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> 125<br />
it becomes clear that this invites questions in search of explanations by reference<br />
to antecedent causes. In short, to the extent that Hume’s remarks lead<br />
in any direction it is towards <strong>and</strong> not away from the principle of sufficient<br />
reason.<br />
A different argument to a more restricted conclusion is that based on<br />
aspects of contemporary physics. Earlier I mentioned the many-universe<br />
hypothesis in quantum theory which arose as an attempt to overcome the<br />
appearance of indeterminacy. This is one of a number of such efforts but many<br />
theorists prefer to accept that quantum phenomena may be indeterminate.<br />
Events such as the decay of a nucleus at one moment rather than another, the<br />
emission of a sub-atomic particle or its disappearance <strong>and</strong> reappearance elsewhere,<br />
may be such as could not be predicted even in principle, <strong>and</strong> hence not<br />
such as can be fully explained after the fact by citing antecedent causes.<br />
One response is to suggest that this kind of indeterminacy resides only at<br />
the quantum level <strong>and</strong> that ‘ordinary’ objects <strong>and</strong> events, from the falling of<br />
an apple to the collision of planets, are deterministic <strong>and</strong> hence are not at<br />
odds with the principle. This is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, by<br />
allowing that there are or may be contexts in which it fails one concedes the<br />
point to the objector. Even if it is not false everywhere, the fact that it is or<br />
may be false somewhere debars appeal to sufficient reason as excluding brute<br />
contingency anywhere. Moreover, it is likely that indeterminacy could be fed<br />
into cosmology as a part of the story of the development of the macroscopic<br />
world, offering the prospect of causal series leading back to events of sorts that<br />
have been granted to be without cause. Second, <strong>and</strong> more significantly, the<br />
response assumes in common with the objector that the principle is equivalent<br />
to that of universal causal determinism. This I dispute. To begin with<br />
I believe that human actions fall within the scope of the principle, while also<br />
believing, unlike Smart, that free action is incompatible with complete determinism<br />
<strong>and</strong> that there is free action. More generally, indeterministic phenomena<br />
– including quantum events – call for <strong>and</strong> are often given explanations.<br />
I shall return to the issue of free action later; however, the general point<br />
I am concerned with is that not all causal explanations are deterministic.<br />
(Indeed given the causal pluralism sketched earlier neither are they all explanations<br />
by reference to efficient causation.) Consider again the examples from<br />
fundamental physics. Suppose there is an experimental set-up (designed to<br />
reproduce types of events that also occur naturally) in which a radioactive<br />
source emits particles. Let us say that the frequency <strong>and</strong> the behaviour of the<br />
emissions exhibit quantum indeterminacy. What this is taken to imply is that<br />
if it is asked ‘why did this happen just then, <strong>and</strong> not at another moment?’, or<br />
‘why did the particle take that course <strong>and</strong> not another?’ there may not be an<br />
answer – there may not be ‘sufficient reason’ in the antecedents for just that<br />
occurrence, ex hypothesi another would have been compatible with them.