Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
104 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
wood . . . what is changing can’t be the very same thing that is causing the same<br />
change, can’t be changing itself, but must be being changed by something<br />
else . . . But this can’t go on for ever, since then there would be no first cause of<br />
the change, <strong>and</strong> as a result no subsequent causes . . . So we are forced eventually<br />
to come to a first cause of change not itself being changed by anything, <strong>and</strong> this<br />
is what everyone underst<strong>and</strong>s by God (et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum). 16<br />
This is a cosmological proof, that is to say it argues to God-as-Cause from<br />
the mere fact of existence – here the existence of change or motion. I shall be<br />
returning to this general style of argument in section 6. For the present,<br />
though, note that while the coming-to-be of a conceptual power in the mind<br />
of a child is certainly a change, <strong>and</strong> hence qualifies as a starting point for the<br />
first way, the particular change in question suggests a more specific proof.<br />
To bring this out consider the regress arising within the ‘Wittgensteinian–<br />
Thomistic’ account of concept-formation.<br />
Alice possesses a power that parrots lack, for while a bird may pick up a<br />
sound <strong>and</strong> repeat it – quicker <strong>and</strong> more accurately than the child – no amount<br />
of ‘instruction’ will teach the parrot the meaning of a term. Alice’s innate<br />
power is in fact a second-order one; it is a power to acquire a (conceptual)<br />
power. Another human being – James already has the first-order power; he<br />
uses the term meaningfully <strong>and</strong> thinks thoughts with the same conceptual<br />
content. Through instruction, Alice’s hitherto unrealized potentiality is made<br />
actual through the activity of James. But as Aquinas says, this cannot go on<br />
for ever. James’s conceptual ability calls for explanation, <strong>and</strong> the same considerations<br />
as before lead to the idea of his instruction by an already active<br />
thinker/language user, Kirsty, say, whose ability is itself the product of an<br />
innate potentiality <strong>and</strong> an external actualizing cause. The Wittgensteinian<br />
proposal that concepts are inculcated through membership of a linguistic<br />
community suggests an interesting escape from the dilemma posed by the<br />
innatist/abstractionist dispute, but it is not itself ultimately explanatory<br />
because for any natural language user it requires us to postulate a prior<br />
one. This regress will be halted if there is an actualizing source whose own<br />
conceptual power is intrinsic; <strong>and</strong> that, of course, is precisely what God is<br />
traditionally taken to be.<br />
The cosmological argument itself is often described as the argument to a<br />
‘Prime Mover’; but the particular adaptation I have been concerned with<br />
might better be termed the argument to a ‘Prime Thinker’ or even, though<br />
metaphorically, to a ‘Prime Sayer’. Here, one may be reminded of two wellknown<br />
Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Christian reflections on ‘beginnings’ – those of the first<br />
chapters of Genesis <strong>and</strong> of the Gospel of John:<br />
Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . .’ [then]<br />
out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field <strong>and</strong> every bird