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.
176 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
(sections 4 <strong>and</strong> 5) <strong>and</strong> cosmological (section 6). Contemporary philosophical<br />
theists who find merit in reasoning of the first sort generally favour arguments<br />
from regularity. While presenting a version of these I have also claimed,<br />
in contrast with most philosophers, 5 that the possibility of an old style design<br />
argument from the ‘directedness’ of things is not excluded by the development<br />
of evolutionary theory. Here it may be useful to have a ‘map’ (figure 4.1)<br />
summarizing the various lines of reasoning presented in chapter 2.<br />
These diagrams are intended only as reminders <strong>and</strong> I shall not attempt to<br />
repeat the details of the arguments they abbreviate. However, a short résumé<br />
of part of the argumentation mapped in figure 4.1A is appropriate. First,<br />
I began with the assumption – which Smart <strong>and</strong> I share – that science is the<br />
systematic study of a largely mind-independent world. That world contains a<br />
plurality of kinds of things animate <strong>and</strong> inanimate. The members of these<br />
various kinds are united by sharing qualitatively similar natures. In the case of<br />
living things these natures include principles of organic development <strong>and</strong><br />
activity.<br />
With regard to the apparent functional or vital attributes, powers <strong>and</strong><br />
activities of organisms one must either be a realist or an eliminativist. Realism<br />
is the claim that such features are genuinely as they seem <strong>and</strong> are possessed by<br />
their subjects independently of our conceptions of them. For one reason or<br />
another eliminativism rejects this, holding instead that what appear to be real<br />
biological <strong>and</strong> teleological attributes of such <strong>and</strong> such a sort are either reducible<br />
to more basic properties which are real, or else are simply shadows cast by<br />
the light of human interest. My first argument was to the effect that the<br />
natural sciences are realist in their assumptions <strong>and</strong> that Smart faces a dilemma:<br />
either to endorse this view, thereby giving scope for an old style ‘directedness’<br />
design argument, or else to reject it without scientific warrant in favour of an<br />
ideologically driven, mechanistic reductionism. The point of the latter disjunct<br />
is that nothing in the study of nature requires that we only allow as real<br />
what physics deals with; to suppose otherwise is a prejudice of philosophy not<br />
a discovery of science.<br />
In his reply Smart reaffirms his physicalism but denies that it forces him to<br />
be a conceptual reductionist; as he writes ‘My physicalism is an ontological<br />
one, not a translational one’ (chapter 3, p. 153). The possibility of such a<br />
position is not in dispute; indeed I allowed for it <strong>and</strong> described an example<br />
when discussing the difference between ontological <strong>and</strong> conceptual or explanatory<br />
behaviourism (chapter 2, p. 84). My point was rather that while<br />
Smart may allow the non-translatability of teleological descriptions he denies<br />
that there is – in reality (ontologically) – any teleological behaviour. What he<br />
has to say later about levels of organization understood ‘in a weak sense’ does<br />
not alter this fact. On his account a tree is still ‘nothing over <strong>and</strong> above a<br />
physical mechanism . . . even though talk of a tree is not translatable into talk