Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 105<br />
of the air, <strong>and</strong> brought them to the man to see what he would call them;<br />
<strong>and</strong> whatever the man called every living creature that was its name. (Genesis<br />
1: 26; 2: 19)<br />
In the beginning was the Word, <strong>and</strong> the Word was with God, <strong>and</strong> the Word<br />
was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through<br />
him, <strong>and</strong> without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the life was the light of men. (John 1: 1–4)<br />
This line of argument will provoke various objections. Some of these are<br />
general complaints about philosophical theology (e.g. whether invoking God<br />
as a self-explanatory cause is consistent, <strong>and</strong> whether philosophy <strong>and</strong> scripture<br />
belong together) <strong>and</strong> are best dealt with at a later stage. At this point,<br />
however, I want to make explicit the connection between the reflections on<br />
conceptual thought <strong>and</strong> the issues of evolution <strong>and</strong> emergence.<br />
Wittgenstein was a cautious thinker <strong>and</strong> held back where his reasoning<br />
neared the limits of experience. Consequently I am not sure to what extent he<br />
can be said to be a philosophical naturalist. He is reported to have said of<br />
himself ‘I am not a religious man but I cannot help seeing every problem<br />
from a religious point of view’ 17 <strong>and</strong> it is clear that he had respect for religious<br />
sensibilities. At the same time, these attitudes can be interpreted in ways<br />
compatible with atheism. It is difficult to say, therefore, what his attitude to<br />
the problem I have posed might have been. Whatever Wittgenstein’s own<br />
view about it, however, the language-learning account of concept-formation<br />
might seem to escape the regress if it can show how at some earlier point the<br />
sequence of concept-conferring exchanges could have arisen. Any such account<br />
faces two difficulties: first, that arising from the dialectic between innatism<br />
<strong>and</strong> abstractionism, <strong>and</strong> second a version of that presented earlier in connection<br />
with Dennett’s homunculi-discharging strategy. If the linguistic view is<br />
to be a genuine alternative to the other theories it cannot revert to them in<br />
explaining earlier stages in our conceptual history. It cannot say, for example,<br />
that Adam’s (<strong>and</strong> Eve’s?) concepts were innate though Alice’s were acquired.<br />
If innatism <strong>and</strong> abstractionism are incoherent they are not made any more<br />
intelligible by being introduced to halt a regress.<br />
This sort of difficulty will be generally acknowledged; what is less likely<br />
to be conceded is the second objection, namely that no history of thought or<br />
language can be philosophically adequate if it tries to meet the genesis problem<br />
by postulating ‘fading conceptuality’. Though it is not put in these terms, or<br />
indeed very often discussed at all, something of this sort is presumably part of<br />
a naturalistic version of Wittgenstein’s linguistic theory. On this account<br />
the history of concept-formation <strong>and</strong> use is the history of language; a history<br />
that leads back to pre-linguistic activities, back further to pre-mental life, to<br />
pre-replicating life <strong>and</strong> ultimately to pre-animate matter. It is unnecessary for