查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | The Future of Religion: Global Boundaries and the Fork in the Road=宗教的未來：全球性的界限和岔路 |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 德馬丁; | 書刊名 | 宗教哲學 |
| 卷 期 | 75 2016.03[民105.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁1-27 |
| 專 輯 | 宗教在全球化下的中西對話 |
| 分類號 | 210.11 |
| 關鍵詞 | 宗教; 環境倫理學; 中華文化; 超載; 適應不良和演化; Religion; Spirituality; Environmental ethics; Overshoot; Maladaptation/Evolution; |
| 語 文 | 英文(English) |
| 中文摘要 | 明天的宗教會是什麼樣子，這個問題只能臆測。但是世界宗教的未來軌跡的邊界條件或限制則不然。我們可以從三個學科的觀點的交集找到答案。這三個學科是人類學、哲學倫理學（或它在政治的對應學科，也就是國際法）以及環境和氣候科學。人類學曾經理解過去宗教的發展，特別是它在前後相續的文明階段裡的多變功能：史前的牧群和部落，古代的酋邦和中世紀的王國，以及近代的俗世國家。我們知道以前的宗教提供什麼社會目的，發生了什麼轉變，以及從史前到今天的宗教潮流。基於經驗性記載，人類學告訴我們，宗教如何溜回到比較低度發展的文明。這是一組邊界條件。倫理學討論是非對錯的意義，但是它的爭辯圍繞在常態的、中間路線的問題上。對於極端的問題，則很少有歧見。國際機構（例如國際刑事法庭）、條約（例如日內瓦公約）和量度（例如人類發展指標），清楚描畫出是非對錯的界線。正如對於種族屠殺的道德評斷所證明的，關於人們認為是邪惡的事物，沒有混淆的空間。我們也很清楚什麼樣的生活是安全而有尊嚴的。如是，倫理學和國際法可以告訴我們，信仰的社會表現是否可以讓人接受，是善或是惡。這是另一組邊界條件。最後，環境和氣候科學，則得出一個結論：文明不適應它的環境。人類的生態超載惡化到生態的完整性的毀壞從加速絕種速率上顯然可見；環境保護的墮落也可見於氣候的變遷；自然資源的耗竭則可見於糧食、土地和稀土價格（相對於收入）的攀升。既然文明依賴於一個需要實質成長以維持其穩定性的全球市場經濟，既然我們的生態超載使得成長難以為繼，於是我們的物種來到了岔路。我們不是依然故我而陷入危機，就是重新設計文明，朝著永續發展前進。這個岔路使得人類學的「返祖」和「進步」意義益顯尖銳，也微調了倫理學上的善與惡的意義。既然宗教是任何社會的必要構造，永續發展的向度也在宗教的發展道路上設了一處岔路。我們的信仰的未來軌跡，是一條充滿希望的道路。另一條道路則是怵目驚心。生物物理的岔路設了第三組邊界條件。雖然我們不知道未來如何，環境的危機以及緩和該危機的機會告訴我們好的未來會是什麼樣子，不好的未來結果會是怎樣。人類學和倫理學告訴我們文明的前進或倒退是怎麼回事，是邁向一個更健康、安全的世界，或是退化到一個更嚴峻的、貧窮的世界。這篇論文的目的，是要利用人類學、倫理學和環境科學的研究成果，去勘定未來宗教最好的和最壞的前景，隨著演化的、啟蒙的和永續發展的道路，信仰可以是什麼樣子，而如果事件和人們把信仰往反方向推，又會是什麼樣子。我認為，這兩個前景都是明顯而可以證實的。我主張說，唯有永續發展的道路才和中華文化智慧相容，例如儒家、老莊道家、以及佛教禪宗。而我猜想中華文化及其精神傳統在全球的影響力會越來越大，若且唯若文明是朝著永續發展前進的。但是如果文明違反了這個計畫，退化而面臨崩壞，我擔心中華文化會被中東信仰摧陷廓清。 |
| 英文摘要 | The question of how religions will look like tomorrow is speculative. But this is not the case with the boundary conditions, or limits, of the future trajectories of world religions. Answers can be found in the intersection of three disciplinary perspectives. The disciplines are anthropology, philosophical ethics (or its political equivalent, international law), and the environmental and climate sciences. Anthropology has gained an understanding of the past development of religions, especially about its shifting functions in successive stages of civilization: among prehistoric bands and tribes, in ancient chiefdoms and medieval kingdoms, and in modern secular states. We know what social purposes religions served in the past, what kind of shifts occurred, and what the trend of religion from prehistory to today had been. Based on the empirical record, anthropology tells us what it means for religion to slide back to a less developed stage of civilization. This is one set of boundary conditions. Ethics discusses the meaning of right and wrong, but its debates cluster around normal, middle-of-the road issues. There is little disagreement over extremes. International institutions (e.g. International Criminal Court), treaties (e.g. Geneva Conventions), and metrics (e.g. Human Development Index) give a clear picture of the limits of right and wrong. As the moral assessment of genocides illustrates, there is no confusion over what counts as evil. We also have a clear idea of what constitutes a life that is safe and dignified. In this way, ethics and international law can tell us whether the social manifestation of faith is acceptable or not, whether it is good or evil. This is another set of boundary conditions. The environmental and climate sciences, finally, have arrived at a conclusion: civilization is maladapted to its environment. The ecological overshoot of humankind has worsened to the point that degradation of ecological integrity is tangible in accelerating extinction rates; that deterioration of environmental services is tangible in climate change; and that depletion of natural resources is tangible in rising prices (compared to incomes) of food, land, and rare earths. Since civilization relies on a global market economy whose stability needs material growth, and since our ecological overshoot makes such growth unsustainable, our species has arrived at a fork in the road. Either we keep doing business as usual and sink into crisis, or we redesign civilization and move towards sustainability. This fork in the road sharpens the anthropological sense of ＂regress＂ and ＂progress,＂ and tweaks the ethical meanings of ＂good＂ and ＂evil＂. Since religion is integral to the fabric of any society, the dimension of sustainability places a fork in the developmental road of religions, too. One future trajectory of faith is a path that is hopeful. Another is a path that is terrifying. The biophysical fork in the road establishes a third set of boundary conditions. Although we do not know what the future will bring, the environmental crisis and the opportunities for mitigating the crisis tell us what a good future will amount to, and what a bad future will boil down to. Anthropology and ethics tell us what it will mean for civilization to move forward or to slide back, to proceed to a healthier, safer world, or to regress to a harsher, poorer world. The purpose this paper is to use the findings of anthropology, ethics, and the environmental sciences to determine the best- and worst-case scenarios of future religion- how faith may look like along an evolutionary, enlightened, and sustainable pathway, and how it would look like if events and people push faith into the opposite direction. I argue that these two scenarios are clear and justifiable. I contend that only the sustainable pathway is compatible with Chinese cultural wisdom, as in Confucianism, Lao-Zhuang Daoism, and Chan Buddhism. And I suspect that Chinese culture and its spiritual traditions will become more influential globally if and only if civilization moves towards sustainability. But if civilization failed at this project, regressed, and suffered collapse, I fear that Chinese culture would be swept away by Middle Eastern creeds. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。