脫下理性的雨衣
有人認為宗教信仰禁不起理性的檢查，甚至可能蒙蔽理性，因而指出信仰與理性是在長繩兩端做著永恆抜河的對手，或是兩名對奕的棋手，下著一場無法有結果的棋局。其實，與其說理性與信仰是要一拼勝負的對手，不如說它們是在一場跨國合作計劃中操縱著不同語言與功能的同僚。
哲學史上有「理性的醜聞」這個辭句，所謂「理性的醜聞」指的就是理性的不足與尷尬。心智對某些議題不得不思索，卻又沒有能力得到可被證實的答案。比如「神的存在」與「靈魂不滅」的議題，理性永遠無法為我們提出完美的答案。它雖然無法證實神的存在，但卻也不能證實神的不存在。
處理「不可知」的「終極問題」，我們需要不同於理性的另一種心智機能。理性處理的是可被分析與驗證的「知識問題」，它能給予我們「了解」。處理「終極問題」的，卻是如信仰這樣的另一類的心智機能，它所給予我們的是「意義」。
宗教所面對的不是知識的問題，而是生命的終極問題，所以不在理性的處理範圍之內。換句話說，宗教所追求的不是「了解」，卻是「意義」。能給予我們「了解」卻不能給予我們「意義」的理性，在宗教中並無太大的用處。理性不能處理宗教提出的問題，而能以理性處理的問題，已落入知識的領域，也就不再隸屬宗教的範疇。比如，上古時代欠缺知識，故將諸般宇宙現象訴諸於神，隨著理性介入增加了解後，對這些現象的解釋就落入了知識的範疇，而不再屬宗教。
知識的邊界之外，有關於意義的終極問題，不是理性或知識可以回答。以科學為例，它應用理性從事分析與證明，擴展了我們對宇宙的「了解」，但卻不能告訴我們宇宙的「意義」。 知識回答了「什麼」(what) 與「如何」(how) 的問題，卻永遠無法回答「為什麼」(why) 的問題。物理學家能仔細地告訴我們宇宙功能組成的細節與宇宙如何發生，卻不能告訴我們萬事萬物「為何」如此運轉生成。生物學家可以畫出基因的圖表，甚至可以用細胞複製新生命，但他們依然不能告訴我們生命「為何」存在。
宗教是對意義的追索，而不是對知識的追索。那些想以「科學」來應證宗教的企圖，不只是徒然無功，並且犯了範疇上的錯誤。這種錯誤在科技發達的現代，尤其嚴重。我們經常可以聽到一些自以為「先進」的宗教人士，以他們宗教如何「科學」的誇口，做為宣揚教義的基礎。其實，如果能被科學 (理性) 解釋與應證的事物，那就已是客觀的知識，而不再是宗教。
當然，對宗教的「思索」與「信仰」，又是完全不相同的兩回事。前者是哲學的思考活動，後者依據的卻是情感重於理性的「信心」。哲學家可以傾注一生反思那些終極問題，但他不必然會成為一位宗教信徒。一位熟讀聖經、佛經、或是可蘭經的人，只是有著豐富宗教知識，也不見得能夠成為信徒。使一個人成為宗教信徒的，只有「信心」，也就是齊克果所說的「信心的飛升」(leap of faith)。這種信心使人在面對理性與知識無法解釋的情況時，可以全盤地擁抱信心鋪陳出的教義，自信且無懼地從「可知」的崖壁跳入「不可知」的深淵。
所以那些以「非理性」來批評宗教的人，和那些想以「理性」應證宗教的人一樣，都犯了範疇錯置的過失。宗教操作於理性之外，所滿足的亦是人類理性以外的訴求，故不能以理性做為詰責它的尺度。宗教不是理性的，但也不是非理性的。它完全建立在理性之外的另一種經驗之上。
我們若將聖靈比做一場雨，要進入宗教的國度，理性可能就是那件應被放在門外的雨衣。也只有暫棄理性的質疑，我們才有被聖靈之雨淋透的可能。
(世界周刊, 2009-4-12)
真正所謂"超脫"無我"等等是沒有理性不理性,科學不科學的疑慮的.
The contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. The central argument of scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.
But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Putting signs on city buses saying, "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake." And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: "Imagine…no religion."
What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional "argument from design." There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.
Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and enjoy life. In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments spoil all the fun. "Be good for goodness sake" is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far. The question remains: what is the source of these standards of goodness that seem to be shared by religious and non-religious people alike? Finally John Lennon knew how to compose a tune but he could hardly be considered a reliable authority on fundamental questions. His "imagine there’s no heaven" sounds visionary but is, from an intellectual point of view, a complete nullity.
If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, there was an issue back in 2008 of Discover magazine provides part of the answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled "Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator." The article begins by noting "an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life." As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, "We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible."
Too many "coincidences," however, imply a plot. Folger’s article shows that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would be no universe and no life. Recently scientists have discovered that most of the matter and energy in the universe is made up of so-called "dark" matter and "dark" energy. It turns out that the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.
Even Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics and an outspoken atheist, remarks that "this is fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident." And physicist Freeman Dyson draws the appropriate conclusion from the scientific evidence to date: "The universe in some sense knew we were coming."
Folger then admits that this line of reasoning makes a number of scientists very uncomfortable. "Physicists don’t like coincidences." "They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea."
No wonder atheists are sporting billboards asking us to "imagine…no religion." When science, far from disproving God, seems to be pointing with ever-greater precision toward transcendence, imagination and wishful thinking seem all that is left for the atheists to count on.