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.
<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 133<br />
points. For example, the claim that God is his essence bears on the metaphysical<br />
inseparability, even notionally, of the thatness <strong>and</strong> the whatness of<br />
God. When thinking about cats, say, we can distinguish between a certain<br />
species of animal nature <strong>and</strong> the (realized) possibility of several individuals<br />
possessing that nature. Felix <strong>and</strong> Felicity are both cats in virtue of participating<br />
in, or sharing, a common nature. In the case of God, however, there is no<br />
possibility of there being more than one instance of the kind, for individuation<br />
is tied to materiality <strong>and</strong> that is a feature of the spatiotemporal order,<br />
which is also the domain of change <strong>and</strong> contingency. Thus, if there is a God<br />
identified initially as a first cause, then that he is <strong>and</strong> what he is are one <strong>and</strong><br />
the same reality. Unlike the case of catness, there is no sense to be attached to<br />
the question of whether this kind of ‘whatness’ (quiddity) might be shared<br />
by more than one thing.<br />
Similarly, the odd sounding ‘identity of the divine attributes’ is a conclusion<br />
derived from reflection upon the simplicity of God. Just as one aspect of<br />
not being composed of parts is that there is no distinction in God between<br />
that which has an essence <strong>and</strong> the essence itself, so another aspect of this<br />
transcendent simplicity is that each attribute is co-extensive with every other.<br />
One way of trying to underst<strong>and</strong> this is by way of an analogy derived from<br />
the philosophy of language. Following Frege (1848–1925), contemporary<br />
philosophers distinguish between the sense <strong>and</strong> the reference of an expression;<br />
between, that is to say, the thing that the term denotes, <strong>and</strong> the way the<br />
referent is presented by the expression. 22 One consequence of this distinction<br />
is that two or more expressions can be referentially or extensionally equivalent<br />
though they have different senses.<br />
Aquinas was already familiar with something like this distinction, for he<br />
uses it to explicate the idea that truth, being <strong>and</strong> goodness – what he calls<br />
‘transcendentals’ – are in reality one <strong>and</strong> the same. What he means, I think, is<br />
that there is one reality at issue, but that it can be identified from different<br />
perspectives <strong>and</strong> that the nature of these perspectives determines, in distinctive<br />
<strong>and</strong> different ways, what is seen from them. Each perspective conditions<br />
one’s view <strong>and</strong> bestows a certain character on the appearance of that which is<br />
seen. Nonetheless what they are perspectives on is just one reality. Returning<br />
to the thesis of the identity of the divine attributes <strong>and</strong> connecting it with<br />
the earlier discussion of the ‘quia’ (effect to cause) character of the Five Ways,<br />
we might say that the various features such as impassibility, necessity, mindedness,<br />
<strong>and</strong> so on are attributed from different perspectives, which in this case<br />
are provided by the nature of the mundane phenomena with which one<br />
starts (change, contingency, human intentionality, etc.), but that the implied<br />
simplicity of God reveals to reason that they are ontologically one reality:<br />
God is necessary existence which is impassibility which is underived mind<br />
which is God.