Name: 稻草人辯護基督教的逃學生艙門 (The Strawman Defense: Christianity’s Escape Hatch)
Uploaded: 2025-09-02T17:46:20.000Z
Duration: 14 min

情態副詞

Have you ever heard someone attack Christianity and thought, that's not what we actually believe?

你是否聽過有人攻擊基督教，然後想，這不是我們真正的信仰？

Well, congratulations, you've likely spotted a strawman fallacy.

那麼，恭喜你，你可能發現了一個稻草人謬誤。

That's when someone distorts or weakens a view so it can be easily defeated.

這是指有人歪曲或弱化觀點，使其容易被擊敗。

Before you can refute an idea, you actually have to understand the idea.

在反駁一個觀點之前，你必須真正理解這個觀點。

Otherwise, you're not defeating the actual view, you're defeating an imitation of the view.

否則，你就不是在否定真正的觀點，而是在否定對觀點的模仿。

Understanding those who disagree with us takes work.

理解那些與我們意見相左的人需要付出努力。

It's easier to misrepresent those we disagree with.

我們更容易歪曲那些與我們意見相左的人。

Christians face this fallacy all the time online.

基督徒在網上經常會遇到這種謬論。

People attack a distorted view of Christianity, then pat themselves on the back like they refuted the real thing.

人們攻擊被歪曲的基督教觀點，然後拍拍屁股走人，好像他們駁倒了真正的基督教。

Let me give you a few examples that have come my way.

Okay, so before we get into the examples, I want to talk about how ironic I think this is.

好吧，在舉例說明之前，我想先說說我覺得這有多諷刺。

He's talking about how important it is to understand the other side, to do the hard work, to represent the argument well instead of strawmanning it.

他說的是，理解對方、做艱苦的工作、很好地陳述論點而不是草率地陳述論點是多麼重要。

And yet, I feel like he is strawmanning what critiques against Christianity are.

然而，我覺得他是在草率地表達對基督教的責備。

It would be one thing if he was saying, hey, someone makes a specific argument and the other person misrepresents it when they address it.

如果他說："嘿，有人提出了一個具體論點，而對方在論述時歪曲了這個論點，那是一回事。

But he's talking at large to Christianity as a whole.

That when you're a Christian and you see a comment online, you're like, wait, that doesn't represent what we believe.

當你是一名基督徒，看到網上的評論時，你會想，等等，這並不代表我們的信仰。

There is no we believe, there is what you believe.

沒有 "我們相信"，只有 "你們相信"。

這就是為什麼我認為這個問題會破裂。

Not to make it another huge denominational issue, but there is no unified, coherent view or belief of Christianity.

我不想把它說成是另一個巨大的教派問題，但基督教沒有統一、一致的觀點或信仰。

It is one of the great frustrations of my life.

這是我一生中最大的挫折之一。

I will make a video 100% in line with what some particular Christians, and not just fringe, but entire major denominations believe.

我會製作一個視頻，100% 符合某些特定基督徒的信仰，不僅僅是邊緣基督徒，而是整個主要教派的信仰。

And without fail, there will be divided comments.

而且毫無例外的是，會出現意見分歧。

There will be people calling me fallacious, saying I'm making a strawman of what they believe.

會有人說我謬論，說我把他們相信的東西做成了稻草人。

And then there will be other people engaging in the argument because it is indeed what they believe and they too are self-professed Christians.

然後會有其他人参與爭論，因為這確實是他們所相信的，而且他們也自稱是基督徒。

Protestants and Catholics disagree on faith or works.

新教徒和天主教徒在信仰或行為問題上存在分歧。

Calvinist and Armenians disagree on free will.

加爾文主義者和亞美尼亞人在自由意志問題上存在分歧。

Progressives and fundamentalists disagree on hell and sexuality and women in leadership.

進步人士和原教旨主義者在地獄、性行為和婦女擔任領導職務等問題上存在分歧。

How is anyone supposed to make a critique of a certain assertion that is coming from a particular group of Christians without immediately strawmanning then, in his definition, an entire other group?

如果有人對某一特定基督徒群體的某一論斷提出批評，而不立即對他定義中的其他整個群體進行 "稻草人 "式的責備，他該如何是好？

So for him not to have done the hard work to understand that impossibility and instead label us as the negative aggressor, I think is him making a strawman of this argument.

是以，如果他不去努力理解這種不可能，反而給我們貼上消極侵略者的標籤，我認為他是在為這一論點製造稻草人。

This Christian environment of not being able to agree with each other or have a unified stance has always been by the way, despite what the Catholic Church would try to tell you.

順便說一下，儘管天主教會試圖告訴你，基督教的這種無法相互認同或統一立場的環境一直存在。

And thus has created its own environment where no matter what you critique, it will be a strawman to someone else and to a large amount of someone else's.

這樣就形成了自己的環境，無論你責備什麼，在別人看來都是稻草人，而且是大量別人的稻草人。

Because there isn't a version of Christianity to steelman.

因為沒有一個版本的基督教是鋼鐵人的。

We can talk about core doctrines, but even those are not agreed upon.

我們可以談論核心教義，但即使是這些教義也沒有達成一致。

Like I could go out of my way to try to be as precise and careful, and here's what I'd have to do, I'd have to be incredibly vague, which is problematic to the truth, to steelman what is Christianity?

就像我可以不遺餘力地努力做到精確和謹慎，但我必須這樣做，我必須含糊其辭，這對真理來說是有問題的，對鋼鐵人來說，什麼是基督教？

And yet still I would fail to the vast majority of people.

但在絕大多數人看來，我還是會失敗。

Bigger than just the conversation around if we're strawmanning or not when we critique or disagree.

這比我們在責備或提出不同意見時是否草菅人命的對話更重要。

But that's what we're going to focus on today.

但這正是我們今天要重點討論的。

So again, if the Christian world cannot steelman their own position in agreeance, then accusing critics of purposeful misrepresentation or fallacious arguments becomes way less about truth and more about that particular Christian protecting their personal beliefs, which cannot be the problem of the critiquer.

所以還是那句話，如果基督教世界不能在立場上達成一致，那麼指責批評者故意歪曲事實或提出謬誤論據就變得與真理無關，而更多的是指責特定的基督徒保護自己的個人信仰，這不可能是批評者的問題。

But to kind of round out the video, he has three examples.

不過，為了讓視頻更加完整，他舉了三個例子。

I'm going to let him share these examples, and then we'll go through them one by one.

我會讓他分享這些例子，然後我們再逐一討論。

One person tweeted, definition of faith, pretending to know things you don't know.

一個人在推特上寫道："信仰的定義是，假裝知道自己不知道的事情。

Another says the primary belief of Christianity is child sacrifice.

另一種說法是，基督教的主要信仰是獻祭兒童。

Another thinks he's representing a Christian argument when he says everything has a creator.

另一個人認為，當他說萬物皆有造物主時，他代表了基督教的論點。

For each criticism, we should ask, what is the belief being represented?

對於每一種責備，我們都應該問，所代表的信念是什麼？

And if the belief is being misrepresented, then we have a strawman.

如果信念被歪曲了，那麼我們就有了一個稻草人。

Faith isn't pretending to know things you don't know.

信仰不是假裝知道自己不知道的事情。

Faith is trusting what you have good reason to believe is true.

信仰就是相信你有充分的理由相信它是真的。

I think this first example is good because it allows us my favorite thing, nuance.

我認為第一個例子很好，因為它讓我們看到了我最喜歡的東西--細微差別。

I don't believe that it's necessarily a strawman of what Christians think about faith, and I'm going to explain that here in a second.

我認為這不一定是基督徒對信仰的草率看法，我稍後會在這裡解釋這一點。

But I do think it's worded with a negative connotation on purpose, and I don't actually have a problem with that.

但我確實認為它的措辭故意帶有負面含義，而實際上我對此並無異議。

But I understand why the Christian doesn't like it.

但我理解為什麼基督徒不喜歡它。

But not liking a certain phrasing of something that some Christians actually do believe just in better, more positively connotated words does not equal a strawman.

但不喜歡用更好、更積極的措辭來表達某些基督徒確實相信的東西，並不等同於稻草人。

I think there is such a distinction there.

And I get it, when I was a Christian and people would use more of these kind of quippy things, it drove me nuts.

我明白，當我還是一名基督徒時，人們會更多地使用這類調侃的話，這讓我很抓狂。

It made what was so real to me and so personal to me seem so silly and stupid.

這讓對我來說如此真實、如此私人的事情顯得如此愚蠢和傻氣。

It made me not even want to engage in the argument at all because it didn't seem good faith.

這讓我根本不想參與爭論，因為這看起來並不真誠。

So I can have personal opinions on the best way to critique something all day, and I've definitely made a lot of quippy statements myself.

是以，我可以整天就責備某件事情的最佳方式發表個人意見，而且我自己也肯定發表過很多俏皮話。

But again, it is very different than a strawman.

And for this particular example, here's why.

對於這個特殊的例子，原因就在這裡。

So he's claiming that the strawman version of faith from the critiquer is that it's just pretending to know things you don't know.

所以他聲稱，批評者對信仰的 "稻草人 "說法是，信仰只是假裝知道自己不知道的事情。

Wherever would they get an idea like this from?

Could it be one of the main biblical New Testament definitions of faith?

這會是聖經《新約》中對 "信 "的主要定義之一嗎？

Hebrews 11.1 gives two really interesting definitions.

希伯來書》11.1 給出了兩個非常有趣的定義。

The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

對所望之事的確信，對未見之事的深信。

It's funny, whenever I've actually brought up this verse, many Christians will get mad and say, well, that's not the only definition of faith in the Bible.

有趣的是，每當我提到這節經文時，許多基督徒都會生氣地說，《聖經》中關於信仰的定義可不止這一個。

但這也是你的問題，與我無關。

And if it's found in the Bible, then critiquing that is not making a strawman.

如果它出現在《聖經》中，那麼責備它就不是在製造稻草人。

You just happen to be one of the Christians that thinks that faith is based off reason.

你只是碰巧是那些認為信仰基於理性的基督徒之一。

But that is not what all Christians believe.

但這並不是所有基督徒的信仰。

The assurance of things hoped for is pretending to know.

對所盼之事的確信是假裝知道。

Having conviction of things not seen is pretending to know.

對未見之物深信不疑就是假裝知道。

Now, some will say, well, seeing is not the only way to know.

現在，有人會說，好吧，看到並不是瞭解的唯一途徑。

But when you go and tell others they need to have faith, it can't be based off you.

但當你去告訴別人他們需要有信仰時，信仰就不能以你為基礎了。

So someone balking at that and saying, no, even your own book says that faith is believing things you don't know for sure, or sometimes can't know, or are just hoping for, but being assured of that, I don't think they're barking up the wrong tree.

是以，如果有人對此不屑一顧，說："不，連你自己的書都說，信仰就是相信那些你不確定的事情，或者有時無法確定，或者只是抱有希望，但又確信無疑的事情。

I would have worded it differently myself, but it's not a strawman.

如果是我，我會用不同的措辭，但這不是稻草人。

I've seen too many apologetic books and evangelizing tracts that do encourage people to believe like a child, which is also biblical.

我見過太多的辯解書籍和傳福音小冊子，它們確實鼓勵人們像孩子一樣去相信，這也是符合聖經的。

That childlike faith is defined as not needing evidence, just accepting.

這種孩童般的信仰被定義為不需要證據，只需接受。

字幕列表影片播放

稻草人辯護基督教的逃學生艙門 (The Strawman Defense: Christianity’s Escape Hatch)

entire

pretend

reveal

multiple