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.
Reply to <strong>Haldane</strong> 167<br />
A naturalistically minded philosopher might concede that there might be no<br />
simple cause – e.g. the firing of a neuron – but would find it mysterious that<br />
the total neural state prior to the action together with its changes under<br />
internal or external stimuli should not have to be the cause of the action.<br />
The naturalist can even agree with <strong>Haldane</strong> that most action calls for no<br />
explanation. Explanation is a highly contextual matter. Often the explanation<br />
is not called for because it is too simple <strong>and</strong> obvious. If a person desires<br />
to eat an apple <strong>and</strong> sees an apple on the plate it is not mysterious that the<br />
apple should be eaten, <strong>and</strong> quite compatible with desire <strong>and</strong> perception being<br />
neural states, processes or events. Furthermore, <strong>Haldane</strong> is right in saying<br />
that causal explanation is often not needed because we know that we are<br />
dealing with a rational animal. What we call for are not explanatory reasons<br />
but justifying reasons. If you ask me why I make a certain inference I will<br />
perhaps reply by citing the rule of modus tollens. But that an inference falls<br />
under the rule in no way implies that it was not caused. It was caused partly<br />
by my neural make-up having been trained to operate in accordance with the<br />
rule of logic.<br />
Nor need the naturalist disagree with <strong>Haldane</strong> in saying that ‘Action<br />
differs from mere movement in being purposeful, in aiming to advance<br />
an interest of the agent’ (see p. 145). The naturalist will, however, look to an<br />
elucidation of purpose on the analogy of purposive mechanisms so familiar<br />
in modern engineering. (Recall my remarks about intentionality earlier in<br />
this Reply.) Purpose can be an explanans, but is not ultimate. It is also an<br />
explan<strong>and</strong>um <strong>and</strong> <strong>Haldane</strong> needs to show that the explanation of purposive<br />
activity cannot be a mechanistic one. This is because I hold to a variant of<br />
Ockham’s razor, that mysteries should not be multiplied beyond necessity.<br />
<strong>Haldane</strong> probably will agree with me here. Perhaps we differ on what we find<br />
mysterious. Aristotelian teleology seems mysterious to me, but not to him.<br />
This is a question on which the reader will have to make up his or her mind<br />
on the basis of the general attractiveness or otherwise of our respective metaphysical<br />
positions. I will, however, mention one thing that must be avoided.<br />
We should not confuse ‘reason as cause’ with ‘reason as justification’. We<br />
must distinguish ‘reason’ as cause, a sense in which a desire can be a reason,<br />
<strong>and</strong> ‘reason’ as justification, where asking for a reason is asking for a logical or<br />
moral rule, a missing premiss, or something like that. Rules <strong>and</strong> propositions<br />
are not causes though our attitudes to them may be. <strong>Haldane</strong> is too acute a<br />
philosopher to have fallen into this elementary confusion, but for ensuring<br />
clarity in exposition <strong>and</strong> argument this possibility of confusion needs to be<br />
mentioned.<br />
I have found <strong>Haldane</strong>’s notion of voluntary action unclear, <strong>and</strong> unnecessary<br />
for explaining the facts. Of course <strong>Haldane</strong> <strong>and</strong> I may differ as to what the<br />
facts are that need explaining. <strong>Haldane</strong> says that human beings are ‘moved