由休謨之「神蹟觀」反思基督教的終極關懷倫理觀

Reflecting on The Ultimate Concern Ethics of Christianity from Hume’s ''Miracles”

休謨為無神論者，對於神蹟與宗教信仰的論述，是從理性的角度出發。認為違反自然法則的神蹟是不存在的。然而，宗教與科學是分屬於不同範疇，休謨的論述很顯然將此兩者混淆。有神論與無神論最大的差別在於終極關懷的對象不同，而對終極關懷的選擇也影響存在的生命意義與生活的方式，也就是倫理觀的部分。本文主要論述休謨對神蹟論的問題所在，試圖指出其邏輯上的謬誤，轉化過去對於神蹟的定義，並且以現代宗教學的角度以宗教經驗的思維看待上帝存在與神蹟的意義，透過相信進入上帝的啟示與對話中，進一步地反思基督宗教以上帝存在的倫理觀與終極關懷所帶給人生命的意義與價值。

David Hume is an atheist, and his discussion of miracles and religious beliefs is based on a rational perspective, believing that miracles violating the laws of nature do not exist. However, religion and science belong to different categories, and Hume's argument clearly confuses the two. The main difference between theism and atheism is that the objects of ultimate concern are different, and the choice for ultimate concern also affects the meaning of existence and the way of life, which is part of ethics. This article mainly discusses problems with miracles, tries to point out its logical fallacy, and transforms the definition of miracles in the past. Then it rethinks the meaning of God's existence and miracles from the perspective of modern religious studies of religious experience. Later, it suggests that human beings should receive the revelation and have dialogue with God through faith and further reflections on the meaning and the value of life in light of Christian ethics and the ultimate concern of God's existence.