自扫门前雪，不把自己的宗教主张到处宣扬，那么不管他相信什么，都不会有人来猎捕他了。基本上，个人的宗教信仰终于被社会认可为个人事务了。而只要一个人不制造公共事端，那么公众方面对他的个人事务是没有什么兴趣的。 Conclusion 结论 Witchcraft is an imaginary crime. It has, as Robin Briggs says, a hole in the middle which demonologists were able to fill with their speculations [NOTE]. They were then able to persuade others, including the actual accused, of the veracity of these ideas. 巫术罪是一种想象出来的犯罪。正如罗宾·布里格斯所说：它的中心有个空洞，正方便那些魔鬼学者把他们的臆测填进去。这样，魔鬼学者就可以说服旁人——甚至包含被控为巫师的人——认同他们的观点。 As Briggs says, after Alasdair MacIntyre, a rational thought is one that coheres with the thoughts around it and, to the mentality of the demonologists and enough of those around them, their writings made perfect sense. We do not need to call them superstitious charlatans to say that they were wrong. 布里格斯说的好：阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔把“合理的想法”定义为“与周围人的想法一致的想法”。按这一定义，对那些魔鬼学者及他们身边足够多的人们来说，他们的著述是非常合理的。我们可以說他们是錯的，但没有必要称他们为迷信的骗子。 A defendant, accused of a non-existent crime, should expect that any effective legal process will find them not guilty and in witch trials this is eventually what happened. It remained possible that someone could (and perhaps should) be convicted if, believing they have the power, they bewitched a person who then conveniently started to ail, but this will be a very rare case. 一个被控犯了不存在的罪行的被告人应该期待一个合理的司法系统还他清白，就猎巫审判而言，最终情形也确实如此。如果一个真心相信自己能施巫术的人对别人施了巫术，而受术者正巧就病倒了，因此给施术者定一个巫术罪是完全可能的。但这种案子即使有，也应该非常稀少。 Renaissance magicians never won their argument with the demonologists as they were both swept aside by the intellectual changes of the seventeenth century. The devil found himself relegated to the role assigned for him by Milton in Paradise Lost (1667) as a tempter who must rely on God to effect any real change. Milton also gives us an idea of the penetration of the New Philosophy, although he hardly approves of it, with his running joke about the configuration of the solar system and Raphael’s admonition of Adam for being too curious about the heavens. 文艺复兴时代的魔术师们从未在与魔鬼学者的辩论中获胜，因为他们一起被十七世纪的知识界剧变甩下了辩论台。魔鬼被贬到弥尔顿在《失乐园》中给他安排的位置上去了，他现在是一个教唆者，他只有依靠上帝的力量才能导致实质性的改变。弥尔顿也通过他时常提到的笑话（例如“太阳系的构成”和“拉斐尔警告亚当不要对天堂太过好奇”）让我们了解了当时正破土而出的新哲学，虽然弥尔顿本人并不认同这新哲学。 To the New Philosophers, the rhetorical purpose of a defence of witchcraft was completely different to that of the earlier demonologists, which shows how attitudes had already changed. Perhaps the decline of the trials taking place without the world being overwhelmed by devilry had made the issue seem less urgent. 一篇为巫术罪的辩护词对新一代的哲学家们而言的修辞意义与它在早期恶魔学者眼中的修辞意义截然不同，这一点就证明了知识界的态度已然改变了。也许在猎巫审判越来越少的时代里，世界依然如常运转而并未充斥着魔鬼的术法这一事实，就使得魔鬼问题变得不那么迫切了。 On the same note, once it became clear that most people were already sceptical about witches and this had not led to a collapse of the Christian religion, intellectuals had no further use for witchcraft except for English Tories who wanted to do a bit of Whig baiting. As moral and religious matters were assigned more to the private than the public sphere, a pact with the devil ceased to be a crime against the state and maleficia ceased to be anything at all. 同样，一旦大多数人都已对巫师的存在产生怀疑而基督宗教也并未崩塌，对知识分子们而言巫术问题就没用了。只有英格兰的托利党人还会拿巫术问题来钓一钓辉格党人。当道德和宗教逐渐由社会事务变成私人事务，与魔鬼定约也就不再是危害国家的犯罪，而诅咒也就不再被人当作一回事了。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2015-11-03】 @海德沙龙 《宗教自由的丧钟已经敲响？》三年前，丹佛市一位糕点师拒绝为一对同性恋人制作婚礼蛋糕，这对恋人随后向科罗拉多州政府投诉，州政府民权委员会文化专员随即裁定糕点师歧视同性恋，勒令其更改店铺规定，并从此之后须为同性婚礼制作蛋糕，否则将面临罚款， 糕点师不服并开始了多年诉讼…… @whigzhou: [[The Good Wife]]里看到过这个故事，原来是真事，荒谬至此。 @whigzhou: 在这个玻璃心时代，直男基督徒是唯一可以摁住头随便冒犯的群体，也是活该，谁叫他们没长颗玻璃心呢～ @whigzhou: 最近听到的另一个案子荒谬程度雷同，华盛顿州一家药店基于宗教理由拒绝出售堕胎药，结果被法院勒令改正，官司打到第九巡回法院，输了 http://t.cn/RUJjMVf @whigzhou: 看来很多人没有意识到这个案子与一般区别对待消费者案子的不同之处：此案所涉及服务直接与店主信仰抵触，这不是饭店拒绝同性恋就餐，或服装店拒绝卖衣服给同性恋 @whigzhou: 更贴切的类比：一位基督徒开了家打字店，有人来打一份伊斯兰经文，里面充斥着对基督教的诋毁之词，他有权拒绝这笔生意吗？ @whigzhou: 或者你开了家印刷厂，有人要印一万份宗教宣传小册子，其中内容与你的宗教信仰直接抵触，你可以拒绝这笔生意吗？ @sonicblue3: 药店的公共属性是要高一些。不过要是不接受明的暗的政府补贴的话，那我觉得老板想卖啥不想卖啥也无所谓 @Stimmung: 这就是为什么政府补贴不该存在，政府一补贴你，你就归政府管了// @whigzhou: 而且暗的补贴也算，连拒绝都拒绝不掉～  

The Mythical conflict between science and Religion 科学与宗教间莫须有的冲突 作者：James Hannam @ 2009-10-17 译者：22（@ 22）     校对：白猫D（@白猫D） 来源：Medieval Science and Philosophy, http://jameshannam.com/conflict.htm Introduction 简介 Newspaper articles thrive on cliché. These are not so much hackneyed phrases but rather the useful shorthand for nuggets of popular perception that allow the journalist to immediately tune his readers to the right wavelength. Yesterday’s clichés are, of course, today’s stereotypes as any perusal of earlier writing will show. The conflict between science and religion is an acceptable cliché that crops up all over the place. 报纸文章充斥着陈词滥调。这些陈词滥调倒不是简单的陈腐语句，而是一个流行见解百宝箱，让记者可以方便趁手地用来将读者调到正确的认知波段上。当然，阅读任何早期文字都将发现，正是昨日的陈词滥调成就了今日的刻板印象。科学与宗教之间的矛盾冲突，便是一个到处都普遍为人所接受的陈词滥调。 In the episode of The Simpsons in which the late Stephen J. Gould was a guest voice, Lisa found a fossil angel and events led to a court order being placed on religion to keep a safe distance from science. Articles in magazines and on the internet all assume that a state of conflict exists between science and religion, always has existed and that science has been winning. 比如在《辛普森一家》Stephen J. Gould客串配音的那一集中，Lisa发现了一具天使化石，这一事件导致法院判令宗教要与科学保持一定的安全距离。杂志、网络文章也都假定宗教和科学间的冲突是存在的，并将一直存在着，而科学总会是获胜的一方。 Most popular histories of science view all the evidence through this lens without ever stopping to think that there might be another side to the story. But let us turn from popular culture to the academy where we find a rather different picture. 大多数通俗科学史将所有证据置于有色棱镜下观看，却从未停下思考过故事是否有另一面。那么，让我们从坊间传闻走向学院考据，或许在那里，我们可以看到另一幅历史景象。 Let’ s have a look at the comments of a few leading historians of science: 让我们来看几位主流科学史家的评论吧： John Hedley Brooke was the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford. He is a leading historian of science in England and the author of Science and Religion - Some Historical Perspectives (1991). In this book, he writes of the conflict hypothesis “In its traditional forms, the thesis has been largely discredited”. John Hedley Brooke是牛津大学科学与宗教学Andreas Idreos讲席教授。他是英国科学史的领军人物，著有《科学与宗教：历史学观点》（1991)。在该书中，他谈及冲突假说“以其一直以来的形式而言，是不足信的”。 David Lindberg is Hilldale Professor Emeritus of the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. He is the author of many books on medieval science and also on religion. With Ronald Numbers, the current Hilldale and William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the same university, he writes “Despite a developing consensus among scholars that science and Christianity have not been at war, the notion of conflict has refused to die”. David Lindberg是威斯康辛大学麦迪逊分校科学史Hilldale讲席荣休教授，撰写了多本关于中世纪科学和宗教的著作。他和同校的Ronald Numbers，现任科学和医学史Hilldale & William Coleman讲席教授，都认为，“尽管学者已就科学和基督教间并未水火不容这点达成共识，但有关两者冲突的观念仍未消失”。 Steven Shapin is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, San Diego. He writes "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the "warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science." Steven Shapin是加州大学圣地亚哥分校的社会学教授，他认为，“‘科学与宗教间的战争’是维多利亚时代晚期被反复书写的一个话题，大众也因而假定这两个文化团体一直以来都处于冲突之中”。 Finally, we come to the dean of medieval science, Edward Grant, Professor Emeritus of the History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University who writes of that most slandered of periods, the Middle Ages, when faith was supposed to have snuffed out all forms of reason “If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed in the Age of Reason [the 18th century], they were only made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities”. 最后，让我们听听印第安纳大学中世纪科学系主任、历史与科学哲学荣休教授Edward Grant是如何评价这个一直被严重抹黑的、据认为在此期间信仰抹杀了所有形式理性的中世纪。Grant教授指出，“革命性的理性思想之所以能出现在理性时代（18世纪），正是因为在中世纪建立起来的运用理性作为人类最重要活动的悠久传统”。 So, as a theory believed by working historians, the conflict hypothesis is dead. In this article, I want to examine two questions that follow from this. Firstly, if the conflict hypothesis has been rejected by practically every scholar in the field, why is there such a rift between academic opinion and popular perception? And secondly, what has been the real relationship between science and religion? 因此，“冲突假设已经过时了”——这是一个被当今历史学家普遍接受的观点。在本文中，我将检验由此引出的两个问题。第一，如果冲突假说实际上真的被每一个业内学者抛弃，那么学院派观点和大众认知见的巨大分歧又是从何而来的？第二，科学与宗教间的真实关系到底是怎样的？ The conflict hypothesis 冲突假说 Science is the triumph of Western civilisation which has made all its other achievements possible. The enormity of this triumph has very often been reflected onto the historiography of science to produce a story akin to a triumphal progress. From Copernicus onwards, we are told, each generation built on the discoveries of their forerunners to produce a parade of successes with barely a backwards step. 科学是西方文明的胜利，它使得一切其他成就变为可能。这项胜利如此巨大，以至于反映到科学编史学中，就被谱成了一曲不断进步最终迈向胜利的凯旋之歌。我们被告知，从哥白尼开始，每一代人都在前人发现的基础上不断成功前进而少有退步。 This history has been built on two assumptions: that there is something epistemologically unique about science and that reason and rationality are what causes progress in science. Scientists themselves have generally been keen on these ideas and been happy to promote them. 这样的历史描述基于两点假设。第一，科学在认识论上有独一无二的优势；第二，理性与理性能力促进了科学的进步。科学家普遍热心于这些想法，也乐于传播它们。 Such has been status of science in modern society that this self description, promulgated by writers like Carl Sagan and Jacob Bronowski, has generally been respected by the general public who have been less interested in the more nuanced views historians. 这一对科学在现代社会中所居地位的自我描述，经由像卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）和雅各布·布朗劳斯基（Jacob Bronowski）这样的作家传播，逐渐为一般大众所接受，而这些大众却往往对历史学家们更细致入微的观点缺少兴趣。 The myth of conflict first really got going during the Enlightenment (itself a description intended to derogate earlier eras) with the fiercely anti-clerical French philosophes. In his Discours Preliminaire, Jean d’Alembert paints a picture of men of the Renaissance finally throwing off the shackles of church domination so that rational enquiry can at last begin. This idea was carried through the nineteenth century with historians like John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. 这个冲突虚构的最初流行肇始于启蒙运动（这个词本身就是对先前时代的贬低）时期的一位激进反教权法国哲学家朗达贝尔（Jean d’Alembert）。在他的《百科全书序论》中，他将文艺复兴时期描绘为人们最终挣脱教会统治的枷锁，并开始理性思考的一个时代。这个想法持续到了19世纪被威廉·H·德雷珀（John William Draper）和安德鲁·D·怀特（Andrew Dickson White）等历史学家继承。 White was the most famous and successful exponent of the conflict hypothesis. He is commonly quoted at the start of modern books on science and religion as representing the soon-to-be-debunked traditional view. It is worth briefly examining whether White was being entirely honest in his work as no one doubts that Draper was engaged in nothing more that polemic. 怀特是冲突假说最著名、也是最成功的鼓吹者。他通常在有关科学与宗教的现代书籍中开篇即被援引，作为即将被我们揭穿的传统观点之代表而出现。我们有必要简要检验一下，怀特在捍卫其观点时是否完全诚实，因为没有人会怀疑德雷珀对这场论战的投入只有简单的争吵。 Neither of them were professional historians and both did seem to sincerely believe in the warfare theory they were expounding. Unfortunately, this meant that they set out to prove what they already believed rather than take their conclusions from the facts. White is quite explicit about this when he writes how he felt before he began his research, “I saw... the conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought - the theological and the scientific.” 他们两人都不是专业历史学家，但都坚信着他们提出的冲突理论。不幸的是，这意味着他们要去证明他们已经相信的观点，而不是从事实中提取结论。怀特对他在研究之前是如何想的这一点非常坦诚：“我先看到了人类思想发展中两个时代间的冲突——神学时代的和科学时代的”。 Any such statement should immediately set off alarm bells which grow louder as we look at his work The Warfare of Science with Theology. His usual tactics are to scour the sources for some stick-in-the-mud reactionary and claim this represents the consensus of religious opinion and then find another thinker (who is usually just as faithful a Christian as the reactionary) who turned out to be right, and claim that they represent reason. 任何此类的论述都应立即敲响我们的警钟。当我们读他的《科学与神学的战争》时，更要提高警惕。怀特惯用的手法是搜罗一些极端保守人士的观点，并声称这些人的观点代表了宗教人士的共识；接着又找到另一位思想家（通常是和那位极端保守分子一样也是忠实基督徒）证明他的观点是对的，并声称他们代表了理性。 Hence using anachronism and claiming obscure figures were in fact influential, he is able to manufacture a conflict where none exists. A detailed critique of his work from Lindberg and Numbers can be read here but I would like to point out a few errors in the specific area of religious persecution of scientists. 因此，利用这种时代错位、吹嘘一些名不见经传人士的重要性，怀特成功捏造了一个其实不曾存在的冲突。Lindberg和Numbers对他作品的更多详细批评可以在这里读到，但是我更想先澄清有关宗教迫害科学家这件事情的一些误解。 White's examples of actual prosecution are few and far between which is not very surprising as the only scientist the Christian Church ever prosecuted for scientific ideas per se was Galileo and even here historians doubt that was the major reason he got into trouble. 怀特提及迫害的例子屈指可数且多远离事实。这并不出人意料，因为唯一一个因为科学观点而被教会迫害的科学家便是伽利略，而历史学家甚至怀疑这并不是他惹上麻烦的真正原因。 This is an embarrassment for White as he thought that in the Middle Ages especially, the Church was burning freethinkers left, right and centre. The lack of any examples of this at all is a serious problem so he is forced to draft in non-scientists or else to claim that prosecutions on non-scientific matters were scientific persecutions after all. Here are some examples: 这一情形对怀特来说很尴尬，因为他认为教会，特别是中世纪教会，会烧死左、中、右派的所有自由思想家。缺乏证据对他来说是个大问题，因此他被迫加入一些非科学家的例子来证明针对非科学事物的迫害归根到底也是针对科学的迫害。这里有一些例子： Roger Bacon has been a popular martyr for science since the nineteenth century. He was a scholastic theologian who was keen to claim Aristotle for the Christian faith. He was not a scientist in any way we would recognise and his ideas are not nearly so revolutionary as they are often painted. 罗杰·培根 （Roger Bacon）从19世纪以来就是一个被人熟知的科学殉道者。他其实是一个热衷于宣传亚里士多德拥有基督教信仰的经院哲学家。他从任何一方面来说都不是科学家，他的想法也不像宣传的那样具有革命性。 In chapter 12 of his book, White writes of Roger “the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery.” 怀特在他的书的第十二章中这样描写Roger，“圣波纳文图拉迫使他噤声，阿斯克利的杰罗姆监禁了他，继任的教皇们又关了他十四年，所有这些指控都是因为他‘危险的创新’和可疑的巫术。” This is untrue. As Lindberg says “his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans (a wholly theological matter) rather than from any scientific novelties which he may have proposed.” 这不是真的。正如Lindberg所说，“他的监禁，如果是真的话（我很怀疑），很可能是因为他对于主张苦修的方济各会的同情（完全是神学原因），而不是因为他提倡的一些科学新思想”。 In chapter 2, White informs us “In 1327 Cecco d’Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this [the doctrine of antipodes] and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence.” 在第二章里，怀特告诉我们，“在1327年，天文学家切科·达斯克利由于‘对跖点’学说和一些其他思想，被怀疑为行使巫术。他因此被剥夺了在博洛尼亚大学的教职，并在佛罗伦萨被活活烧死。” Cecco D’Ascoli was indeed burnt at the stake in 1327 in Florence. He is the only natural philosopher in the entire Middle Ages to pay this penalty and was executed for breaking parole after a previous trial when he had been convicted of heresy for, apparently, claiming Jesus Christ was subject to the stars. 切科·达斯克利确实在1327年被烧死在佛罗伦萨的木桩上。他是整个中世纪时期里唯一一个死于火刑的自然哲学家：而他被判死刑是因为，在他因为宣称耶稣基督受控于他的星座命宫而被判异端的假释期间，违反了假释条例。 This is not enough for White who claims, entirely without foundation, that Cecco met his fate partly for the scientific view that the antipodes were inhabited as well as dishonestly calling him an ‘astronomer’ rather than an ‘astrologer’ to strengthen his scientific credentials. 这显然不足以让怀特声称（完全是毫无根据），他的死部分是因为他“对跖点适宜居住”的科学观点。更不必说怀特不诚实将达斯克利称为“天文学家”而不是“占星家”来增强他的科学可信度了。 In the same chapter White claims “In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, having promulgated this [the habitation of the antipodes] with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only escaped the Inquisition by death.” We have no good evidence that d’Abano was under investigation from the inquisition at his death. 在同一章里，怀特声称“在1316年，外科医生达巴诺的彼得因传播对跖点和其他有害的科学学说而受到审判，但在审判结束之前意外死亡”。我们没有明确的证据可以表明达巴诺死于审判期间。 However, he did gain a posthumous reputation as a sorcerer when spurious works were attributed to him. This may have led to the reports of his bones being dug up and burnt after his death. There is again, no evidence whatsoever that the antipodes debate or science had anything to do with the matter. 然后，他确实在死后由于一些归于其名下的伪造作品而得到了巫师的名声。这可能也导致了他死后骨头被挖出焚烧的传闻。但是，我们要再一次声明，没有任何证据可以表明对于科学或“对跖点”的争论和他的死有关系。 It is hard to confirm some of White’s victims existed at all. “The chemist John Barrillon was thrown into prison,” he says in chapter 12 “and it was only by the greatest effort that his life was saved.” The great historian of science, George Sarton, with a better knowledge of the sources of anyone before or since, says this episode is ‘completely unknown’ to him. Needless to say, White gives no reference. 我们很难确定怀特所说的一些受害者是否存在。他在第十二章里谈到，“化学家John Barrillon被投入狱，任何努力都救不了他”。而掌握史料前无古人后无来者的杰出历史学家乔治·萨顿（George Sarton）对这件事的回应是，“从未听说过”。不用说，怀特没有给出任何出处。 Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, is also held up as a martyr to science. White explains in chapter 13 “Vesalius was charged with dissecting a living man, and, either from direct persecution, as the great majority of authors assert, or from indirect influences, as the recent apologists for Philip II admit, he became a wanderer: on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, apparently undertaken to atone for his sin, he was shipwrecked, and in the prime of his life and strength he was lost to the world…. His death was hastened, if not caused, by men who conscientiously supposed that he was injuring religion.” 现代解剖学的奠基人维萨里（Vesalius）也常常被认为是科学殉道者。怀特在第十三章中解释道，“维萨里被指控解剖活人。无论是因为绝大多数学者确信的直接迫害，还是因为最近西班牙的腓力二世的辩护者承认的间接迫害，他实际上成了一个要被流放到圣地为自己赎罪的流浪汉。最终正值壮年的他在一次船难中去世。如果说他不是被那些认为他危害宗教的人害死的，也至少是因为他们而少活了很多年。” The trouble is that hardly a word of this has any basis in historical fact. Vesalius did go on a pilgrimage and was drowned on the way back. But there is no hint he was ever prosecuted and the idea his death was hastened by those who supposed he was injuring religion is simply wrong. 这段话的问题在于，没有哪一处是基于历史事实的。维萨里确实去朝圣了，并且在归途中溺水身亡，但是没有任何证据证明他是被害死的。那些认为他的英年早逝是由于他危害宗教的观点是错误的。 Discussing the heliocentric system, White goes on “Many minds had received it [the doctrine of Copernicus], but within the hearing of the papacy only one tongue appears to have dared to utter it clearly. This new warrior was that strange mortal, Giordano Bruno. He was hunted from land to land, until at last he turned on his pursuers with fearful invectives. For this he was entrapped at Venice, imprisoned during six years in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, then burned alive, and his ashes scattered to the winds.” 当讨论到日心说时，怀特接着说，“虽然当时很多人接受了哥白尼的学说，但在教皇的威严下，只有一个人敢于发出自己的声音。这位新勇士是一个奇怪的凡人——乔尔丹诺·布鲁诺（Giordano Bruno），他在各地都被追捕，直到最后，他向对自己恶言相向的追捕者发出还击。为此，他在威尼斯被诱捕入狱，随后被囚禁在罗马地牢里，在审讯中度过了六年。最后他遭受火刑而死，他的骨灰散落在空中。 ” In fact, we do not know the exact reasons Bruno was prosecuted but modern scholars like Frances Yates suggest it was because he was a magus who was trying to start a new neo-Platonic religion. He did believe the earth revolved around the sun but this was purely for religious reasons as he effectively worshipped it. In any case, it was incidental to his fate as were his other pseudo-scientific ideas. 事实上，我们现在仍然不清楚布鲁诺被迫害的具体原因。现代学者如弗朗西斯·耶茨（Frances Yates）认为，那是因为他是一位尝试建立一个新柏拉图主义宗教的术士。他确实相信地球绕着太阳转，但那纯粹是因为他自身的宗教信仰让他相信的。无论如何，日心说跟他的其他伪科学想法一样，都不对他的命运负主要责任。 One would like to take the charitable view that White really believed his theory and was not making up evidence to support a position he knew to be false. Instead, he skews the evidence by accepting that which agrees with his hypothesis while being sceptical of what does not. This means that he has included falsehoods that he would have noticed if he had taken a properly objective attitude towards all his evidence. 我们应该采取一个比较宽厚的看法，相信怀特确实笃信自己的理论，而不是为了维护自己明知错误的立场刻意编造证据。然而，他歪曲了证据，仅接受那些符合他假说的，而质疑那些不符合的。这意味着，如果他以客观的态度对待所有证据，那他就可以避免引入那些他本可发现的错误。 The points given above together with Numbers and Lindberg’s criticisms noted in their article are sufficient, however, to prove White’s work as utterly worthless as history. 以上几点，连同Lindberg和Numbers的批评，已足以证明怀特的作品和普通历史一样是没有价值的。 Draper, with no footnotes or references cannot even claim to give an illusion of scholarship. Colin Russell, in a recent summary of the historiography of the alleged warfare, sums up the views of modern scholarship, saying “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”. 至于Drape，他的作品根本没有脚注或者引用来源，我们很难称他是一个学者。Colin Russell在最近一份关于科学与宗教莫须有战争的历史编纂学综述中，总结了现代学者的观点，他说，“Drape解读历史的随意性很大，常常将传说当作史实。这也是他被当今严肃史学研究忽略的原因。White也同样很难被称作是一个合格的学者，尽管他通过丰富的脚注让我们产生了一种严谨学术的错觉”。 But even today, historians who should know better, like Daniel Boorstin, Charles Freeman and William Manchester, have produced popular books that wheel out all the old misconceptions and prejudices. 但即使在今天，像Daniel Boorstin，Charles Freeman还有William Manchester这些本应对此了解更多的历史学家，却还是将老旧的误解和偏见带进自己的通俗作品中。 Another reason for the myth of conflict continuing is because at the moment there is undoubtedly a conflict between one wing of Christianity and modern science. This is the battle over evolution. Although the Catholic Church and mainline protestants long ago reconciled themselves to Darwin’s theory and modified their theology accordingly, many conservative Christians remain deeply suspicious about evolution and its alleged metaphysical implications. 冲突假说持续流行的另一个原因是，当时确实有一支基督教信仰与现代科学产生了一场激烈冲突——关于演化论的争斗。虽然天主教会与主流新教徒在很久之前就调解了神学与达尔文理论之间的矛盾，但很多保守的基督徒仍对演化论及其背后的形而上学暗示表示深深的怀疑。 Unfortunately, many who are defending evolution try to widen the gap between religion and science and use it to push non-scientific but anti-religious philosophical agendas. This can be seen clearly in the work of Richard Dawkins and many writers on the internet. 不幸的是，很多为演化论辩护的人扩大了宗教与科学之间的分歧，并利用它推进了非科学但却反宗教的议程。这可以很明显地在网上从理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）和其他作家的作品中看到。 Some observers would claim that now science holds the whip hand it is being no less intolerant of dissent as the church supposedly once was. This would not be an accurate view as instead the argument over evolution is carried on vehemently by a small number of extremists on both sides while the rest of the community looks on rather bemused. 一些观察者声称，如今处于支配地位的科学执鞭于手、厉对异己的不宽容做派，和人们设想中教会的表现相比，毫不逊色。这当然不是一个准确的看法，因为关于演化论的激烈争论仅仅在一些科学与宗教的极端群体中进行，而大众对于这些讨论则是相当茫然的。 Occasionally, it spills over in a public arena such as when pressure groups gain control of previously obscure bodies that set school curricula, but in general it does not have the slightest effect. Most of the occasions when there have been conflicts between science and religion were caused by someone seeking publicity and fame when the problem could much more easily be sorted by patient discussion. 偶尔，当某个压力集团控制了以前不起眼的学校机构并开始设置课程时，争论会溢出到公共领域，但在一般情况下，这些争论不会对公众有丝毫影响。很多情况下，那些本可通过耐心讨论解决的冲突是由那些寻求名气与曝光度的人引起的。 This is the case both of Galileo publishing his inflammatory popular tracts that provoked the church and John Scopes volunteering to be charged with teaching evolution. Even so, Galileo himself blamed jealous scientific rivals and professional spite for his predicament. 伽利略散发他煽动性的流行小册子从而激怒教会，约翰·斯科普斯（John Scopes）故意去违反法规教授演化论，都是这种情况。即使如此，伽利略仍将自己的困境归咎于那些嫉妒他的科学对手和来自同行的怨恨。 The reasons for the continuing popular belief in the historical conflict can probably be summed up as follows: 有关历史上宗教与科学间冲突的流行信念长盛不衰的原因，大概可以总结如下：

• The writings of an earlier generation of historians have yet to be eclipsed by modern scholarship;
• 早期历史学家的著作，其光芒仍未被现代学者掩盖；
• Some popular writers of today continue to recycle the old myths rather than using up to date research;
• 当今部分通俗作家不断重复过去的传说而没有采用最新的研究成果；
• A few famous events have given a misleading impression to people unfamiliar with their context;
• 一些著名的历史事件给不熟悉历史背景的大众产生了误导；
• The idea of a conflict makes for a better story than more multi-faceted truth.
• 冲突观念比多面相的事实更适合写成动听故事。

The real historical relationship between science and religion 历史上科学与宗教间的真实关系 Through out history the real situation has been complicated and changeable. It has not proven possible, and nor is it ever likely to, for a single theory to explain the interaction of all forms of science and all forms of religion. It is certainly true that certain science (say, neo-Darwinist theory) is in conflict with certain kinds of religion (say, literalist Christianity) but even in an environment where both are present the effect is pretty negligible. 纵观历史，真正的局面是复杂且多变的，用某种单一理论来解释所有形式的科学与宗教之间的互动，从未被证明是可能的，或貌似可能的。确实，某些科学分支（比如新达尔文主义理论）与某些宗教派别（比如基督教经律主义）是有冲突的。但即使在它们两者都在场的情况下，这种冲突的影响也是微乎其微的。 For all the sound and fury over the teaching of evolution it is difficult to make any sort of case that science in the US has been adversely effected by creationism. If it means that scientists need to explain the theory of evolution better to suspicious laymen (which is something they are usually poor at doing), creationism could even serve an occasionally useful purpose. 面对演化论教学的喧哗与骚动，神创论很难以任何方式对美国的科学产生不利的影响。甚至有时候神创论可以让科学家们更好地向有疑虑的外行人解释演化论（这件事他们常常做得很差）。 Conversely, cosmology has found itself agreeing with religion rather more than some anti-religious thinkers would like. A hundred years ago nearly all non-religious thinkers took it for granted that the universe had always existed and always would. Despite the opposition of theologians claiming a real infinite in time was logically impossible (sometime called the Kalam cosmological argument), atheists seemed quite happy with an uncreated, eternal universe. 相反，不像某些反宗教思想家所认为的那样，宇宙学则与宗教远更相容。一百年前，几乎所有的非宗教思想家都将宇宙一直存在并且会一直存在下去视作理所当然。尽管持相反意见的神学家声称，真正无限的时间在逻辑上是不可能的（有时被称为卡拉姆宇宙论），无神论者似乎更乐于见到一个非创生的、永恒的宇宙。 When the Big Bang model was first suggested by the Jesuit priest Georges Le Maître, it was greeted with a certain amount of scepticism and the atheist Fred Hoyle coined the phrase ‘Big Bang’ intending it to be derogatory. 当大爆炸模型首次被耶稣会教士勒梅特（Georges Le Maître）提出时，受到了很多质疑，无神论者费雷德·霍伊尔（Fred Hoyle）杜撰“大爆炸”（Big Bang）一词来贬低这个发现。 His atheism also blinded him to the inadequacies of his steady state theory which one suspects he only came up with to avoid the uncomfortable metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning. Atheist scientists have now come to terms with the big bang and adjusted their metaphysics accordingly, much like most Christians, after some debate, accepted evolution and twiddled their theology. 霍伊尔的无神论思想也使他看不到自己稳恒状态理论（steady state theory）的不足之处。有人怀疑这仅是因为霍伊尔要避免宇宙存在一个开端所带来的令他不舒服的形而上学暗示。如今，无神论科学家已经接受了“大爆炸”这个词，并且相应地调整了他们的形而上学假设；这非常像很多基督徒在经过一番辩论后，接受了进化论并且调整了自己的神学。 However, it is interesting to hear today’s atheists declaring that God must have a creator when their predecessors were quite happy for the universe not to have one. All this seems to demonstrate that when it comes to science, both sides find things they do not like and both sides argue against them until the evidence becomes impossible to deny. 但有趣的是，现在我们听见无神论者声称上帝本身必须有一个创造者，而他们的前辈们却为宇宙没有创造者而感到庆幸。所有这些似乎都表明了当涉及到科学时，双方都找出并反对自己不喜欢的一面，直到证据确凿到实在难以否认为止。 Today popular histories do try and recognise this variety. The people we want to eulogise as the great heroes of science rarely had such clear cut views as was once thought. This has led to what I call the 'examination' school of historical writing that can sometimes read like a series of end of term report cards where the figures of the past are praised or scolded according to how much the modern writer thinks they got right. 今天，通俗史确实在尝试并认可这些多样性。许多为我们所赞扬的科学英雄，很少像人们曾经以为的那样，提出过清晰明确的观点。这就会导致我称之为“考试”学派的历史著述。这些著述有时读起来就像一叠期末汇报卡片，上面写着当今作者认为应该会做的题目，然后他们根据一位历史人物答对了多少，来决定赞美还是贬斥他。 A good example of this approach is John Gribbin’s recent Science: A History 1543 - 2001 (published as The Scientists in the US) which is really just an entertaining collection of anecdotes covered in a positivist gloss. But at least he largely avoids the conflict myth and admits that neither Giordano Bruno nor the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus can be described as martyrs for science. 约翰·格里宾（John Gribbin）最近出版的《科学史：1543—2001》（美国版书名为《科学家》）就是一个很好的例子。该书披着实证主义的光彩外衣，其实只是本读起来令人愉悦的奇闻轶事集。但至少，格里宾也很大程度上避免了上述冲突神话，并且承认布鲁诺和反三位一体的米迦勒·塞尔维特（Michael Servetus）都很难称得上是科学殉道者。 Full-on confrontations between science and religion are reasonably rare. Even when such encounters occur, they are usually arguments between co-religionists with shared concerns about how new discoveries affect faith. We find this during the debate that followed the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species where Christians such as Asa Gray defended both the theory of evolution and Christianity’s accommodation with it. 科学与宗教间的全面冲突是相当罕见的。即使冲突发生了，往往也只是发生在拥有共同信仰的信徒中，他们对于这些新发现将如何影响信仰而展开争论。在达尔文的《物种起源》出版之后便产生了类似的讨论。基督徒阿萨·格雷（Asa Gray）便同时为基督教教义与演化论辩护，并努力使两者协调起来。 Another cause of confusion is when people seeking to attack religion seek to co-opt science onto their side. For instance, whether one is pro-life or not has nothing to do with science, but is often portrayed as such. Concerns about experiments on stem cells also arise from ethics. 混淆的另外一个原因是，当人们攻击宗教的时候，他们往往团结科学站到他们这一边。一个人支持堕胎与否无关科学，但往往就被描述为与科学相关。同样的例子还包括因为伦理道德而引发的对干细胞实验的忧虑。 This leads us straight to the real conflict which is between religion and naturalism. And here the warfare is real enough. Science is partly characterised by methodological naturalism which was used by natural philosophers of the Middle Ages and fully approved by the Church. 这把我们引向宗教与自然主义之间的真实冲突，这里才是交锋真正发生的地方。科学部分地带有方法论自然主义的色彩，这种方法论自然主义在中世纪时期被自然哲学家使用，并且得到了教会的支持。 They realised, as modern naturalists do not, that it is an error of logic to assume that because science assumes naturalism to simplify and explain, it follows that science shows naturalism is true. 当时他们认为（现代自然主义者没有意识到），仅仅因为科学假定自然主义解释简洁就得到“科学证明了自然主义是正确”的这个结论，逻辑上是不正确的。 It is not the purpose of this article to attack the naturalistic fallacy, merely to observe that many of the alleged battles between science and religion are actually being fought by proxy between naturalism and religion, with science as the weapon of both. And, as the defeats of naturalism over the big bang and spontaneous generation showed, the traffic is by no means all one way. 本文的目的不是要攻击自然主义谬误，而是想让人们看到，所谓的科学与宗教之间的冲突，其实是自然主义与宗教双方都利用科学而在他们之间进行的代理战争。而正如自然主义在大爆炸理论和自然发生学说上的失败所显示的，发展进程并非一条单向道。 Most academic historians, while rejecting outright conflict, would refuse to be drawn on whether or not the contribution of religion to science was broadly positive or negative citing the enormous amount of data that would have to be assimilated to give a sensible answer. Most are happy to say that the relationship has been positive in some ways and negative in others with an overall effect that is probably too subtle to be measured. 现在，大多数学院派历史学家并不认为科学与宗教完全站在对立面，也拒绝投身于这样一件事情：通过引证大量数据，从而给出一个敏感答案，并最终在宗教对科学的影响到底大致上是正面的还是负面的这个问题上站队表态。相反，他们会乐于承认两者的关系在某些方面是积极的，在另外一些方面是消极的；总体来说影响微妙，难以估算。 While I respect that cautious view, I believe it is wrong and that a very strong case can be made for the Christian religion be a specific factor in the rise of modern science in Western Europe. This is one of the ideas that I address in my new book God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science. 虽然我尊重这个审慎的观点，但我仍相信它是错误的，并认为，我们可以在很强的意义上说：基督教信仰是西欧现代科学兴起的一个重要因素。这也是我在新书《上帝的哲学家：中世纪世界是如何为现代科学奠定基础的》中要表达的一个观点。 （编辑：@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers” 黑暗时代神话：一位无神论者评《上帝的哲学家》 作者：Tim O‘Neill @ 2009-10-17 译者：Ghost（@ Ghostmarine） 校对：Drunkplane（@暂时只看书不旅行了-zny），慕白（@李凤阳他说） 来源：Strange Notions，http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/ My interest in Medieval science was substantially sparked by one book. Way back in 1991, when I was an impoverished and often starving post-graduate student at the University of Tasmania, I found a copy of Robert T. Gunther's  Astrolabes of the World - 598 folio pages of meticulously catalogued Islamic, Medieval and Renaissance astrolabes with photos, diagrams, star lists and a wealth of other information. I found it, appropriately and not coincidentally, in Michael Sprod's  Astrolabe Books - up the stairs in one of the beautiful old sandstone warehouses that line  Salamanca Place on Hobart's waterfront. 我对中世纪科学的兴趣其实源于一本书。早在1991年时，我还在塔斯马尼亚大学读研究生，生活穷困潦倒，过着有一顿没一顿的日子。算不上多么机缘巧合，就在霍巴特（Hobart）河岸边萨拉曼卡广场（Salamanca Place）一间优美古老的砂岩建筑二楼，Michael Sprod的星盘书店，我发现了一本Robert T. Gunther的《世界星盘》（Astrolabes of the World）。实际上，我认为在这家书店发现这本书真是再恰当不过了。这本书足有598页，细致地将伊斯兰、中世纪，以及文艺复兴时期的星盘收集编目，配有图片、图表、星表，以及丰富的相关信息。 Unfortunately the book cost $200, which at that stage was the equivalent to what I lived on for a month. But Michael was used to selling books to poverty-stricken students, so I went without lunch, put down a deposit of $10 and came back weekly for several months to pay off as much as I could afford and eventually got to take it home, wrapped in brown paper in a way that only Hobart bookshops seem to bother with anymore. There are few pleasures greater than finally getting your hands on a book you've been wanting to own and read for a long time. 非常不幸，这本书要价二百，相当于我那时一个月的开销。好在Michael经常卖书给穷学生，所以我没吃午饭，放下十块定金，接下来几个月，每周过来一趟，付上一笔钱，有多少就付多少，最终，把它裹在棕色的包装纸中搬回家。现在想来，好像只有霍巴特的书店愿意在卖书时那么劳烦地用纸把书包好。手抚摸在长久以来日思月想、梦寐以求的一本书上，那种乐趣，世间少有。 I had another experience of that particular pleasure when I received my copy of James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science a couple of weeks ago. 几周前，收到手头这本James Hannam的《上帝的哲学家：中世纪如何为现代科学奠基》（God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science），我又一次体验到了这种独特乐趣。 For years I've been toying with the idea of creating a website on Medieval science and technology to bring the recent research on the subject to a more general audience and to counter the biased myths about it being a Dark Age of irrational superstition. Thankfully I can now cross that off my to do list, because Hannam's superb book has done the job for me and in fine style. 很多年来，我一直想着要建个网站，关注中世纪科学与技术，向普通读者介绍有关这一主题的新近研究，同时反驳各种偏颇的神话，认为中世纪是个迷信横行的“黑暗时代”。现在我终于可以不再操心这项工程，因为Hannam这部杰出的作品已经完成了这个任务，而且完成得非常漂亮。

The Christian Dark Age and Other Hysterical Myths 基督教黑暗时代以及其他歇斯底里的神话

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing. 作为一个流连于各大讨论版的无神论者和世俗人文主义者，“职业危害”之一就是会遇到数不胜数的历史盲。我时常宽慰自己，这些讨论版上很多人通过学习科学知识成为了无神论者，因此即使他们在地质、生物这样的领域相当精通，但在历史方面的教育却没有跟上，也不过就是高中生水平。我如果不这样安慰自己，那就要承认，一般人对历史相当缺乏理解，对历史的研究方法几乎一无所知，这种情形非常令人沮丧。 So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena. 我们都听说过一些传言，比方说《圣经》由尼西亚会议（Council of Nicea）编修，互联网上“耶稣从未存在！”这样的胡说八道甚嚣尘上，还有一些本来挺聪明的人却胡诌出连丹·布朗（Dan Brown）都嗤之以鼻的伪历史断言，与这些耳熟能详的老套神话相提并论的，还有人说天主教会引发黑暗时代、中世纪是科学荒漠，这种神话时不时被人花样翻新之后重新拉回论战的舞台。 The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness. 这种神话大概是说，希腊人、罗马人聪明理性热爱科学，基本上已经快要发明出各种奇观壮举（通常会梦呓似地举出发明完整蒸汽机这样的例子），直到基督教降临。基督教随后禁绝了所有学问和理性思考，开启了黑暗时代。接下来，在盖世太保般的宗教裁判所支持下，神权实施了铁腕统治，杜绝任何科学或者质疑的出现，直到达芬奇发明智慧，伟大的文艺复兴将我们从中世纪的黑暗中拯救。【译注：话说我中学时候就是这样觉得的。】 The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking, but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates modern culture. 这种观点稀奇古怪，但同时颇有生命力，其在网上的表现时而让人觉得粗陋不堪，时而又让人深感震惊，然而它终究取得了“众人皆知”的地位，渗透进现代文化的方方面面。 A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie meant - they assumed everyone understood. 最近一集《恶搞之家》（Family Guy）里，Stewie和Brian进入了另一个未来主义的异次元世界，那里一切非常先进，因为基督教并没有摧毁学问，开创黑暗时代，扼杀科学。剧集中没有解释Stewie的观点，因为在编剧看来，大家都懂。 About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. 类似RichardDawkins.net这样的论坛，每隔三四个月，就会有人提起这个老生常谈的“冲突论”（Conflict Thesis），令大家纷纷卷入讨论之中。一般习惯上会将中世纪看成蒙昧的智识荒漠，邪恶的古代天主教会下属走狗们一脸阴笑，肆意欺压，人性受到束缚，沉溺于迷信之中。 The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture. 这种时候，一些霉迹斑斑的旧旗帜又会被扛出来。布鲁诺被推为睿智而尊贵的科学殉道者，而非新时代让人恼火的神秘主义傻瓜，要知道后者才是他的本来面目。希帕提娅成为传说中的另一个悲情殉道者，是基督徒焚毁了亚历山大大图书馆的故事也在低声流传，然而，这二者都是彻头彻尾的不实之词。伽利略事件，也被看成是勇敢的科学家抵抗教会蒙昧主义的证据，尽管那起案子中，牵扯到的科学纷争并不比《圣经》纷争来的少。 And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone plotted on a graph. 而且，几乎无一例外，总有人会挖出一张图（如下），趾高气昂地挥舞，好像它能够证明点什么似的。这张被我称作“互联网有史以来错得最离谱的东西”，只不过证明了绝大部分人对历史一无所知，根本没有意识到所谓“科学进步”这种玩意根本无法度量，更别说像这样有模有样地标在图标上了。 It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. 将这种胡说八道彻底击碎并不困难，尤其是因为，能够亮出这张图的人，往往对历史一无所知，仅仅从某些网站或者通俗书籍中摘下这些千奇百怪的观点。只要亮出强有力的证据，这些看法便会分崩离析。 I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one - just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. 我倒挺喜欢刁难这些大话家，请他们举出中世纪一个因为从事研究而被烧死、被迫害或者被压迫的科学家的名字，一个就好。他们总是一筹莫展，常常会把伽利略拽回中世纪，可只要一想到其实他和笛卡尔处在同一时代，就让人觉得好笑。 When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. 再问问，既然教廷这么忙于压迫科学家，为什么他们却举不出这样的例子，他们通常会这么辩称，邪恶的古代教廷压迫工作做得实在太好，每个人都吓得瑟瑟发抖，不敢从事科学研究。 By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa- and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong. 这时，我会列一个中世纪科学家清单——例如大阿尔伯图斯（Albertus Magnus）、罗伯特·格罗斯泰斯特（Robert Grosseteste）、罗吉尔·培根（Roger Bacon）、约翰·佩克汉姆（John Peckham）、邓斯·司各脱（Duns Scotus）、托马斯·布雷德华（Thomas Bradwardine）、沃特·伯利（Walter Burley）、赫特斯柏立的威廉（William Heytesbury）、理查德·斯韦恩斯赫（Richard Swineshead）、约翰·登布尔顿（John Dumbleton）、沃灵福德的理查德（Richard of Wallingford）、尼古拉斯·奥里斯姆（Nicholas Oresme）、让·布里丹（Jean Buridan），还有库萨的尼古拉斯（Nicholas of Cusa），然后问道，为什么这些人能够在中世纪快乐地追求科学，而没有受到教廷的摧残，我的对手们通常会困惑地挠挠头，不知道哪里出了问题。

The Origin of the Myths 神话的起源

How the myths that led to the creation of "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever" is well documented in several recent books on the the history of science. But Hannam wisely tackles it in the opening pages of his book, since it would be likely to form the basis for many general readers to be suspicious of the idea of a Medieval foundation for modern science. “互联网有史以来错得最离谱的东西”到底是如何产生的，在近期好几本科学史作品中都有很好的展现。既然很多大众读者对中世纪为现代科学奠基这种理念持普遍怀疑态度，Hannam明智地在这本书开篇就解决这个问题。 A festering melange of Enlightenment bigotry, Protestant papism-bashing, French anti-clericism, and Classicist snobbery have all combined to make the Medieval period a by-word for backwardness, superstition and primitivism, and the opposite of everything the average person associates with science and reason. 启蒙主义的固执盲从、新教对天主教的攻击、法国人的反教权运动，以及古典主义者的势利，所有这一切杂糅在一起并不断发酵，将中世纪描述成一个落后、迷信、原始的时代，从一切角度来说都是普通人所认为的科学和理性的反面。 Hannam sketches how polemicists like Thomas Huxley, John William Draper, and Andrew Dickson White, all with their own anti-Christian axes to grind, managed to shape the still current idea that the Middle Ages was devoid of science and reason. And how it was not until real historians bothered to question the polemicists through the work of early pioneers in the field like  Pierre Duhem,  Lynn Thorndike, and the author of my astrolabe book,  Robert T. Gunther, that the distortions of the axe-grinders began to be corrected by proper, unbiased research. That work has now been completed by the current crop of modern historians of science like David C. Lindberg, Ronald Numbers, and Edward Grant. Hannam描述了像Thomas Huxley、John William Draper以及Andrew Dickson White这样能言善辩的旗手，如何融入自己的反基督观点，扭曲地构建了科学和理性在中世纪寸步难行这类当前通行的观点。书中还记录，直到正牌历史学家开始利用自己的作品不厌其烦地对这些雄辩家们进行质疑，别有用心者的歪曲才开始被不带偏见的恰当研究所纠正，该领域早期开拓者包括Pierre Duhem、Lynn Thorndike，以及我的那本星盘书作者Robert T. Gunther。目前，David C. Lindberg、Ronald Numbers以及Edward Grant这样的现代科学史学家业已完成这项工作。 In the academic sphere, at least, the "Conflict Thesis" of a historical war between science and theology has been long since overturned. It is very odd that so many of my fellow atheists cling so desperately to a long-dead position that was only ever upheld by amateur Nineteenth Century polemicists and not the careful research of recent, objective, peer-reviewed historians. This is strange behavior for people who like to label themselves "rationalists". 至少在学术界，科学与神学之间的“冲突论”历史之争早已被推翻了。所以这就显得很奇怪，为什么那么多无神论者如此热切的执着于一种早已死去的信条，这种信条本来只有十九世纪的业余辩论家们才会承认，而不应被现代客观、经过同行评议的历史学家所信奉。对于那些热衷于为自己贴上“理性主义者”标签的人们来说，这种坚持倒真是一樁咄咄怪事。 Speaking of rationalism, the critical factor that the myths obscure is precisely how rational intellectual inquiry in the Middle Ages was. While writers like Charles Freeman continue to lumber along, claiming that Christianity killed the use of reason, the fact is that thanks to Clement of Alexandria and Augustine's encouragement of the use of pagan philosophy, and Boethius' translations of works of logic by Aristotle and others, rational inquiry was one intellectual jewel that survived the catastrophic collapse of the Western Roman Empire and was preserved through the so-called Dark Ages. Edward Grant's superb God and Reason in the Middle Ages details this with characteristic vigor, but Hannam gives a good summary of this key element in his first four chapters. 谈及理性主义，这些神话遮盖了这样一个至关重要的问题：中世纪智识方面的理性探索究竟处于何种状态？像Charles Freeman这样的作家还在抱着这堆破烂，说什么基督教让理性毫无用武之地，而事实却是，亚历山大的克莱门特（Clement of Alexandria）和奥古斯丁对异教哲学的运用多有鼓励，波伊提乌（Boethius）翻译了亚里士多德和其他人的逻辑学作品，理性探索一度是智识的明珠，于西罗马帝国崩溃之后幸存下来，在所谓的黑暗时代得以流传。对此，Edward Grant的杰作《中世纪的上帝与理性》花了极大的力气详加阐述，而Hannam在书中的前四章便给出了绝佳的概述。 What makes Hannam's version of the story more accessible than Grant's is the way he tells it though the lives of key people of the time - Gerbert of Aurillac, Anselm, Abelard, William of Conches, Adelard of Bath etc. Hannam的故事之所以比格兰特更加通俗易懂，原因在于他利用那个年代关键人物的生平阐释其观点，其中包括奥里亚克的吉尔伯特（Gerbert of Aurillac）、安塞姆（Anselm）、阿伯拉尔（Abelard）、康奇斯的威廉（William of Conches）、巴斯的阿德拉德（Adelard of Bath）等人。 Some reviewers of Hannam's book seem to have found this approach a little distracting, since the sheer volume of names and mini-biographies could make it feel like we are learning a small amount about a vast number of people. But given the breadth of Hannam's subject, this is fairly inevitable and the semi-biographical approach is certainly more accessible than a stodgy abstract analysis of the evolution of Medieval thought. 一些评论家认为Hannam作品的这种处理方法甚至令主题略有分散，的确这些姓名和小传数量之多让人颇有目不暇接之感。然而考虑到Hannam所论主题之宏大，这种做法也是在所难免，而且半传记的处理方式也确实比对中世纪思想演变的呆板而抽象的分析更为引人入胜。 Hannam also gives an excellent precis of the Twelfth Century Renaissance which, contrary to popular perception and to "the Myth", was the real period in which ancient learning flooded back into western Europe. Far from being resisted by the Church, it was churchmen who sought this knowledge out among the Muslims and Jews of Spain and Sicily. And far from being resisted or banned by the Church, it was embraced and formed the basis of the syllabus in that other great Medieval contribution to the world: the universities that were starting to appear across Christendom. Hannam还对十二世纪复兴（Twelfth Century Renaissance）进行了绝佳的概括，与通行的认知和前述神话不同的是，那是一个古代学识如洪水般涌回西欧的岁月。真相远远不是教会扼杀知识，恰恰是神职人员从西班牙和西西里的穆斯林和犹太人中间发掘出这些知识。知识也远远没有被教会禁绝，知识在基督教世界刚刚兴起的大学中构成了基本教学大纲，而大学，恰恰是中世纪对世界的另一伟大贡献。

God and Reason 上帝与理性

The enshrining of reason at the heart of inquiry, combined with the influx of "new" Greek and Arabic learning, launched a veritable explosion of intellectual activity in Europe from the Twelfth Century onwards. It was as though the sudden stimulus of new perspectives and new ways of looking at the world fell on the fertile soil of a Europe that was, for the first time in centuries, relatively peaceful, prosperous, outward-looking, and genuinely curious. 将理性置于探索的核心，与纷至沓来的“新”希腊和阿拉伯知识相融合，推动了欧洲自十二世纪以来真正的智力活动大爆发。仿佛突然之间，观察世界的新视角和新方法被播撒到旧欧洲这片沃土上，那么多世纪以来第一次，出现了相对和平、繁荣、外向以及真正求知的一段时期。 This is not to say that more conservative and reactionary forces did not have misgivings about some of the new areas of inquiry, especially in relation to how philosophy and speculation about the natural world and the cosmos could affect accepted theology. Hannam is careful not to pretend that there was no resistance to the flowering of the new thinking and inquiry but, unlike the perpetuators of "the Myth", he gives that resistance due consideration rather than pretending it was the whole story. 这并不是说，较为保守、反动的势力对于新领域的探索安之若素，尤其在关于自然和宇宙的哲学和思考对普遍接受的神学可能会产生何种影响方面，他们更是疑虑重重。Hannam行文小心谨慎，没有对全面开花的新思潮新探索所遭遇的抵抗视而不见，然而与上述“神话”死忠信徒们不同的是，在深思熟虑之后，他对这种抵抗予以剖析，而非简单认定，遭遇的抵抗就是故事的全部。 In fact, the conservatives and reactionaries' efforts were usually rear-guard actions and were in almost every case totally unsuccessful in curtailing the inevitable flood of ideas that began to flow from the universities. Once it began, it was effectively unstoppable. 其实，保守反动势力的努力常常不过是防御性的行动，总体而言，绝大部分试图遏制源自大学、势不可挡的理念洪流都以失败告终。这种洪流一旦开始，便不可阻挡。 In fact, some of the efforts by the theologians to put some limits on what could and could not be accepted via the "new learning" actually had the effect of stimulating inquiry rather than constricting it. The "Condemnations of 1277" attempted to assert certain things that could not be stated as "philosophically true", particularly things that put limits on divine omnipotence. This had the interesting effect of making it clear that Aristotle had, actually, got some things badly wrong - something Thomas Aquinas emphasized in his famous and highly influential Summa Theologiae: 实际上，神学家努力为“新学问”划定一条界线，规定某些事可以做，某些事不能做，这样的努力恰恰鼓励而非限制了探索。“1277大谴责”（Condemnations of 1277）力图主张某些事情不能被称为“在哲学上是真实的”（philosophically true），尤其是那些限制了“全能的神性”（divine omnipotence）的事情。这次事件产生了一种有趣的效果，让人们清楚无疑地看到，亚里士多德在某些方面其实错得非常离谱。而这些错误正如托马斯·阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas）在其极具影响力的、著名的《神学大全》（Summa Theologiae）中曾着重指出这一点。 "The condemnations and Thomas's Summa Theologiae had created a framework within which natural philosophers could safely pursue their studies. The framework ....laid down the the principle that God had decreed laws of nature but was not bound by them. Finally, it stated that Aristotle was sometimes wrong. The world was not 'eternal according to reason' and 'finite according to faith'. It was not eternal, full stop. And if Aristotle could be wrong about something that he regarded as completely certainly certain, that threw his whole philosophy into question. The way was clear for the natural philosophers of the Middle Ages to move decisively beyond the achievements of the Greeks." (Hannam, pp. 104-105) “大谴责和托马斯的《神学大全》创建出了一个框架，自然哲学家可以安然地在其中进行研究。该框架……主张，上帝颁布了自然律令，但上帝并不受自然律令的限制。最终，框架指明，亚里士多德在某些情况下是错的。世界并不‘因理性而永恒’，也不‘因信仰而有限’。总而言之，世界并不永恒。如果亚里士多德在自己确信无疑的问题上能够犯错，那么他的整个哲学体系就难免遭到质疑。对于中世纪的自然哲学家而言，果断突破希腊人业已取得成就的道路就得以扫清了。”（Hannam，pp.104-105） Which is precisely what they proceeded to do. Far from being a stagnant dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect. 超越希腊人正是哲学家们接下来做的事情。中世纪上半叶（公元500年-1000年）或许并不光明，而从公元1000年至1500年远不是一个黑暗停滞的时代，历史见证了自古希腊以来科学探索最为蓬勃发展的景象，方方面面远超罗马和希腊化时代（Hellenic Eras）。 With Occam and Duns Scotus taking the critical approach to Aristotle further than Aquinas' more cautious approach, the way was open for the Medieval scientists of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries to question, examine, and test the perspectives the translators of the Twelfth Century had given them, with remarkable effects: 奥卡姆和邓斯·司各脱对亚里士多德的批判远比小心翼翼的阿奎那走得更远，这为十四、十五世纪的中世纪科学家开辟了一条坦途，他们得以对十二世纪传播者们的观点进行质疑、检查及测试，成绩斐然： "[I]n the fourteenth century medieval thinkers began to notice that there was something seriously amiss with all aspects of Aristotle's natural philosophy, and not just those parts of it that directly contradicted the Christian faith. The time had come when medieval scholars could begin their own quest to advance knowledge ....striking out in new directions that neither the Greeks nor the Arabs ever explored. Their first breakthrough was to combine the two subjects of mathematics and physics in a way that had not been done before." (Hannam, p. 174) “十四世纪的中世纪思想家开始注意到，亚里士多德自然哲学的方方面面都存在严重缺陷，不仅限于那些与基督教信仰直接冲突的部分。中世纪学者可以自行探索先进知识的时刻到来了……他们向无论是希腊人还是阿拉伯人都未曾探索过的新领域前进。他们取得的第一项突破是，以前所未有的方式将数学和物理这两门学科结合在一起。”（Hannam，P174） The story of that breakthrough, and the remarkable Oxford scholars who achieved it and thus laid the foundations of true science - the "Merton Calculators" - probably deserves a book in itself. But Hannam's account certainly does them justice and forms a fascinating section of his work. 那项突破，那些实现该突破的、名垂青史的牛津学者（他们因此为真正的科学奠定下基础）——“默顿计算者”（Merton Calculators）——的故事，本身就值得大书特书。然而Hannam行文对他们的刻画精准而恰当，构成了作品迷人的一部分。 The names of these pioneers of the scientific method - Thomas Bradwardine, Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, John Dumbleton and the delightfully named Richard Swineshead - deserve to be better known. 这些科学方法的先驱——托马斯·布雷德华、赫特斯柏立的威廉、约翰·登布尔顿，以及名字极为喜庆的理查德·斯韦恩斯赫（Richard Swineshead）【译注：理查德·猪头，确实够喜庆～】应该被更多的人知道。 Unfortunately, the obscuring shadow of "the Myth" means that they continue to be ignored or dismissed even in quite recent popular histories of science.Bradwardine's summary of the key insight these men uncovered is one of the great quotes of early science and deserves to be recognized as such: 不幸的是，由于“中世纪神话”造成的影响，即使在较为新近的科学史大众读物中，他们也一直被忽略和无视。布雷德华对于这些先驱在智识方面洞见的总结，是早期科学领域的名言之一，配得上“伟大”这个两个字： "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth ... whoever then has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom." (Quoted in Hannam, p. 176) “（数学）是所有真理的揭示者……无论哪个胆大妄为之徒，胆敢忽略数学而去探索物理，从一开始就应该知道，他将永远不会在智慧的圣殿登堂入室。”（Hannam书中的引文，p.176） These men were not only the first to truly apply mathematics to physics but also developed logarithmic functions 300 years before John Napier, and the Mean Speed Theorem 200 years before Galileo. The fact that Napier and Galileo are credited with discovering things that Medieval scholars had already developed is yet another indication of how "the Myth" has warped our perceptions of the history of science. 这些人不仅仅是第一批真正将数学应用于物理领域的学者，还早于约翰·纳皮尔（John Napier）三百年推演出对数方程，早于伽利略二百年发现平均速度定理。纳皮尔和伽利略发现了中世纪学者已经发现的现象，从而获得殊荣，这就是“黑暗中世纪神话”如何蒙蔽我们对科学史认知的又一例证。 Similarly, the physics and astronomy of Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme were radical and profound, but generally unknown to the average reader. Buridan was one of the first to compare the movements of the cosmos to those of another Medieval innovation - the clock. The image of a clockwork universe which was to serve scientists well into our own era began in the Middle Ages. 与之类似，让·布里丹和尼古拉斯·奥里斯姆的物理学和天文学博大精深，普通读者对此却一无所知。布里丹是最早将宇宙的运动比拟为时钟的几个人之一，而时钟则也是中世纪的产物。直到现在，科学家们还认为，宇宙像时钟一样运行，这种观点实肇始于中世纪。 And Oresme's speculations about a rotating Earth shows that Medieval scholars were happy to contemplate what were (to them) fairly outlandish ideas to see if they might work - Oresme found that this particular idea actually worked quite well. 奥里斯姆关于地球旋转的猜测则表明，中世纪学者是多么乐于思索各种天马行空的观点，并验证其是否有效——奥里斯姆发现地球旋转这个猜想其实相当有解释力。 These men are hardly the products of a "dark age" and their careers are conspicuously free of any of the Inquisitors and threats of burning so fondly and luridly imagined by the fevered proponents of "the Myth". 很难说这样的人会是“黑暗时代”的产物，他们的工作也显然不像“黑暗中世纪神话”热情拥趸们所持有的天真而骇人听闻的想象那样，受到宗教裁判所的法官（Inquisitors）的压迫，也没人威胁要把他们统统烧死。

Galileo, Inevitably 伽利略，绕不过去的伽利略

As mentioned above, no manifestation of "the Myth" is complete without the Galileo Affair being raised. The proponents of the idea that the Church stifled science and reason in the Middle Ages have to wheel him out, because without him they actually have absolutely zero examples of the Church persecuting anyone for anything to do with inquiries into the natural world. 如前所述，“中世纪神话”总是与伽利略事件如影随形。坚持认定中世纪教廷扼杀科学与理性的论者们一定会抛出伽利略，因为要不是伽利略，他们对于教廷迫害探索自然世界的科学家连一个例子都举不出来。 The common conception that Galileo was persecuted for being right about heliocentrism is a total oversimplification of a complex business, and one that ignores the fact that Galileo's main problem was not simply that his ideas disagreed with scriptural interpretation but also with the science of the time. 通常的观点认为，伽利略是由于日心说而遭到了迫害，这是一个对复杂案例的过分简化，常常被忽略的事实是，伽利略的主要问题并非仅仅是其观念与经文的诠释不符，当时的科学现状也是问题。 Contrary to the way the affair is usually depicted, the real sticking point was the fact that the scientific objections to heliocentrism at the time were still powerful enough to prevent its acceptance. Cardinal Bellarmine made it clear to Galileo in 1616 that if those scientific objections could be overcome then scripture could and would be reinterpreted. 与通常所讲述的故事不同，事情真正的症结在于，当时科学对于日心说的反对依然强大，阻碍了这一学说被广为接受。红衣主教贝拉明（Cardinal Bellarmine）在1616年向伽利略说得很清楚，如果这些科学反对意见能够被克服，那么经文就可以重新诠释。 But while the objections still stood, the Church, understandably, was hardly going to overturn several centuries of exegesis for the sake of a flawed theory. Galileo agreed to only teach heliocentrism as a theoretical calculating device, then promptly turned around and, in typical style, taught it as fact. Thus his prosecution by the Inquistion in 1633. 然而当时反对意见不屈不挠，教廷很难因为一个存在缺陷的理论而推翻几个世纪以来诠释，这倒也在情理之中。伽利略同意仅仅将日心说作为一种理论计算工具加以传授，可是一转身，他就以自己典型的风格背弃约定，将其作为事实四下宣扬。因此才有了1633年他被宗教裁判迫害的事件。 Hannam gives the context for all this in suitable detail in a section of the book that also explains how the Humanism of the "Renaissance" led a new wave of scholars, who sought not only to idolize and emulate the ancients, but to turn their backs on the achievements of recent scholars like Duns Scotus, Bardwardine, Buridan, and Orseme. Hannam在本书的一节中将这件事情的来龙去脉一一道来，还阐释了“文艺复兴”的人文主义是如何引导了新一波学者，他们不仅崇拜古人，模仿古人，而且对邓斯·司各脱、布雷德华、布里丹，以及奥里斯姆等近代学者的成就视而不见。 Thus many of their discoveries and advances were either ignored and forgotten (only to be rediscovered independently later) or scorned but quietly appropriated. The case for Galileo using the work of Medieval scholars without acknowledgement is fairly damning. 因此中世纪学者们的很多发现和进展被忽视和遗忘（后来又被重新独立发现），更有甚者，中世纪学者的成就表面上被不屑一顾，但在暗地里被改头换面，成为“文艺复兴”学者们的功绩。伽利略使用中世纪学者成果但并不明确承认的例子相当令人齿冷。 In their eagerness to dump Medieval "dialectic" and ape the Greeks and Romans - which made the "Renaissance" a curiously conservative and rather retrograde movement in many ways - they discarded genuine developments and advancements by Medieval scholars. That a thinker of the calibre of Duns Scotus could become mainly known as the etymology of the word "dunce" is deeply ironic. 他们热切地将中世纪“辩证法”抛诸脑后，争先恐后地效仿希腊人和罗马人，这种做法在很多方面令“文艺复兴”成为一种奇妙的保守甚至倒退的运动，因为他们摒弃了中世纪学者真正的开拓和进步。邓斯·司各脱这种水准的思想家的名字（Duns）不过以傻瓜（dunce）之词源而闻名，这是多么深刻的讽刺啊。 As good as the final part of the book is and as worthy as a fairly detailed analysis of the realities of the Galileo Affair clearly is, I must say the last four or five chapters of Hannam's book did feel as though they had bitten off a bit more than they could chew. I was able to follow his argument quite easily, but I am very familiar with the material and with the argument he is making. I suspect that those for whom this depiction of the "Renaissance," and the idea of Galileo as nothing more than a persecuted martyr to genius, might find that it gallops at too rapid a pace to really carry them along. Myths, after all, have a very weighty inertia. 尽管这本书的最后部分同样精彩，尽管清晰而具体地分析伽利略事件相当有价值，我不得不说Hannam这本书的最后四五章有点过于贪心。我之所以能够轻松地跟上他的论证，是因为我对历史材料和他所进行的讨论相当熟悉。我猜，对于某些人来说，理解对“文艺复兴”的这种叙述，以及伽利略只不过是个受宗教迫害的天才这样的观点，就像拼命赶上一匹飞驰的骏马那样艰难。毕竟，神话有着巨大的惯性。 At least one reviewer seems to have found the weight of that inertia too hard to resist, though perhaps she had some other baggage weighing her down. Nina Power, writing in New Humanist magazine, certainly seems to have had some trouble ditching the idea of the Church persecuting Medieval scientists: 至少有一位评论者似乎认为这样的惯性非常难以克服，然而，这或许是因为她在某些方面的包袱过重。Nina Power在《新人文主义》（New Humanist）杂志撰文，似乎认为摒弃教廷迫害中世纪科学家的观点还颇为困难： Just because persecution wasn’t as bad as it could have been, and just because some thinkers weren’t always the nicest of people, doesn’t mean that interfering in their work and banning their ideas was justifiable then or is justifiable now." 仅仅因为迫害并没有那么严重，仅仅因为有些思想家并不总是那么和善，并不意味着对他们工作的干扰，对他们理念的禁止，就是合理的，无论是那时还是现在。 Well, no-one said it was justifiable, and simply explaining how it came about and why it was not as extensive, or of the nature, that most people assume is not "justifying" it anyway - it is correcting a pseudo-historical misunderstanding. 拜托，没人说那是合理的，这本书仅仅解释了这些迫害究竟是怎么回事，为什么并没有大多数人以为的那么严重，而不是为迫害正名。——这本书无非是要澄清一个伪历史炮制出来的误会。 That said, Power does have something of a point when she notes "Hannam’s characterization of [Renaissance] thinkers as “incorrigible reactionaries” who “almost managed to destroy 300 years of progress in natural philosophy” is at odds with his more careful depiction of those that came before." This is not, however, because that characterization is wrong, but because the length and scope of the book really do not give him room to do this fairly complex and, to many, radical idea justice. 不过，Power也的确注意到某些问题，她指出：“Hannam将（文艺复兴）思想家描述为‘不可救药的反动派’，‘几乎摧毁了自然哲学在三百年内取得的进步’，这与他描述文艺复兴到来之前所采取的小心翼翼的笔法大异其趣。”不过，这倒不是因为描述不准确，而是限于本书的篇幅和涉及范围，Hanman缺乏足够的空间，对他的这些较为复杂，且让很多人感到激进的观点展开论述。 My only criticisms of the book are really quibbles. The sketch of the "agrarian revolution" of the Dark Ages described in Chapter One, which saw technology like the horse-collar and the mouldboard plough adopted and water and wind power harnessed to greatly increase production in previously unproductive parts of Europe is generally sound. But it does place too much emphasis on two elements in Lynn White's thesis in his seminal Medieval Technology and Social Change - the importance of the stirrup and the significance of the horse collar. 我对于这本书的批评无非就是吹毛求疵而已。第一章描绘了黑暗时代“农业革命”的概貌，马项圈、板犁之类的技术被采纳，水力和风力得到利用，在欧洲贫瘠的地区极大地提升了生产力，整体上比较合理。但是，文章过度强调了林恩·怀特（Lynn White）在他那本影响深远的《中世纪的技术和社会变迁》中提到的两项要素——马镫和马项圈的重要性。 As important and ground-breaking as White's thesis was in 1962, more recent analysis has found some of his central ideas dubious. The idea that the stirrup was as significant for the rise of shock-heavy cavalry as White claimed is now pretty much rejected by military historians. Also, his claims about how this cavalry itself caused the beginnings of the feudal system were dubious to begin with. 怀特的观点在1962年极具开创性意义，然而近来很多学术分析在某种程度上削弱了他的核心观点。怀特宣称马镫对于重装骑兵的出现有着至关重要的影响，这种观点目前被很多军事史学家所反对。还有，他认为重装骑兵本身就是封建制的开端，这种观点也开始被怀疑。 Finally, the idea that Roman traction systems were as inefficient as White's sources make out has also been seriously questioned. Hannam seems to accept White's thesis wholesale, which is not really justified given it has been reassessed for over forty years now. 最后，本书认为罗马时代的牵引系统正如怀特所证明得那样低效，这样的观点也被严重质疑。Hannam似乎全盘接受了怀特的论点，考虑在四十年的时间里，学界已经对怀特的观点进行了重新审视，这种忠诚似乎并不可取。 On a rather more personal note, as a humanist and atheist myself, there is a rather snippy little aside on page 212 where Hannam sneers that "non-believers have further muddied the waters by hijacking the word 'humanist' to mean a softer version of 'atheist'." 就个人感受而言，作为一个人文主义者和无神论者，看到Hannam在第212页嘲弄道，“无信仰者劫持‘人文主义者’这个词，将其作为‘无神论者’的柔性表达，这进一步把水搅浑”，我感觉有点离题。 Sorry, but just as not all humanists are atheists (as Hannam himself well knows) so not all atheists are humanists (as anyone hanging around on some of the more vitriolically anti-theist sites and forums will quickly realize). So there is no "non-believer" plot to "hijack" the word "humanist". Those of us who are humanists are humanists - end of story. And "atheism" does not need any "softening" anyway. 不好意思，就像并非所有的人文主义者都是无神论者（Hannam自己就清楚地知道这一点），也并非所有的无神论者都是人文主义者（只要有人乐意浪费时间在那些反宗教网站和论坛转转便能很快发现这一点）。因此，并不存在“无信仰者”别有用心地“劫持”“人文主义者”这回事。我们这些人文主义者就是人文主义者，仅此而已。而且“无神论”用不着“柔化”。 That aside, this is a marvelous book and a brilliant, readable, and accessible antidote to "the Myth". It should be on the Christmas wish-list of any Medievalist, science history buff, or anyone who has a misguided friend who still thinks the nights in the Middle Ages were lit by burning scientists. 除此之外，这是一部令人叹为观止的作品，是“黑暗中世纪神话”一剂绝妙而易读的解毒剂。任何中世纪研究者、科学史爱好者，或者你有位误入歧途、依然相信在中世纪教廷靠焚烧科学家来照亮夜空的朋友，都应该把这本书放在圣诞礼品单上。 Tim O'Neill 作者简介 Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good. Follow his blog at Armarium Magnum. 蒂姆·奥尼尔是一位无神论博客作者，专注于古代史、中世纪史、以及无神论和史学领域的书评创作。他毕业于塔斯马尼亚大学，获得中世纪文学硕士学位，是澳大利亚无神论者基金会（Australian Atheist Foundation）和澳大利亚怀疑论协会（Australian Skeptics）的会员。他还是History versus The Da Vinci Code 网站的作者，目前正在撰写一本名为History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion的书。他的观点常常在有神论者和无神论者之间造成相同程度的轩然大波，这或许表明，他的工作起到了一些良好的作用。请关注他在Armarium Magnum的博客。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2015-04-24】 @whigzhou: 昨天和两枚远古邪恶小鲜肉吃饭，我们在宗教话题上花了不少时间，我再次（也更仔细的）说明了我的几个point：1）尽管我不是基督徒，但我很讨厌（比如道金斯和其他无神论急先锋的）黑基督教的举动，2）我完全可以接受在说话时使用God一词，在我看来，God就是一个特殊的虚设代词（dummy pronoun）， @whigzhou: 类似于It's raining里的it，和it不同的是，god只用于某些特殊场合，比如在如下句式中用作主语：God规定我们不能这么做，所以这么做是不对的。若没有这个词，就得这么说：按照你我共同认可的那套规范，这么做是错的，而你这么做了，而既然我们都认可这套规范，我有理由认为你我都相信这么做是不对的。 @whigzhou: 显然，后一种说法太麻烦了，前一种简洁易懂的多，实际上，God就是共同体成员拟构出来的一个公共道德判决器，这种拟构方式没什么不对，正如美国人也会说“宪法不允许我们这么做”，或“国父们要求我们这么做”，其中的“宪法”和“国父们”便是一种类似的拟构 @whigzhou: 在此意义上，上帝是真实存在的，因为这一拟构对人们的观念和行为产生了真实、可辨认、且相当可预期的影响，而按照我的本体论哲学，满足这些条件的拟构，就是真实存在 @whigzhou: 和基督徒不同的是，除此之外，我不赋予上帝更多意义，不就God做更多经验性判断 @whigzhou: 在我看来，许多基督徒坚持其信仰的主要理由，他们认为放弃信仰就是背弃被归于上帝的那套规范，以及那套有关世界、人性和社会的基础信念，对此，我深表同情 @whigzhou: 于是有了我的另一个point：3）我不会对“宗教好不好”这么笼统的问题做判断，而只能对特定信仰体系（或教派）做判断，因为被不同教派归于其上帝的共同规范和信念集合，是十分不同的，假如这些规范/信念和我所持有的高度重合，它就会被我认为是“好的” @whigzhou: 4）假如我有机会在几种社区中选择一个居住，其他条件相似时，我会偏爱新教社区，也会常去教堂 @whigzhou: 这样的基督徒，若给我足够的时间，我相信可以说服他们相信：他们赋予上帝的那些额外意义（或经验判断），不是必须的，但通常他们不会花这么多时间听我说话，我通常也不想说这么多话，所以，我尊重他们的朴素信念 @whigzhou: 毕竟，你无须成为伦理学家也可以正当的坚持自己的伦理体系，你无须成为人类学家也可以正当的坚持自己的文化立场 @abada张宏兵: 西方的自由来的比较偶然。因为耶稣是高度独立于政府的民间宗教领袖（凯撒世俗政权、上帝精神世界分界），其教会继承了这一文化基因，教会与政府之间常常对抗，博弈出了自由的传统。@whigzhou @whigzhou: 嗯，没错，不过这是教会作为一个组织的历史作用（该组织在很长时间内几乎垄断了文字工具和与之有关的各种信息和职业），和教义没多大关系。 @Stimmung: 丹内特也经常黑基督教，如何看待？ @whigzhou: 一样讨厌啊，不过和道金斯不同，丹内特至少承认宗教在历史上起过正面作用  

【2015-03-12】 @大象公会:【从《新教伦理与资本主义精神》到费正清学派】@段宇宏 眼中的四本“不必读经典” @whigzhou: 若不考虑被过度吹捧的因素，韦伯那本其实本身还不错的，至少描绘了一种独特而重要的现象。 @whigzhou: 新教运动或新教精神，和新教徒身份是不同的东西，前者限于特定时代特定人群，这一点韦伯自己是很清楚的 @whigzhou: 而且他所描绘的，是新教中的那些个人主义流派，新教运动还包括集体主义流派，比如再洗礼诸派，那完全是另一幅精神面貌 @whigzhou: 我觉得，韦伯所描绘的那种“新教精神”，其实和教徒身份关系不大，倒不如说：具有这种精神的人，（在那个时代的那些社会）倾向于成为新教徒  

【2014-10-12】 @五岳散人 这家尾张屋的荞麦面不愧是五百多年的老字号，我只能说完全是味觉、视觉的享受，一切不是出色，而是恰到好处。 @trustno1v2: 其实长期素食应该是环境和宗教共同作用。古代日本和大陆的交流主要靠信仰坚实的僧侣。包括的主要饮食，都是僧侣从大陆带过去的，比如水稻，大豆，面条，豆腐。僧侣的观念在社会上有巨大的影响力。食素这一现象就类似于伊斯兰的一系列饮食禁忌。 @局外人c的空间：@whigzhou 老师怎么看？ @whigzhou: 我对日本了解很少，不过我对宗教观念能如此影响饮食的可能性表示怀疑 @whigzhou: 在这种事情上，宗教的影响往往比乍看上去表面而琐碎得多，而在另一些事情上，宗教的影响比较深刻，但通常不是以当事人所理解或他们能加以叙述的方式 @whigzhou: 所谓表面，是说它们往往只是用来被包装或合理化某些选择，而这些选择基于其他理由本来就会做出 @whigzhou: 所谓琐碎，是指，其影响只是让当事人在若干差别不大的选项中倒向了其中之一，他们只是需要有个选择，但选哪个其实差别不大，此时宗教影响就会显得“很大” @局外人c的空间:宗教到底更像一个适应性工具还是一个自为的东西？ @whigzhou: 两者都是，既是自在的，也是个体追求利益的工具，当然有时也会伤害到它的寄主，视其作用性质和感染程度不同而定 @whigzhou: 每套宗教都是众多观念的混杂体，可能每个观念分开来看比较方便 @局外人c的空间:我对宗教了解不多，但觉得，其核心观念和戒条也是变动不居的，比如在日本和尚可以娶妻，在西藏则可以食肉。关键应该是他作为一种组织的价值，它能够为人们提供某种功用。比如鉴真到日本，带去了大量的其他生活知识和器物，这些东西有助于改善信众的生活质量。 @whigzhou: 嗯  

【2014-06-03】 @whigzhou: 西方许多自称不信教的进步派，所信奉的那套价值体系/意识形态，其实跟宗教也没多大区别，即便是科学，被他们对待的方式也与宗教雷同，他们的不信教，不过是用真理、灵性、人性、永恒等等玄词取代了“上帝”而已，有个新词组Spiritual but not religious([[SBNR]]) http://t.cn/RvfWhVe 很好概括了这种倾向 @whigzhou: 真正让人远离宗教的是独立思考和怀疑态度，但自称信教者少的欧洲人在独立思考上远不如美国人，比如在社会问题上，欧洲大众历来习惯于把思考任务交给一小撮政治精英，这一点从欧洲政客的来源就可以看出来，法国总统选来选去永远是巴黎政治学院和国家行政学院的毕业生 @whigzhou: 从科学家的写作风格也看得出，欧洲科学家很少像英美科学家那样面向大众写作，欧洲大学的教授惯于以大众看不懂来证明其学问高深，欧洲大众也习惯于等待科学家和政治精英告诉他们什么是真理、什么是真相、什么是善、什么是美 @whigzhou: 其实，无论以遗传收益还是以个体幸福感为标准，高程度的独立思考和怀疑态度，在绝大多数情况下都算不上优点，甚至可以说是理性能力过度发展的畸形结果，会在社会关系、心理感受、生活成就方面带来许多负面影响，只有对那些足够喜欢它乃至可以忽视或容忍这些负面影响的人，才算是优点 @wangtwo3218:欧洲科学家和英美科学家？英国也是欧洲的吧 @whigzhou: 嫖客不算家庭成员  

（按：本博客凡标明[大象]的文章皆首发于大象公会，转载须经公会同意，以后不再一一注明。） 最成功的共产社会在美国 辉格 2014年5月26日 共产主义是20世纪影响最大的社会实验，推动这场实验的人，曾为它披上一件件哲学、经济学和社会学的外衣，这让它看起来颇为现代，然而，这些外衣所包裹的意识形态和社会理想——平等、互助、分享、财产共有——却远不是现代的，至少在基督教世界，它有着古老的渊源，只不过早先它所披戴的，通常是宗教和神学的外衣。 15世纪晚期，印刷机让乡下穷秀才们[1]也能直接读到圣经了，宗教改革随之风起云涌，大小教派遍地开花，其中半数以上都有着共产主义倾向，在此后的四个世纪里，许多教派将它们的社会理想付诸实践，创立了各种形式的共产社区，而空旷肥沃且远离世俗旧政权的新大陆，恰好为这些社会实验提供了理想条件。 然而随着历次工业革命的推进，市场日益发达，特别是铁路和城市化的发展，这些共产社会大都没有经历住现代市场社会的高度流动性所带来的冲击，到上世纪初已纷纷衰败、瓦解或者变质，比如一度颇成气候的震颤派（[[Shakers]]）[2]曾在美国建立了20多个共产社区，但存续至今的只有缅因州的萨巴斯代湖村（[[Sabbathday Lake village]]），该村在2009年已只剩三个人。 不过，它们中有一个成功抵御了工业革命和现代化的冲击，再洗礼派（[[Anabaptists]]）的一个分支胡特尔人（[[Hutterites]]），在四百多年中始终维持着共产制度，除家具和少量日用品外，一切财产共有，生产由集体安排，生活资料统一分配，吃饭在公共食堂，三岁以上即开始接受集体教育，作息举止服饰发型皆有严格规定，整齐划一。 胡特尔社会不仅维持了下来，而且非常兴旺，在过去几代已成为全球人口增长最快的社群，从1870年代迁居北美时的四百多人增长到了2010年的四万多人（这还没算上流失到主流社会的人口）；这是一个难得的实验案例，清晰而纯粹，考察学习一下它的成功经验，或许有助于解释为何其他实验都失败了，也可以帮助我们理解现代主流社会为何是我们所见到的样子。 【排除诱惑】 人类只要保有探索、创造和模仿的自由，其需求便永无止境，因而资源永远是稀缺的，所有现代共产实验都从物质极大丰富、各取所需的许诺开始，却无一例外以提倡艰苦朴素、批判资产阶级腐朽生活方式而告终，在资源稀缺的前提下，平等只能通过向下对齐而实现，供需只能借助对探索和创造的压制而得以平衡。 为此，胡特尔社会禁止一切奢侈消费，采取极端避世的姿态，以种种规定排除外部诱惑：远离外人，集中居住，禁止收音机、电视、唱片和网络，整个社区只有一部公共电话，电脑只能在工作场合使用，教育全部在社区内进行，且到九年级为止，除了极少量零花钱，个人很少有可支配现金，而且消费项目受教规严格限制。 【保持无知】 知识、好奇心和反思是开启潘朵拉之盒的祸首，想得越多，越难以忍受沉闷单调一成不变的朴素生活，所有胡特尔人都只受过初中教育，也很少接触现代媒体，几百年的封闭离世生活已让他们习惯于只做不想，连神学思考也早已停止，面对年轻人提问，长老们只会重复教条，从不解释为什么，只告诉你该怎么做。 对外部信息的隔膜也体现在他们的语言上，胡特尔人至今仍以其发源地的德语蒂罗尔方言为母语；思想的停止也可从另一点看出：他们所保存的作为其精神指南的宗教典籍，由另一种古老德语写成，如今的胡特尔人已很难读懂，但他们并不介意，只管念诵就行了。 【邓巴数】 财产共有、集体生产和资源共享这些核心特征，决定了共产社会是一种特殊的互惠型社会，而互惠关系的维持，需要一种全面而无孔不入的社会监督机制来执行社会规范，为此，要么建立奥威尔式的警察国家，要么由社会成员相互监督，后者要求所有社会成员相互熟识，从而使得个人的一举一动都处于社会舆论的约束之下。 进化人类学家罗宾·邓巴（[[Robin Dunbar]]）指出，基于人类的认知局限，这样的监督机制只有在规模小于150[3]人的小社会才可能实现，邓巴在说明这一点时，举的一个例子正是胡特尔，胡特尔社区的规模在60-140人，每当人口接近上限时，就像细胞分裂那样均分为二，这一机制确保了其规模始终维持熟人小社会的水平。 【亲选择】 和一般互惠型社会不同的是，共产社会的平等原则还需要其成员表现出强利他性（[[strong reciprocity]]），而不仅仅是互惠利他（[[reciprocal altruism]]），即，要求他们即便在没有预期回报的情况下也愿意为他人做出牺牲；经验表明，没有特殊动机的情况下，这是很难做到的，而亲选择（[[kin selection]]）恰好提供了这样的动机：假如帮助对象是近亲，人们就比较容易表现出强利他行为。 胡特尔正是以父系家族为构成基础的亲属社会，每个社区由十来个扩展家庭组成，包含少则一两个多则四五个姓氏；北美胡特尔人一共只有18个姓氏（现存14个），不与外人通婚，所以每个社区都是少数几个有着长期通婚关系的家族的合作群体；亲选择无疑起到了减少冲突强化合作互惠的作用。 相比之下，震颤派过于进步，废除了婚姻与家庭，实行独身禁欲主义，禁止性生活和生育，于是就失去了血缘纽带对社区的凝聚作用。 【避免等级化】 共产制度的一大困境是，既要贯彻平等共享原则，同时其共产和集体性质又需要一个中央权力机构来组织生产和实施分配，可是权力组织一旦建立，平等就很难维持了，掌权者总是会为革命事业而多啃鸡腿，而一旦出现等级分化，艰苦朴素平等共享的伦理原则就成了空话，游戏重点又回到争权夺利和努力向上爬，于是社会规范也自然会围绕资源与权力竞争而重建。 胡特尔人将社区规模限制在邓巴数之下的做法，在维系社会规范的同时也避免了等级分化，社区之间没有更高层权力机构，社区内由六位长老组成决策机构，下设十来位奶牛长家禽长之类的业务主管，这就确保了每个父系家族都有几位长老，每个扩展家庭都至少有一位业务主管。 这样一来，地位分化只发生在性别和年龄段之间，每位男性在其盛年期都有望担任某个职位，如果他表现出一些进取心和领导能力，也很可能成为长老，不会出现某个人既有野心又有能力却得不到机会施展的情况，而后者正是社会不满和政治冲突的主要来源。 重要的是，在一举一动都处于众人监视之下的熟人社会中，如此轻微的地位分化不会导致生活水平上的差距，当上主管和长老唯一的好处是少干点体力活，这不足以为争权夺利提供激励。 【压力释放口】 在这种价值观整齐划一，行动上一切听指挥，生活上无处不被注视的社会，必定会有一些不满分子，尤其是年轻人，把他们强留在社会中，只会带来冲突和危险；假如这种社会是奥威尔式的，解决方案便是定期大清洗，但胡特尔不是极权社会，他们是绝对和平主义者，他们的解决方案是去留自便。 这与再洗礼派的核心教义有关：他们不承认对未成年人的洗礼，认为接受洗礼加入教会的决定必须由心智成熟健全的成年人在经过慎重考虑之后才能做出[4]，胡特尔人通常在19-22岁之间接受洗礼，从而获得社区完全成员资格，并承担起遵守全部规范的责任，而在次之前，他可以选择推迟入教或者离开，即便在入教之后，他也随时可以退出，只是后者会被视为叛教而遭忌避（[[shunning]]），而前者只是被当作普通外人对待。 去留自便的做法，短期效果是让不满者离开从而释放社会压力、消除潜在冲突源，在长期则起着筛选作用，不断剔除其性格与胡特尔社会不相容的成员。 对社会规范的不满和对权威的挑战最集中的表现是青春期躁动，对此胡特尔人也有应对机制，在15岁离开学校到接受洗礼之前这几年，年轻人被视为未成熟不懂事而豁免了遵守某些规范的责任，比如喝酒、抽烟、打牌、去附近镇上玩，只要不太过分就会得到容忍。 【实用主义】 任何社会运动最初都由一群理想主义者领导，而一旦开始真正动手建立组织、展开行动、创建社会，理想主义者就会逐渐被实用主义者所取代，否则运动很快就会失败，但这一替代过程未必顺利，许多教派会面临一个矛盾：一方面需要保持理想主义色彩以便不断吸纳狂热分子去传教，但同时组织的维系和运营需要它转向实用主义。 一个教派若主要依靠传教和吸纳新教徒而发展壮大，就很难完成实用主义转型，因而组织和制度很难稳定下来，理想主义者都有自己的想法，而且非常狂热而坚定，很容易争吵不休却拿不出可行方案。 胡特尔人没这问题，因为他们不传教，发展壮大全靠子宫，所以几代人之后，理想主义者便消失殆尽，他们也没有职业教士，牧师由社区长老充任，通常对神学毫无兴趣，也读不懂多少经典，教义在他们眼里不过是一套沿袭已久的行为规范。 【接纳新技术】 胡特尔的实用主义也体现在他们对待现代技术的态度上，尽管在消费、穿着和生活方式上非常简朴而守旧，并尽量杜绝媒体、娱乐、奢侈品等外部诱惑，但他们并不拒绝新技术，只要有助于提高生产率，会毫不犹豫加以采纳。 积极采纳新技术，加上劳动力成本低，胡特尔人经营的集体农场在北美极具竞争力，也正因此才能让他们维持了极高的生育率（1950-80年代高峰期人口年增长率达4.12%），并不断买入土地建立新社区；他们的高增长率，也得益于对现代医疗技术的接受。 【暂时解除的人口压力】 社会压力最根本的来源是人口压力，但在胡特尔人迁居北美后的一百多年里，这一压力暂时解除了，所以我们才会看到每18年翻一番的极限增长率，北美大平原广袤空旷肥沃而又廉价的土地，为胡特尔这样勤劳节俭而又自甘寂寞的农场经营者提供了极为理想的环境，那里的自然条件与他们迁往北美前所在的乌克兰也很相似，20世纪的城市化浪潮吸走大量农民更为他们腾出了发展空间。 实际上，直到1950年代现代化大型农场兴起之前，胡特尔集体农场比美国的传统家庭农场更具规模优势，所以在1980年代之前的一个世纪中，他们的人口和社区数量都是在毫无压力的条件下迅速膨胀，避免了资源稀缺性转变为社会内部的压力和冲突，直到80年代，大型农场带来的土地价格上涨才开始让胡特尔人感觉到压力，也正是从那时起，生育率开始显著下降；假如地价继续上扬，人口压力持续提高，胡特尔模式是否能够继续存在下去，还不好说。 【自由环境】 尽管胡特尔人奉行离世隔绝的教条，但他们的成功离不开所在大社会提供的优越条件，若没有现代医疗，就算放开了生，也不会有这么高的增长率，若没有现代市场可出售其农产品，他们顶多能够过上勉强自足的生活而无法扩张，若不采纳现代农业设备，他们的农场也不可能盈利从而为获取新土地而积累资金。 更重要的是文化和制度环境，胡特尔奉行的绝对和平主义让他们放弃了自卫能力，若不是身处北美大平原这样文化宽容、社会压力宽松、民风淳朴和善的社会，将难以自保，若没有现代司法体系所提供的普遍安全保障，甚至可能被灭掉。 像再洗礼派这样拒绝融入主流社会、拒服兵役、抵制义务教育、拒绝医保和社会福利的非主流小教派，是绝大多数政府所无法容忍的，只有在美国和加拿大这样宽容而自由的社会，他们才找到了容身之所，并且兴旺发达。 胡特尔的故事告诉我们，在一个自由社会，你甚至可以实现共产主义理想。 注： [1]许多新教教派的创立者或领袖人物大多是低级教士或粗通文墨的手工业者或小商人。 [2]震颤派（Shakers）是从源自英格兰的贵格派（[[Quakers]]）中分化出的一个激进教派，因其信徒在做礼拜时常狂喜至全身颤栗而得名。 [3]150这个数字因而被称为邓巴数（[[Dunbar's number]]）。 [4]所以该教派早期传播时常为入教者的重新施洗，并因此而得名。  

【2014-01-09】 @大象公会 【包皮手术：敏感地带的牺牲与奖赏】包皮这块敏感的方寸地带，不同文化不同时代的人们，对其功能和象征有着不同理解，割去它可能意味着惩罚或牺牲，也可能是炫耀，而今天传说包皮手术有助于性事，又有了自我奖赏的意味。作者：@I_Issak http://weibo.com/3266326401/ArecyC0Eq @whigzhou: 割礼/文身/额头皮肤横切/敲门牙/尿道切开等等身体切割仪式的关键特征是不可逆性，难以模仿伪造，因而特别适合作为部族身份标识，或许也正因此，它们难以为奉行普世主义的基督教会所接受，所以尽管耶稣也被割了包皮，教会还是要反对割礼 @杜易桥:新约里并没有反对啊，只是施洗约翰和耶稣用水洗的方式替代了割礼而已。说基督教教会反对割礼这一说法不准确。 @whigzhou: 教会≠《新约》，教会反对过很多《新约》里没有反对的事情，比如手淫 @whigzhou: 教会反对的多妻制和七代以内近亲通婚，《新约》也不反对 @杜易桥:2 旧约是明确反对手淫的，我的印象中，新约应该没有论及此事，一般教会就按照旧约的传承也反对手淫。新约什么地方写了不反对手淫吗？ @whigzhou: 1）你说的“旧约明确反对手淫”是指Onan中断性交体外射精的典故吧？该典故被歪曲为圣经反对手淫的依据，恰好说明圣经里实在找不出这样的依据； @whigzhou: 2）“没有反对”——这不需要用“什么地方写了”来证明吧？ @whigzhou: 通过《圣经》观察理解教会，就像通过《资本论》观察理解拱铲挡一样不着边际