12.07.2013 Views

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

88 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />

There is a general point of some importance here. Reductionists often<br />

confuse formal nature <strong>and</strong> material composition. In their concern to show<br />

that ultimately there is nothing more than ‘atoms in the void’ or ‘energy plus<br />

space–time’, they overlook or underestimate the significance of the hierarchy<br />

of forms within which matter is held together. I am not at all suggesting that<br />

one go in the opposite direction <strong>and</strong> say that what individual things are made<br />

of, <strong>and</strong> what, if anything, everything in the cosmos is made of, is unimportant<br />

for an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the natural order; but I am claiming that real science,<br />

as contrasted with the reductionist philosopher’s ambition for it, is happy to<br />

recognize a variety of features <strong>and</strong> levels of natural being, <strong>and</strong> can proceed<br />

very well without progressive elimination of one sphere after another, collapsing<br />

the structure of science down to the atomic core that is physics.<br />

It might be conceded that the concepts of the life sciences, for example,<br />

cannot be reduced to physics; but Smart <strong>and</strong> others will want to insist that<br />

there is nothing in biology that is incompatible with a wholly physicalist<br />

world view. Nothing in the higher levels of organization of matter<br />

involves real properties or forms of causation that are non-physical or nonmechanistic.<br />

Here more could be said about how the terms ‘physical’ <strong>and</strong><br />

‘mechanical’ may be interpreted but it is not in the interest of the debate<br />

between Smart <strong>and</strong> me to be too liberal about this. We are concerned with<br />

whether the physical <strong>and</strong> the real are one, <strong>and</strong> subject to details which he<br />

explains (about the best interpretation of mathematics <strong>and</strong> set theory, for<br />

example) Smart says they are, <strong>and</strong> I say they are not. So when he makes his<br />

claim on behalf of physicalism, he denies that reality contains anything over<br />

<strong>and</strong> above what physics recognizes.<br />

4 ‘Old’ Teleology<br />

The case of biology is a significant test of attitudes, for, as Smart notes,<br />

living systems were long cited in design proofs <strong>and</strong> neo-Darwinian theory is<br />

supposed to have put an end to this. My earlier point about actual sciences<br />

being built around the recognition of distinctive forms of organization of<br />

matter tells against reductionism as a general policy <strong>and</strong> applies to the relation<br />

between chemistry <strong>and</strong> quantum mechanics as much as to that between<br />

zoology <strong>and</strong> general physics. But the traditional teleological argument is concerned<br />

with a special claim of irreducibility, viz. that of purpose to mechanism.<br />

Teleologists maintain that organisms exhibit beneficial order: that is to<br />

say both in their general organization <strong>and</strong> in the functioning of their parts<br />

they generally operate in ways that are, in one or another way, good for them.<br />

For example, the lungs absorb oxygen, the heart pumps blood, the kidneys<br />

remove waste products, the genitals enable procreation <strong>and</strong> so on. Naïvely, it

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!