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.
130 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
cause of change could certainly not be dependent on any external factor,<br />
nevertheless it might undergo modifications deriving from some internal source.<br />
There are, however, at least two (related) reasons for rejecting this. First, it<br />
involves conceiving of the agent as composed of parts <strong>and</strong> this is at odds with<br />
the idea of divine simplicity. Second, any ‘internal movement’ would give rise<br />
to the sort of questioning that leads to the conclusion that there must be an<br />
uncaused cause of change. Let me exp<strong>and</strong> these points (<strong>and</strong> the relation<br />
between them) starting with the second.<br />
In presenting the prima via Aquinas writes that anything undergoing change<br />
is being changed by something else (omne quod movetur ab alio movetur). We<br />
will not really underst<strong>and</strong> this claim <strong>and</strong> appreciate its force if we think solely<br />
in terms of one object mechanically interacting with another – a polisher<br />
shining a shoe, for example. Certainly this is a case of change deriving from<br />
change; but to see the scope of Aquinas’s principle we have to recall his<br />
analysis of change in terms of the transition from potentiality to actuality.<br />
Prior to being polished, the surface of the shoe is dull but it has the possibility<br />
of becoming shiny. In Aristotelian-cum-Thomistic vocabulary it is<br />
actually dull but potentially shiny; or even more ‘scholastically’ expressed, it<br />
is in act with respect to dullness <strong>and</strong> in potency with regard to shininess. This<br />
situation will persist unless some factor operates to change it. Once that<br />
factor comes into play the surface of the shoe is ‘moved’ from potency to act<br />
with respect to shininess; or more familiarly, it becomes shiny. This ‘becoming’<br />
or realization requires an agent, <strong>and</strong> that agent cannot itself be wholly<br />
potential, it must be active (or, equivalently, ‘in act’). So wherever there is a<br />
transformation or a transition from one state to another some explanation is<br />
called for of what effects this, <strong>and</strong> once that questioning begins it can only be<br />
halted by coming to rest in an unchanging cause of change. The activity of<br />
this primary agent cannot then be supposed to derive from either an external<br />
or an internal source, for that would be to assume that it is not after all the<br />
ultimate origin of change.<br />
This reflection brings out part of what is meant by saying that God is<br />
perfect. There is no scope for improvement in God or for any kind of development,<br />
since this would be a change involving a transition from potentiality<br />
to actuality in respect of some feature, <strong>and</strong> any such transition would then<br />
require some prior actuality to initiate it. Young baby John grows through<br />
taking in nutrients. The process of growth depends upon input from his<br />
environment <strong>and</strong> upon internal physiological activity. These factors explain<br />
the changes in John, but neither is itself wholly self-explanatory. Nothing will<br />
constitute an ultimate explanation of change if it is itself subject to change<br />
either from without or from within.<br />
Reason brings us to a first cause of change <strong>and</strong> leads us to see that as such<br />
it must be perfect <strong>and</strong> impassible – both in the literal <strong>and</strong> general sense of not