#31 — 演化的思维

欢迎收听《Makin' Sense》播客。

Welcome to the Makin' Sense Podcast.

我是萨姆·哈里斯。

This is Sam Harris.

仅此提醒：如果你正在收听这段内容，说明你目前并未订阅我们的会员频道，因此只能听到这段对话的前半部分。

Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber feed, and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation.

要收听《Making Sense》播客的完整剧集，你需要在 samharris.org 上订阅。

In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense podcast, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org.

在那里，你可以找到我们的私人 RSS 订阅源，添加到你最喜欢的播客客户端中，还能获取其他仅限订阅者的独家内容。

There you'll find our private RSS feed to add to your favorite podcatcher, along with other subscriber only content.

我们不在播客中播放广告，因此节目完全依赖订阅者的支持才能持续制作。

We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers.

所以，如果你喜欢我们所做的内容，请考虑成为其中一员。

So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.

因此，我联系了乔纳森·海特，他是纽约大学斯特恩商学院伦理领导力教授。

And so here I reached out to Jonathan Haidt, who is a professor of ethical leadership at NYU Stern School of Business.

他是一位非常著名的心理学家。

He's a very well known psychologist.

你们中的许多人熟悉他的研究。

Many of you know his work.

他曾多年在弗吉尼亚大学任教。

And taught at UVA for many years.

他是《幸福假说》和《正义之心》的作者。

And he's the author of The Happiness Hypothesis and The Righteous Mind.

我和他曾经多次产生分歧。

He and I have collided with one another on a number of occasions.

这次对话本可能走向任何方向。

And this conversation could have gone either way.

我知道这次对话能如此成功并不意外。

You know, I was not surprised that it was as successful as it was.

但这确实是一次冒险，就像许多这类事情一样，而这次成功了。

But it was a risk, like many of these things are, and this one paid off.

我们来自一段彼此之间强烈甚至人身攻击的批评历史，但依然取得了进展。

We come out of a history of strong and even ad hominem criticism of one another, and we make progress.

现在我向大家介绍约翰·海特。

I now give you John Hite.

好吧，我和乔纳森·海特在这里。

Well, I'm here with Jonathan Hite.

约翰，感谢你来参加这个播客。

John, thanks for coming on the podcast.

我的荣幸，萨姆。

My pleasure, Sam.

非常期待这次对话。

Looking forward to it.

听好了，在我们讨论那些我们意见一致的话题之前——而这类话题很多——我们先从分歧点开始，因为过去我们有过一些争议，我认为我们的听众应该了解这些。

Well, listen, before we get into topics about which we agree, and there are a lot of them, let's start with areas of disagreement because we've had a few past controversies, which I think our listeners should know about.

我们的许多听众都认识你，因为你曾在心理学领域做出极具影响力的工作，并探讨了许多对心理学之外领域也极为重要的议题。

So many of our listeners will know who you are because you've done extremely influential work in psychology and have covered many topics that are really just of enormous importance outside psychology.

但很多人可能不知道我们公开争执的历史。

But many might not know the history of our bickering in public.

你一直是所谓新无神论者的著名批评者之一，他们攻击理查德·道金斯、克里斯托弗·希钦斯、丹·丹尼特，还有我。

You've been among the prominent critics of the so called new atheists who have gone after Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Dan Dennett and me you.

是的。

Yes.

对。

Yep.

主要是因为我们对宗教的看法。

For what we said about religion, principally.

而你对希钦斯的批评较少，因为他并未声称自己代表科学。

And you spent less time on Hitch because he didn't claim to be representing science.

你过去曾批评过我，而且是以我觉得相当错误的方式。

So you've criticized me in the past and in ways that I thought were pretty wrongheaded.

我对此进行了相当强烈的反驳，有时可能近乎缺乏礼貌。

And I push back fairly hard against this in ways that, you know, may have bordered on incivility at times.

因此，事情最后的发展是，我认为我们俩都不会把对方视为天然的合作者。

And so the way things were left, I don't think either of us would have tended to see the other as a natural collaborator.

没错。

That's right.

我觉得这作为一个社会现象很有趣。

So I mean, I find this interesting just as a social phenomenon.

我发现，当人们在公共场合发生冲突后就停止交流，这在智识上具有重大影响。

I find it intellectually quite consequential that people stop talking to one another after they have certain collisions in public.

而且，我越来越尝试与那些我在重要议题上存在强烈分歧的人展开对话，看看交流是否可能。

And more and more, I've been attempting to engage people with whom I've had a strong disagreement on important topics just to see if conversation is possible.

我应该向你和我们的听众指出，你知道，这种尝试并不总是成功的。

And I should just point out to you and to our listeners who will know that, you know, this doesn't always work out.

我有一期播客根本没发布，因为谈得太糟糕了。

I had one podcast that I didn't even release because it went so badly.

我还有一期最近发布了，但可能本来不该发布，因为它似乎只是增加了宇宙中的整体挫败感。

And I had one that I released recently and probably shouldn't have because it just seemed to do nothing more than increase the sum total of frustration in the universe.

人们觉得听这个简直是一种折磨。

It was just people found it excruciating to listen to.

我在写作中进行这种尝试时，成效参差不齐。

And I've had very mixed success doing this in writing.

最令人难忘的一次失败是我试图与诺姆·乔姆斯基对话，这个项目很快就崩溃了

I the most memorable failure being that I attempted to engage Noam Chomsky, and that project just fell apart as fast

像打字一样快。

as type.

这听起来不太有希望。

That does not sound promising.

所以没有。

So no.

但我怀疑你和我能够应对这次对话。

But I I suspect you and I are up to this.

所以你知道，我们没必要花太多时间回顾过去的争执。

So I you know, I I we don't need to spend a lot of time rehearsing our past skirmishes.

但我只是希望，随着话题的展开，我们可以直接发现我们分歧在哪里。

But I I just want to and we can just discover what we disagree about now as the topics come up.

但我只是想让我们的听众知道，这段历史确实存在，而且相当尖锐。

But I just want our listeners to know that this history exists, and it was fairly acrimonious.

他们应该明白，你我正在进行一场高风险的对话。

And they should just appreciate that you and I are doing a bit of a high wire act just having this conversation.

因为大多数有我们这种背景的人，根本不会以这种方式主动交谈。

Because most people with our history just actually don't willingly talk to each other in these ways.

所以，再次强调，我的根本目的是证明，两个人即使有过不愉快的开端，也能成功沟通并实现智力上的进步。

And so again, my underlying aim is to demonstrate that two people can have a fairly inauspicious beginning and then successfully communicate and make intellectual progress.

很好。

Great.

我也希望如此。

I want that too.

太好了。

Cool.

实际上，在准备这次通话时，我回顾了我们过去的分歧。

And actually, you know, preparing for this call, was looking back over our past conflicts.

作为一名研究道德和道德分歧的心理学家，我认为整个过程的运作方式相当有启发性。

And, you know, looking at it as a psychologist who studies morality and moral disagreement, I actually think it's kind of revealing the way the way this all worked.

所以，据我所知，最初的交锋是我写了那篇发表在Edge上的文章，严厉批评了新无神论者。

So, you know, initially, I as far as I can tell, the first salvo was when I wrote that essay on edge, a very critical of the new atheists.

无神论者。

Atheists.

我认为我当时并没有不文明，尽管这符合Edge平台一贯的对话风格。

And, you know, I don't think that I was uncivil there, although it was within the bounds of normal edge conversation.

你知道，Edge并不是一个安全区。

It's, you know, edge is not a safe zone.

我认为你我都同意，智力讨论不应当是一个安全区。

I think you and I both agree that intellectual discourse should not be a safe zone.

然后你回复了，从我的角度看，你把我的观点比作会直接导致阿兹特克人祭以及其他种种可怕行为。

And then you wrote back, and from my point of view, it was when you were comparing you were saying, my ideas would basically justify or lead to Aztec human sacrifice and all these other horrible things.

而且，好吧，你知道，这也属于正常范围之内。

And, okay, you know, that too is within within the bounds.

好的。

Alright.

所以我们差不多已经站在了边缘，但这种情况其实很常见。

So so we're sort of up against the edge there, but that's sort of normal.

然后，如果我没记错时间的话，就在那之后不久，我们在‘超越信仰’大会上第一次面对面见面。

Then, if I remember the timing, it was like right after that that we first met face to face at the Beyond Belief Conference.

在那里，如果我没记错的话，你好像说我的信仰会导向朝鲜之类的地方。

And there too, if I remember, there, I think you said, like, my beliefs would lead to either North Korea or something like that.

所以再次地，

And so again

嗯，我不是说我会认为它一定会导致那样，只是按照你的标准，你很难指出那些体系有什么错。

Well, not so I don't I don't think I would have ever said that it would lead to, but just that you would be hard pressed to say what was wrong with those systems by your lights.

好的。

Okay.

好的。

Okay.

我的意思是，在你看来这可能没什么区别，但其实这是一个很重要的区别。

So mean, it may be a distinction without a difference in your mind, but it's it's a pretty No.

重要。

Important

是的。

is.

正是如此。

That is.

但关键是，从我的感受来说，无论我说什么，你都会把我跟朝鲜之类的地方联系起来。

But the point is just that from, you know, the way it felt to me was no matter what I say, you will you will link me somehow to, you know, North Korea or something like that.

我觉得你从未把纳粹和我联系起来，我为此感谢你。

I don't think you ever did the Nazis, and I thank you for that.

嗯。

Mhmm.

但关键是，我觉得你有一种特定的修辞风格，这种风格非常适合你当时所做的事情。

But the point is that I felt that you had a particular rhetorical style, which was well suited for what you were doing.

你是在为大众读者撰写关于一个非常热门话题的内容，但我觉得，嘿，萨姆的修辞方式根本不是学术性的。

You were writing for a a popular audience about a very hot topic, but I felt like, hey, Sam's rhetoric, this is like not academic rhetoric.

这非常不同，而且我不喜欢这样。

This is very different, and I don't like it.

好吧。

Alright.

这就是背景故事。

So that's the backstory.

但你知道，我从来没有真正回应过。

So but, you know, I never really responded.

从那以后，我再也没有写过任何东西。

I didn't do anything in writing after that.

后来当你写了一本关于道德的书时，你又一次以同样的方式批评了我，不过这也没关系。

And then when you wrote a book on morality, in which, again, you were critical of me in the same way, again, that's fine.

但那时我就想，哦，好吧。

And but it was like, oh, okay.

你又来挑事了。

You had another provocation.

我什么都没做。

I didn't do anything.

然后你提出了道德景观挑战，说如果能让我改变主意，你就付他一万美元，这实在太过分了。

And then when you came out with the moral landscape challenge and you were saying, if can convince me to change my mind, I'll pay him $10,000 And that was like too much.

我当时就想，天啊，这也太过分了。

Was like, oh my God, this is too much.

我必须得回应一下。

I've got to respond this.

于是我就写了那篇论文《为什么萨姆·哈里斯不太可能改变他的想法》。

And so then I wrote that essay, Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change His Mind.

而且，正如我刚才重读时所想的，我认为这完全合理地表达了我对自己的研究以及我的研究如何让我相信你不会改变主意的看法。

And for the most part, as I was just reading that over, I think it's a perfectly legitimate statement of my research and how my research leads me to believe that you won't change your mind.

所以这一切都没问题。

So all that's fine.

但问题是，我这么做显然有点过分了，我是说，对于不了解这个故事和这场辩论的听众，我分析了你的书，还有其他一些书。

The thing though is that clearly was a kind of a jerk move on my part, was I think throwing you know, I analyzed so for listeners who don't know this this story, this debate, I analyzed Sam's I don't know your books.

我分析了你的书以及其他很多本书，然后根据这个程序，卢克，它把‘总是’和‘从不’这类词归为确定性类别，结果你被列为最确定的人，甚至比格伦·贝克和肖恩·汉尼提这些人还要确定。

I analyzed your books and a bunch of other books and I found that according to this program, Luke, that counts words like always and never in a category of certainty, that you came out as the most certain person, even more so than Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and all those guys.

对。

Right.

所以我这么做确实很不妥。

So that was a very jerk thing of me to do.

萨姆，我为这件事向你道歉。

And, Sam, I do apologize to you for that.

这确实不合适。

That was inappropriate.

但这也给了我一个回应的机会，我到现在还觉得挺有意思，我回应时特意用了你所有的关键词，而且都是用‘是的’。

Well, but it did give me a chance to respond to that, which I still am to, pat my own back, I still am amused by my response to that where I used every one of your keywords in a Yes.

这段话表面上看是完全表现出智力上的谦逊和愿意承认错误的态度，但实际上却在同一个段落中使用了你所有的确定性词汇。

Paragraph, which was a on its face, a statement of total intellectual humility and openness to being wrong, but it in fact used all your certainty terms in the same paragraph.

是的。

Yep.

没错。

That's right.

所以，这是赛斯。

So look, it's Seth.

事实上，这揭示了我们之间的一个相似之处，那就是我们都特别喜欢耍聪明。

So in fact, that kind of points to a similarity between us, which is that we're both we both really enjoy being clever.

我的那个做法，其实是非常机智的。

That was a know, my thing was a very clever thing.

你用那些词来回应，你知道的，我们俩有点像爱耍小聪明的人。

Your response where you used all those all those words, you know, was a you know, we were sort of smart alecs.

当两个爱耍小聪明的人碰在一起，观众可就有福了，我想。

And, you know, when smart alecks come up against each other, the audience is in for a treat, I suppose.

是的。

Yeah.

不过，我们在这里所做的事情并不 trivial，因为我觉得这些问题极其重要。

Well, but not to trivialize what we're doing here because I think these issues are hugely important.

我认为我们的分歧很重要，我们彼此误解也很重要。

And I think our disagreements are important, and I think our misunderstanding one another is important.

再稍微谈一谈这件事的由来吧，我现在才意识到，我们争论这些问题时，我从未真正思考过这一点，但我觉得这可能是问题的一部分。

And just to talk a little bit more about the genesis of this thing, which it occurs to me now, and I never really thought about this as we were sparring about these issues, but I think this may be part of the problem.

如果这听起来很疯狂，请纠正我。

And correct me if this seems crazy.

你的领域是社会心理学，你说过，高达95%的人是自由派，而且通常是强烈自由派。

But so your field is social psychology, where you've said that upwards of 95% of people are liberal and usually strongly liberal.

所以你一直身处这样一群人之中：他们认为政治保守主义本质上是一种精神疾病。

So you've been surrounded by people who consider political conservatism to be a form of mental illness, essentially.

而你以极其重要且极具创意的方式对此进行了反驳。

And you've pushed back against this in ways that have been extremely important and really ingenious.

而且你和我会在你提出的许多关于政治正确性的观点上达成一致。

And you and I are gonna agree about many of the points you've

哦，反对政治正确性的部分。

Oh, raised against political correctness part.

我们都曾直面过政治正确性。

We both have really come up against political correctness.

是的。

Yes.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

所以你一直在那个阵地上战斗了很久。

So you've been so you've been fighting from that trench for a while.

然后当你看到所谓的新无神论者——其实就是一群自由派知识分子——对宗教发起正面攻击时，你认为这不仅错误而且危险；而当我提到科学将取代道德和人类福祉的问题时，你可能觉得这又是另一个例子，即那些完全脱离宗教人士真实生活的左翼世俗主义者，正在做左翼学者常对社会保守派做的事：把他们视为道德和智力上的缺陷者。

And then when you saw the so called new atheists, which are just a gang of liberal intellectuals, initiate this frontal assault on religion, and you're arguing that it's not only false but dangerous, and in my case, hearing me say that science will replace questions of morality and human well-being, I think you viewed this as yet another example of left leaning secularists who are totally out of touch with the lived experience of religious people doing what left leaning academics often do to social conservatives, which is dismiss them as morally and intellectually defective.

我觉得这是对的。

I think that's right.

哦，很好。

Oh, good.

嗯，这并不疯狂。

Well, that's not crazy.

请原谅我对你进行心理分析。

So forgive me for psychoanalyzing you.

但在我看来，这让你对我们对宗教的批评过于敌对，甚至在重要方面误解了它。

But it's just it seems to me that this, from my point of view, has caused you to be too hostile to our criticism of religion and to actually misunderstand it in important ways.

我相信我们会谈到这些点。

And I'm sure we'll touch those points.

这也让你对宗教过于宽容，而这种宽容在科学上是无法成立的。

And it's also made you too soft on religion in ways that can't be scientifically justified.

因为你相信自己是在纠正科学界的一种有害偏见，而且你在自由派和保守派之间的政治分歧上确实如此。

And because you believe you're correcting for a harmful bias in the scientific community, and you have been with respect to the political divide between liberals and conservatives.

但我认为，通过这个视角来看新无神论者对宗教的攻击，让你误解了我们。

But I would argue that viewing the new atheist attack on religion through that lens has caused you to misread us.

至少，我觉得你误解了我。

And at the very least, I feel like you've misread me.

我明白了。

I see.

是的。

Yeah.

没错，就是这样。

I so, right.

我不认为你们是一群极左派人士。

I don't think that I perceive you guys as a bunch of far left people.

虽然你说的有一定道理，但我觉得这与其说是左右之分，不如说是理性主义者与直觉主义者之间的区别。

It's so while there is some truth to what you say, I think it's not so much left right as sort of rationalist intuitionist.

我认为，这正是我们之间分歧的核心，也就是我们各自对人类理性本质和人类推理可靠性的看法。

That really, I think, is the heart, the sort of the scientific nub of the difference between us is what do we what do we each believe is the nature of human rationality and the reliability of human reason.

而你对个人理性能够得出可靠结论的信念，比我更强，或者说是一种信仰。

And you put you have a much stronger faith or I don't know faith.

你比我更相信个人理性能够得出可靠结论。

Belief that individual reason can lead to reliable conclusions than I do.

那么，你是否同意，这是我们之间一个根本性的事实差异？

So would you agree with me that that is fundamental factual difference between us?

是的。

Yeah.

我想稍后再讨论道德问题。

And I I I wanna I wanna get into morality second.

我认为我们应该先讨论宗教问题。

I I think we should deal with religion first.

但没错，我认为在某种程度上，这确实是我们之间的差异。

But, yes, I I think that is a difference between us to some degree.

不过，你知道，当你谈到人们在道德推理或试图为自己的道德立场辩护时的实际行为时，我大多会赞同你的观点。

Although, you know, you'll find me taking most of your points about what people descriptively do under the aegis of reasoning morally or attempting to justify or argue for their moral positions.

但让我们先专注于宗教，之后再讨论道德的基础。

But let's just focus on religion for a second, and we'll get to the foundations of morality after that.

正如你所指出的，宗教不仅仅是信仰的集合。

So religion, as you've pointed out, is more than just a set of beliefs.

你似乎在反驳我，认为我否认过这一点，但实际上我从未否认过。

And you've argued against me as though I have disputed that, which I actually haven't.

但你并不是唯一这样做的，很多人都是如此。

But you're not alone in this, many people do that.

所以我只是想逐一梳理你书中提到的几个观点，然后加以讨论。

So I just wanted to track through a few of the things you say in your book and then talk about them.

你在《正义之心》一书中提到：‘试图通过研究关于上帝的信仰来理解宗教的持久性与激情，就像试图通过研究足球的运动来理解大学橄榄球的持久性与激情一样。’

So you say in your book, The Righteous Mind, that trying to this is a quote.

你必须拓宽研究的范围，‘’

Trying to understand the persistence and passion of religion by studying beliefs about God is like trying to understand the persistence and passion of college football by studying the movements of the ball.

你必须拓宽研究的范围。

You've got to broaden the inquiry, end quote.

所以现在我认为这个类比并不完全准确。

So now I think that analogy isn't quite right.

但我其实同意你的总体观点。

But I actually agree with your general point.

宗教显然不仅仅是人们所相信的东西。

Religion is obviously more than what people believe.

然而，我认为关注特定信仰的具体后果是完全合理且必要的。

And yet I think it's totally coherent and, in fact, necessary to worry about the specific consequences of specific beliefs.

是的。

Yes.

所以让我稍微修正一下你的类比，然后听听你的反应。

And so let reform me your analogy a little bit and get you to react to it.

因为我认为，沿用你的类比，这有点像是在问：为什么每支球队的球员总是倾向于朝一个方向跑？

Because I think it's somewhat, to stick with your analogy, it's a little bit more like asking the question, why are people on each team always tending to run-in one direction?

所以如果你看到他们偶尔横向或甚至倒退跑动，那也总是为了把球带到球场的另一端。

So if you see them running sideways or even backwards for a few moments, it's always with the purpose to get the ball to the other end of the field.

那么，球场的两端究竟有什么特别之处，让所有人都想冲向那里？

So what is so special about the ends of the field that everyone wants to get there?

要解释这一点，你必须了解这项运动的规则。

And to explain that, you have to understand the rules of the game.

特别是，你得明白什么是达阵。

In particular, you have to understand what a touchdown is.

但一旦你明白了这一点，这些人所做的一切就基本上都能理解了。

But once you know that, more or less everything these people are doing is easy to understand.

而且，我的意思是，还有球场外那些举办尾门派对的人，对吧？

And again, there's more to I mean, there's all the people out having tailgate parties outside the stadium, right?

所以，那也是这场盛事的一部分。

So that's part of the spectacle.

但要理解在这种情况下最投入的参与者在做什么，你真正需要知道的只是他们想要什么，以及他们相信什么能让他们得到想要的东西。

But to understand what the most energized participants are doing in this situation, all you really need to know is what they want and what they believe will get them what they want.

因此，我认为，对于我们从宗教中看到的最具破坏性的行为和道德态度，情况也是如此。

And so I would argue that this is true for the most destructive behavior and moral attitudes we see inspired by religion.

所以当你问自己，为什么伊斯兰国要把同性恋者从屋顶上扔下去？

So when you ask yourself, why is ISIS throwing gay people off of rooftops?

因为他们的经文告诉他们这么做。

It's because their scripture tells them to.

这实际上写在规则手册里。

It's actually written in the rulebook.

在这种情况下，具体的禁令出自圣训。

Now in this case, specific injunction's in the hadith.

它并不在《古兰经》里。

It's not in the Koran.

但它属于萨拉菲派伊斯兰教更广泛的规则体系。

But it's part of the larger rulebook of Salafi Islam.

你可以说任何你想说的，关于宗教不仅仅是信仰和教义。

And you can say anything you want about religion being more than just beliefs and doctrines.

你也可以谈论行动与归属，就像你所做的那样，将它们与信仰一起视为宗教的核心。

And you can talk about doing and belonging, which you do, in addition to belief as being central to religion.

你也可以谈谈仪式的力量、紧密的社群以及超越性的重要性，这正是我感兴趣的地方。

And you can talk about the power of ritual and strong communities and the importance of transcendence, which is something that interests me.

我同意，所有这些都十分有趣。

And I agree about all these things being interesting.

但如果你想解释ISIS的行为，你真正需要了解的，只是他们自己所理解的游戏规则。

But if you want to explain the behavior of ISIS, all you really have to know are the rules of the game as they understand them.

如果他们的规则手册稍作改变，比如说，关于这一点的规定变成：无论如何都不能伤害同性恋者，而只是强迫他们每天诵读《古兰经》十二小时，并专门设立一种祭司阶层，由那些只诵读《古兰经》的同性恋者组成，且备受尊崇，对吧？

If their rulebook changed slightly, let's say their rulebook on this point said, don't harm homosexuals under any circumstances, simply force them to recite the Quran for twelve hours a day and actually create a special cast of priests, that there's homosexuals who just chant from the Quran and who are otherwise venerated, right?

我相信我们可以非常确定，他们现在就会这么做。

I think we can be absolutely sure that this is what they would be doing.

事实上，人类历史上其他宗教中也存在类似的行为。

In fact, there are analogous behaviors in other religions in human history.

这就是为什么我认为具体的教义至关重要。

So this is why I think specific doctrines matter.

而且没有人会本能地觉得，应该把同性恋者从屋顶扔下去，或者每周日吃一块饼干并称其为耶稣的身体，或者反对胚胎干细胞研究。

And that no one mean, so you're gonna talk about the the intuitive roots of many of these things but no one has an intuition that they should throw gays off of rooftops specifically, or eat a cracker every Sunday and call it the body of Jesus, or oppose embryonic stem cell research.

事实上，ISIS甚至不会反对胚胎干细胞研究，而天主教会则会。

And in fact ISIS wouldn't even oppose embryonic stem cell research, and the Catholic church would.

这就是为什么具体教义如此重要。

And this is why the specific doctrines matter so much.

好的。

Okay.

我当然承认具体教义很重要，而且我认为你的思想实验是正确的。

So I, I will certainly grant that specific doctrines matter, and that I think your, your thought experiment is correct.

如果经文中有一段明确的经文，尤其是如果在多个地方都出现，说明了如何对待同性恋者，那么他们就会以不同的方式对待他们。

If there was specific verse, and especially if it appeared in multiple places, that said, here's how you treat homosexuals, then they would treat them differently.

所以我不否认经文的重要性。

So I don't deny that the scripture matters.

但首先，为了理解你的类比，你告诉我，终点在哪里？

But first, to understand your analogy, you tell me what is the end zone?

你认为他们究竟在追求什么？

What do you think they're all up to?

当你使用这个‘端区’类比时，他们所有人努力追求的到底是什么？

What is the thing they're all striving for to get when you when you use this end zone analogy?

如果你说的是真正的参与者、真正全身心投入信仰的人，那么端区就是天堂，以及避免地狱。

Well, if you're talking about the real players, the real believers who are devoting their lives fully to this, The end zone is paradise and avoiding hell.

所以这关乎死后会发生什么。

So it's it's what happens after death.

遵循这套规则、玩这个游戏、把球推进到球场另一端，就是为了确保死后能永享天堂、逃离地狱吗？

It's living by the playing by this rule book, playing this game, advancing the ball down the field is ensuring that after death you will spend eternity in paradise and escape hell?

好的。

Okay.

所以我认为这正是我们之间的差异之一：我反对追求简约化。

So I think this is one of the differences between us, is that I am opposed to the pursuit of parsimony.

我认为社会科学，尤其是道德或宗教领域，是如此复杂。

I think that the social science nature and social science are so complex, and especially if you look at morality or religion.

因此，每当有人声称宗教的终极目标是获得天堂，或宗教的终极目标是获得意义感，甚至更接近我所说的是——宗教的终极目标是社会联结与归属，这些都是一种目标。

So anytime someone says, the goal of religion ultimately is to attain paradise, or the goal of religion ultimately is to have a sense of meaning, or even closer to what I say, if you were to say the goal of religion is ultimately social bonding and connection, well, those are all goals.

有非常多不同的目标。

There are lots of different goals.

在这种情况下，我谈的是ISIS。

In this case, I was talking about ISIS.

我是说，我谈的是我们所谓的极端狂热者，你知道的，伊斯兰教的死亡崇拜。

I mean, I was talking about the what we would call the extreme committed, you know, death cult of Islam.

当然，其他传统中也有类似的崇拜，但我说的并不是每个教派、每个层级的所有宗教信徒，他们的主要目标都是天堂。

Now there's analogous cults in in, you know, other traditions, but I'm not saying that all religious people in every denomination of every level of commitment that their main goal is paradise.

有些，你知道，有些，比如一位论派，甚至不一定相信天堂。

Some, you know, some, you know, Unitarians don't necessarily even believe in heaven.

对吧？

Right?

所以这次我说的是ISIS。

So I was speaking about ISIS in this case.

好的。

Okay.

是的。

Yeah.

所以，我完全可以认同你的观点，即信仰确实重要，我希望我从未说过它们不重要。

So so I can certainly grant your point that beliefs do matter, and I hope I never said they that they don't.

但我想我仍然会坚持认为，你在这里的分析过于关注显性层面。

And but I think I would still I would still claim that your analysis here is is is too focused on the explicit.

而且，这就是我对你关于宗教著作的主要批评和担忧——我觉得你写那两本关于宗教的书时，有时似乎……

And so and this was, you know, my main criticism, my main concern about your writings on religion was I felt like sometimes felt like you were writing, you know, your two religion books.

我觉得你写那些书时，主要靠着《圣经》《古兰经》和《纽约时报》。

I felt like you were writing those mostly with the Bible and the Koran and the New York Times on your desk.

你只是在说：好吧，看看这节经文，或者看看这个事件，然后试图自己理解它。

And and you were sort of saying, okay, well, look at this verse, or look at this event that happened, and then just trying to make sense of it yourself.

而我则更多地从一种类似杰克·海明的方式，或者无意识模式的角度来思考这个问题。

And I was thinking of it much more both from a kind of a jerk Hymien point of view or a, you know, unconscious modus point of view.

我的意思是，这里涉及的东西太多了。

I mean, there's just so much going on here.

我并没有研究过ISIS。

And I have not studied ISIS.

我不清楚他们内部发生了什么。

I don't know what's going on with them.

但我认为，仅仅通过阅读《古兰经》并说‘《古兰经》里这么说’，是无法理解他们的。

But I don't believe you could understand them by just by reading the Quran and saying, oh, the Quran says this.

因此这就是ISIS这样做的原因。

That this is why ISIS is doing it.

嗯，背后有受辱的动机、地缘政治因素——我的意思是，我不确定具体发生了什么，但事情远比这复杂。

Well, there are are motives of humiliation, geo I mean, I don't know what's going on, but there's a lot going on.

但问题是，这正是他们理解自己的方式。

But this is I mean, the issue is that this is how they understand themselves.

而且在这里，我谈论的不只是ISIS。

And now, here, I'm not just speaking about ISIS.

我谈的是广义上的宗教原教旨主义者。

I'm just speaking about religious fundamentalists in general.

当你问他们如何理解自己的行为时，比如问他们为什么同性恋是禁忌，他们会引用经文来证明其合理性。

When you ask them how they understand what they're doing, if you ask them why homosexuality is anathema, for instance, they have a scriptural justification for it.

这确实解释了他们的信仰和随后的行为，而在某些情况下，其他任何解释都无法做到。

And it does explain the belief and subsequent behavior, and where in certain cases, nothing else does.

我的意思是，要找出一些非经文的理由来解释对同性恋现象的不适，可能相对容易。

I mean, so it might be relatively easy to come up with other non scriptural reasons to be uncomfortable around the phenomenon of homosexuality.

而且我们可以谈谈这一点。

And and we can talk about that.

我的意思是，这涉及到你的道德直觉，也就是道德基础理论。

I mean, this gets into your kind of moral intuitions, the moral foundation theory.

但对于许多这类问题，这种观念之所以能进入某人的头脑，唯一途径就是基于传统和对特定问题的明确教导。

But for many of these things, the only way this idea could ever get into someone's head is based on the tradition and the explicit teaching on a specific point.

我同意。

Agreed.

我在这一点上同意你的看法。

I I agree with you on that point.

所以让我们做一个区分，我认为这会非常有帮助，那就是原教旨主义与宗教整体之间的区别。

And so let's make a distinction that I think will be very helpful here, which is between fundamentalism and religion more generally.

如果我们谈论的是原教旨主义运动，那么你和我在很大程度上会达成一致，包括在道德上对它们的评价。

So if we're talking about fundamentalist movements, then you and I are gonna agree much more, including in the moral evaluation of them.

因此，如果我们生活在一个多元社会中，如果我们珍视进步、开放的思想交流、相互挑战，以及科学所需的一切，那么原教旨主义与这些价值都是不相容的。

And so, the if we live in a in a diverse society, if we live in a society or if, you know, if if we value progress and open debate of ideas and challenging each other and the things we need for the sciences, then fundamentalism is incompatible with all of those things.

基督教原教旨主义、伊斯兰原教旨主义，我认为还有政治正确原教旨主义或社会正义原教旨主义。

Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, I would say politically correct fundamentalism or social justice fundamentalism.

我认为你和我都个人不喜欢原教旨主义者，更准确地说，是不喜欢原教旨主义的心态。

I think you and I both personally dislike fundamentalists, the fundamentalist mindset, I should say.

我不是指那些人。

I don't mean the people.

我是说，原教旨主义的心态与你我作为个人和科学所秉持的价值观是相悖的。

I mean, the fundamentalist mindset is opposed to values that you and I both hold as individuals and for science.

因此，我认为我们之间的分歧并没有那么大。

So there I think there's not as much disagreement between us.

但如果你说，那非原教旨主义者呢？

But then if you say, what about non fundamentalist?

我认为，对于那些信仰宗教但非原教旨主义的人，你的态度比我更消极。

That's where I think you're much more negative than I am about people who are religious but not fundamentalist.

这是真的吗？

Is that true?

嗯，是的。

Well, yeah.

我在某种程度上更消极，因为我觉得他们让人们对原教旨主义问题进行坦诚讨论变得困难得多，因为他们不希望有人对他们的圣书或对启示这一概念的崇拜传统提出任何尖锐批评。

I'm more negative in the sense that I feel like they make, one, honest talk about the problem of fundamentalism much more difficult because they they don't want anything too critical said about their holy books or about a tradition of of venerating the the concept of revelation.

对吧？

Right?

我认为启示在这里是个问题。

I I think we're I think revelation is a problem here.

认为我们的某部经典并非出自人类思维，而是出自全知之手，这种观念本身就彻底破坏了我们的智识与道德对话，使其无法挽回。

The idea that one of our books was not the product of the human mind but the product of omniscience, that already just deranges our intellectual and moral discourse really beyond saving.

我们从宗教的这一部分中摆脱出来。

And we get have out of that part of the religion business.

因此，只要温和派和自由派确实如此，我唯一真正的担忧是，我想还有两个更深层的担忧。

And so that insofar as moderates and liberals do, well then my only real concern is that well, I guess there are two more concerns.

一是他们往往在承认自己如何变得温和或自由的过程中缺乏智力上的诚实。

One is they tend to not be intellectually honest about the process whereby they have become moderate or liberal.

于是他们假装传统或经文中存在某种自我净化的力量。

So they pretend that there's something in the tradition, in the books, that has been self purifying.

但事实并非如此，当你回到这些经文时，它们和以前一样充满神权色彩。

But no, when you go back to the books, they're every bit as theocratic as they always were.

真正发生的是，他们与更广泛的价值观、世俗观念、科学洞见和进步发生了碰撞。

What's happened is that they have collided with a wider set of values, secular values and scientific insights and progress.

他们发现，教条主义和顽固不化已不再是他们想要的生活方式。

And they have found being doctrinaire and dogmatic is no longer how they want to live.

他们再也无法为这种立场辩护了。

They can no longer justify it.

但他们并没有真正坦诚地说明这种筛选过程究竟是如何发生的。

But they're not really honest about just how that winnowing has taken place.

他们往往把功劳归于传统本身的资源，而实际上，真正起作用的是人类所参与的更广泛对话中的资源。

And they tend to give credit to the resources of the tradition, whereas really it's the resources of a much larger conversation that human beings have had.

当然。

Sure.

所以你的意思是，人们先采纳了某种立场，然后再寻找理由，试图从文本中找到他们直觉上决定要做的事的依据——没错，我完全同意。

So, you want to say that people are adopting positions and then searching for a justification and looking for some sort of textual justification for what they've decided to do intuitively, yep, I'm down with that.

这正是我研究的核心：我们的许多道德争论和辩护本质上就是这样。

That's the core of my research, is that that's what a lot of our moral argument and justification is all about.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

所以，我想再简单回一下你的书。

And so you do one I just wanna go back to your book briefly.

你在书中做了一件事，这显然是我们意见分歧的领域。

You do one thing in your book which I it was pretty clearly an area where we disagree.

我觉得没必要深入讨论，因为在这个播客里可能不太好解释清楚。

I don't think we need to go into it any real depth because it may be a little hard to parse here in a podcast.

但我觉得我们应该提一下，因为这正是你认为我和理查德·道金斯等人对宗教过于苛刻的原因之一。

But I think we should just flag it because it is one I think it's also one reason why you think I and Richard Dawkins and others have been too hard on religion.

那就是宗教为我们带来了进化优势这个观点。

And it's this notion that religion has provided an evolutionary benefit to us.

这是一种适应性还是副产品？

Is it an adaptation or a byproduct?

你说得对。

You're right.

这正是我们另一个核心的事实性或科学性分歧所在。

That is the other core factual or scientific issue that we disagree on.

没错。

Right.

所以我想先向那些对群体选择一无所知的人介绍一下这个概念，然后我们可能就暂时搁置它。

So I just want to introduce this concept of group selection to those who don't know anything about it, then we can table it probably.

但你确实支持群体选择这一观点，特别是认为宗教帮助某些群体生存，而缺乏宗教则可能导致其他群体失败。

But so you defend this notion of group selection, and specifically the idea that religion has helped certain groups survive, and perhaps a lack of religion has caused others to fail.

你认为这种机制不仅仅是文化层面的，也具有生物学基础。

And you think that this mechanism hasn't just been cultural, but that it's also been biological.

因此，群体选择这一概念——显然不仅限于宗教——在生物学界非常有争议。

And so this idea of group selection, which obviously relates to much more than just religion, this is very controversial in biology.

而你在这里支持的主要倡导者是大卫·斯隆·威尔逊，有趣的是，他也以一种我始终无法理解的激烈程度抨击了新无神论者。

And its main champion who you do side with here is someone named David Sloan Wilson, who interestingly, he's also attacked the New Atheists with a level of energy that I never quite understood.

所以我应该指出，许多生物学家——我认为绝大多数，至少就我所了解的整个领域的共识而言——都不同意群体选择这一观点。

So I should just point out that there are many biologists, and I would think still most, as far as I can take the temperature on the whole field disagree with this idea of group selection.

因此，如果我们的听众对此感兴趣，我认为最能概括质疑群体选择理由的总结文章，是由我们共同的朋友史蒂芬·平克撰写的。

And so if our listeners are interested in it, I think the best summary of the reasons to doubt that group selection occurs was written by our mutual friend Steven Pinker.

文章标题是《群体选择的虚假魅力》。

And the title is The False Allure of Group Selection.

这篇文章可以在edge.org上找到。

And that can be found on edge.org.

我知道你一定知道这个，哦，

I know you must be aware of that Oh,

是的。

yeah.

不。

No.

我回应过它。

Responded to it.

所以你没有被它说服吗？

So you weren't persuaded by it?

是的。

So, yes.

所以，这场争论最终归结为：宗教是进化的产品吗？

So, that is what the debate comes down to, is if, you know, is religion a product of evolution?

这是一种适应性吗？

Is it an adaptation?

如果是这样，那并不意味着它今天仍然具有适应性，但意味着它曾经带来某种优势。

In which case, that doesn't mean it's still adaptive today, but it would mean that it conferred some benefit.

当我上大学第一次读道金斯的作品时，那个真正让我着迷的想法是：哇。

The the really exciting idea that so captivated me when I first read Dawkins in college was, wow.

如果它像一种病毒呢？

What if it's like a virus?

如果它只是利用了大脑里的硬件，并为自身目的而利用它呢？

What if there it it's just it's taken advantage of the of the hardware up there, and it's exploiting it for its purposes.

当然，道金斯和丹内特都明确表达了这一点。

And, of course, Dawkins and and Dennett are, you know, are really explicit about that.

这是一个非常棒的想法，我曾经相信过。

It's a really cool idea, and I used to believe it.

那曾是主流观点。

And that was the prevailing wisdom.

你知道，道金斯的《自私的基因》是一本极具影响力的书，证明了优秀文笔的说服力。

You know, Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, was an incredibly powerful book and a testament to the power of good writing to be persuasive.

所以，在七八十年代，正如你所说，大多数生物学家对此持怀疑态度。

So the state of the art in the '70s and '80s was, as you say, that most biologists doubted it.

事实上，几乎所有人都持怀疑态度。

In fact, almost all did.

群体选择被摒弃，是因为无法解决搭便车问题。

Group selection was dismissed because there wasn't any way to solve the free rider problem.

如果群体为了群体利益而合作，那么群体内的任何搭便车者都会获得额外好处，而搭便车的基因就会扩散。

If groups were to cooperate for the benefit of the group, any free rider within the group would get extra benefit, and the genes for free riding would spread.

因此，这个话题被搁置一旁，戴维·斯隆·威尔逊被视为一个疯狂的孤例。

And so the topic was put aside, and David Sloan Wilson was seen as alone crazy.

但自那以来，情况发生了巨大变化。

But a lot has changed since then.

就在那时，关于重大演化转变的整个理念正在形成，还有许多其他例子表明，原本在个体层面相互竞争的个体，联合起来后能更有效地作为群体运作。

So right around that time, the whole idea of major transitions and evolution was being formulated, And there are many other examples of agents that were functioning at an individual level, competing with each other, coming together to be more effective as a group.

我们体内的细胞就是一个例子。

And even the cells in our body are an example of that.

线粒体拥有自己的DNA，因为这是多个实体结合在一起形成群体的一个重大转变的例子。

The mitochondria have their own DNA because it was an example of a major transition where multiple entities got together to act as a group.

让我想想，还有什么呢？

Let's see, what else was there?

在我的书里，我提出了四个新的证据，说明自20世纪70年代以来我们需要重新审视这个问题，比如基因与文化的协同进化等等。

Go through in my book, I go through as though there were four new exhibits, four reasons to re examine the case since the 1970s, gene culture coevolution, things like that.

尽管目前大多数生物学家似乎仍持反对意见，但我觉得这实际上是因为E.

And while it is still true that their biologists mostly seem to side against this, this is actually because I think E.

O.

O.

威尔逊在撰写一篇论文时犯了一个重大错误。

Wilson made a big mistake in writing a paper.

我非常敬重他。

I love him.