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> 141<br />
<strong>and</strong> to direct its operations in ways beneficial to human <strong>and</strong> other interests.<br />
Realizing one’s nature as a psychophysical being is a great good, but the<br />
general condition of being able to do so includes various dangers <strong>and</strong> limitations.<br />
We can try to reduce these but we cannot wholly eliminate them.<br />
Moreover, the hazardous character of organic existence provides occasions to<br />
develop our intellectual <strong>and</strong> moral powers. The inescapable challenge of life is<br />
to live well, i.e. intelligently <strong>and</strong> virtuously. To have created a world in which<br />
this is possible is to have made something good, notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing that it is<br />
a place of loss. As the tree grows tall towards the light, the grass beneath it<br />
withers for want of water, food <strong>and</strong> sun.<br />
So much for natural good <strong>and</strong> evil. What of moral virtue <strong>and</strong> vice? How<br />
could a good God create beings capable of the horrors of this <strong>and</strong> previous<br />
centuries <strong>and</strong> why does he not intervene to halt them? While theists have<br />
offered a variety of responses, I believe the pattern of reasoning developed<br />
thus far leads towards the conclusion that although God is responsible for<br />
everything we do he is not the author of moral evil, <strong>and</strong> that it is incompatible<br />
with the good that he has authored in creating rational animals that he<br />
should then override their decisions wherever these are morally wrong.<br />
Moral wrong is a deficiency with respect to reason, emotion <strong>and</strong> will. The<br />
virtuous agent discerns his own <strong>and</strong> others’ physical <strong>and</strong> psychological goods<br />
<strong>and</strong> strives to achieve <strong>and</strong> preserve them. The vic[e]ious agent by contrast<br />
culpably either fails to discern the good or acts to inhibit or destroy it. Once<br />
again evil is a privation, not a something added to a life but a lack of what<br />
should be there – in this case certain orientations of thought, affection <strong>and</strong><br />
volition. In making human beings, God creates animals with a rational teleology,<br />
including the potential for knowledge <strong>and</strong> right action. Shortly, I will<br />
argue that he is also creatively involved in sustaining <strong>and</strong> realizing these<br />
potentialities; however, if we are to be thinkers <strong>and</strong> doers then the role of<br />
providence can be no more than an enabling <strong>and</strong> co-operative one. God<br />
cannot do our reasoning <strong>and</strong> acting for us or else we would not exist. To be<br />
a rational agent is to think <strong>and</strong> act; so to assert one’s existence as a self is to<br />
claim that there are deeds for which one is responsible. Without God we<br />
would not be, but nor would we be unless God created us free <strong>and</strong> responsible,<br />
<strong>and</strong> in making us such he invites us to participate in creation.<br />
Just as in making a world of living things God indirectly causes <strong>and</strong> continuously<br />
permits the obstruction <strong>and</strong> destruction that results from the flow<br />
of life, so in making free agents he is causally responsible for circumstances in<br />
which wrongs are done; but in neither case does God directly bring about<br />
evil. In the first case he intends the good of organic life with its inevitable ebb<br />
<strong>and</strong> flow, <strong>and</strong> in the second he empowers beings freely to direct their lives<br />
towards moral perfection, but it is logically impossible that he should compel<br />
such a movement towards the good. In short, it is wrong to suppose that if