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.
216 J.J.C. Smart<br />
empirical test between them, physicists prefer the simplest theory. Simplicity<br />
here is cashed out in terms of symmetries. This preference might be for<br />
heuristic reasons only: that the search for symmetries has been rewarded in<br />
the past. There is some inductive evidence that because the search for<br />
symmetries has paid off in the past, the ‘ultimate theory of everything’ might<br />
itself be based on symmetries. This would of course be a crude inductivism.<br />
But suppose that there is such an ultimate theory. Being ultimate it cannot be<br />
based on some more general theory. If a physicist was asked ‘Why is it so?’<br />
what better could he say than ‘Because it is beautiful’? This is different from<br />
answering the epistemological or psychological question ‘Why do you believe<br />
that it is so?’ which could be answered by reference to perception <strong>and</strong> to<br />
empirical tests or the ability to explain the approximate truth of well-tested<br />
subordinate theories in the case of the epistemological question. ‘Because it is<br />
beautiful’ as I want it construed harks back to the Socrates of the Phaedo <strong>and</strong><br />
Plato’s Form of the Good. In the Phaedo Socrates expresses disapproval of<br />
naturalistic philosophers such as Anaxagoras who relied on causal <strong>and</strong> quasicausal<br />
explanations. Socrates came to reject the naturalistic approaches in<br />
favour of an explanation by reference to Mind (i.e. by reference to purpose)<br />
but quickly moved from talk of mind <strong>and</strong> so what seems good to talk of what<br />
is good. This ties up with Plato’s talk of the Form of the Good as the<br />
supreme explanans.<br />
I wonder whether Socrates’ <strong>and</strong> Plato’s preference for teleology or explanation<br />
in terms of value may have set science back, perhaps for centuries, but as<br />
I am not a historian of science I leave this question for the experts. However,<br />
the synthesis (at the extreme of explanation) of Anaxagoras <strong>and</strong> the Plato of<br />
parts of the Timaeus with the Plato of the Republic may look attractive. If this<br />
is an olive branch to at least those of Leslie’s neo-Platonic persuasion it is a<br />
very small twig since (for one thing) it depends on an objectivist meta-ethics<br />
of goodness <strong>and</strong> beauty (which the Greeks did not greatly distinguish) <strong>and</strong><br />
which I myself reject. 26<br />
10 Can Theists <strong>and</strong> Atheists Come to Agree?<br />
In FE p. 6 I remarked on the paucity of knockdown arguments in philosophy.<br />
Nor are all philosophical confusions due to our not knowing our way<br />
about our language (though indeed some are). All of philosophy is not showing<br />
the fly the way out of the fly bottle, to use Wittgenstein’s simile, despite<br />
the sort of therapeutic activities enjoined by Wittgenstein, <strong>and</strong> also less pompously<br />
by Gilbert Ryle 27 who held that philosophy was (or was at least) ‘the<br />
detection of the sources in linguistic idioms of recurrent misconstructions <strong>and</strong><br />
absurd theories’. I think that such clarifications are important but nevertheless