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.
154 J.J.C. Smart<br />
a definite way. We can explain the behaviour of the receiver by physics<br />
together with a wiring diagram. Thus in the sense in which we might think<br />
of electronics (or part of it) as physics plus wiring diagrams, so the biochemical<br />
core of biology can be thought of as physics <strong>and</strong> chemistry plus natural<br />
history. 6 Of course the natural history needn’t be about tigers or gum trees:<br />
investigating the small structures seen by means of electron microscopes counts<br />
for me as natural history. In natural history we have mere generalizations, to<br />
which exceptions are the norm, hardly requiring explanation, <strong>and</strong> relating<br />
to things on planet earth, <strong>and</strong> so cosmically parochial. Thus consider a<br />
biochemical investigation of the functioning of a liver. ‘Liver’ is understood<br />
partly ostensively <strong>and</strong> partly in terms of what it usually does, what it has been<br />
selected for. 7<br />
One can therefore be an ontological physicalist without believing in emergence<br />
in any stronger sense than the weak sense that I have just elucidated. 8<br />
Nor need we be able to make detailed predictions from one level to the next<br />
to have good scientific <strong>and</strong> philosophical reasons to see the higher level as not<br />
only ontologically a matter of the lower level but as plausibly explained by it.<br />
Steven Weinberg puts the matter very persuasively in his Dreams of a Final<br />
Theory. 9 He argues as follows. The quantum theory of the chemical bond can<br />
be used in cases of simple atoms <strong>and</strong> molecules to explain the properties of<br />
the chemical bond, <strong>and</strong> even if this cannot be done in the case of very<br />
complicated molecules, this failure can be put down simply to the mathematical<br />
intractability of the problem. Because the nature of the chemical bond<br />
can be deduced from the quantum theory, this gives us a very good plausible<br />
reason for thinking that nature works in this way in mathematically intractable<br />
cases. We can still hold, as he says, that ‘there are no autonomous<br />
principles of chemistry that are simply independent truths, not resting on<br />
deeper principles of physics’. 10<br />
Having said that my reduction is ontological <strong>and</strong> not translational,<br />
I am not sure that I am using ‘ontological’ in quite the way in which <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
is (see p. 84). The weight of the average plumber is definable as the sum<br />
of the weights of plumbers divided by the number of plumbers. So talk of<br />
the average plumber is translatable into talk of the plumbers. However, I do<br />
not require translation for ontological reduction. I can still say that a tree is<br />
nothing over <strong>and</strong> above a physical mechanism, just as a radio receiver is, even<br />
though talk of a tree is not translatable into talk of electrons <strong>and</strong> protons.<br />
If non-translatability implied non-naturalism, non-naturalism would be too<br />
easily come by.<br />
I would also suggest that <strong>Haldane</strong>’s term ‘explanatory reductionism’ is<br />
not quite what I would mean by the term ‘reductionism’. Recall the matter of<br />
some chemical reaction. One could explain it by purely chemical considerations<br />
involving the chemical bonds of the molecules concerned. Nevertheless