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.
116 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
This is improbable, even granting naturalism, <strong>and</strong> if my earlier arguments<br />
against materialism are right it is entirely inexplicable on that basis.<br />
I reasoned that there cannot be an evolutionary account of conceptual powers;<br />
but even if there could be, that would not account for our having the kinds<br />
of concepts we do, ones that go beyond practical utility <strong>and</strong> so cannot be<br />
explained in terms of adaptive value. One might here appeal to the fact<br />
I mentioned earlier, namely that present day biologists do not claim that<br />
every significant characteristic is an evolutionary adaptation. That, however,<br />
is a move away from the possibility of giving a natural explanation of the<br />
harmony of thought <strong>and</strong> world. It would be within the power of an intelligent<br />
creator to effect such a harmony, <strong>and</strong> indeed there would be something<br />
fitting in creating a universe that had within it the power of its own underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
which is what in one sense empirical knowledge involves. I offer this<br />
as one interpretation of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic idea that a human being<br />
is made in the image, indeed is an image, of God (imago Dei). The hypothesis<br />
of theism explains the existence of an orderly universe, of rational animals<br />
<strong>and</strong> of the harmony of thought <strong>and</strong> world. Scientific materialism explains<br />
none of these things.<br />
6 The Cause of Things<br />
A few years ago, in keeping with general developments throughout the<br />
British education system, the University of St Andrews decided to introduce<br />
a staff appraisal scheme. This was to involve a system of ‘progress review’<br />
according to which every member of the university would periodically be<br />
reviewed by a colleague. A draft was circulated setting out the various<br />
arrangements for the introduction of the proposed scheme. It included a<br />
section on the role <strong>and</strong> responsibilities of reviewers, from which I quote:<br />
The reviews of colleagues who have not been reviewed previously but are to<br />
act as reviewers will also have to be arranged . . . so that all reviewers can be<br />
reviewed before they review others.<br />
The well-intentioned point was that no staff should act as reviewers who had<br />
not themselves already been subject to the review process. Additionally the<br />
system was to be self-contained: no one’s reviewed status could result from<br />
having been reviewed outwith the university. At the time this document<br />
appeared I was acting as an occasional cartoonist for the university newsletter<br />
<strong>and</strong> it seemed that this was an opportunity that ought not to be missed. The<br />
cartoon reprinted here brings out the problem that had been overlooked in<br />
the drafting. If no one could conduct a review unless <strong>and</strong> until he or she had