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.
Further Reflections on <strong>Atheism</strong> 217<br />
that on the whole the fly has not come out of the fly bottle. Indeed, scientists<br />
themselves engage in such clarifications, <strong>and</strong> if, as I have assumed, plausibility<br />
in the light of total science is a necessary guide to metaphysical truth, then (as<br />
Quine has argued) philosophy is continuous with science.<br />
Wittgenstein had religious yearnings which Ryle did not appear to have.<br />
This led some philosophers of religion to a lot of Wittgensteinian subterfuges<br />
such as ‘religion is a form of life’ or ‘religious people are playing a certain language<br />
game’, <strong>and</strong> even religious allusions to the supernatural as ‘metaphor’.<br />
Consider the title of a book by John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate. 28<br />
Or consider the very readable book by Marcus J. Borg <strong>and</strong> N.T. Wright, The<br />
Meaning of Jesus, 29 in which the former writer interprets everything (or nearly<br />
everything) supernatural in the New Testament as mere metaphor. The atheist<br />
has little with which metaphysically to disagree in such writings, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Haldane</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> I have not considered them. One thing on which <strong>Haldane</strong> <strong>and</strong> I agree<br />
is metaphysical realism, though <strong>Haldane</strong> does not agree on the continuity<br />
between metaphysics <strong>and</strong> science.<br />
Not all philosophers will think of plausibility in the light of total science as<br />
so important as I do. They may stress common sense. Or the phenomenology<br />
of our experiences. Some may hold that our awareness of sensations <strong>and</strong> other<br />
experiences proclaims them or at any rate their properties as irreducibly nonphysical.<br />
I hold that our experiences are brain processes, but that we are aware<br />
of them in virtue of properties that are neutral between physicalism <strong>and</strong> dualism.<br />
Phenomenology 30 can be illusory. The materialist thinks of so-called correlations<br />
between conscious events <strong>and</strong> brain processes as identities. Dualism is<br />
cut away with Ockham’s razor. Note that we don’t know all the correlations.<br />
Maybe because of the complexities of the brain we never will. Ockham’s razor<br />
or scientific plausibility does the trick. 31<br />
This is relevant to the arguments for the existence of God due to Richard<br />
Swinburne. Swinburne is a subtle philosopher who, among other virtues, is<br />
expert in the theory of probability. He defends the argument for the fine<br />
tuning, <strong>and</strong> his defence of mind–body dualism forms part of it. I think that<br />
our differing views about phenomenology account a great deal for his <strong>and</strong> my<br />
differences in metaphysics. Dualism rests on a certain trust in phenomenology,<br />
whereas I have distrust in phenomenology. It is beyond the scope of this<br />
essay to discuss in detail Swinburne’s ingenious defence of theism. Naturally<br />
I admire his ingenuity <strong>and</strong> he is certainly to be commended on seeing that his<br />
theism should be backed up by a metaphysics. 32<br />
Another important defender of theism whose writings are too voluminous<br />
to summarise here, but whose modal form of the ontological argument was<br />
discussed earlier, is Alvin Plantinga. He supports his Christian theology by<br />
his work on epistemology. That is, he has a theory of warrant. 33 When is<br />
a belief warrantedly assertible so as to constitute knowledge? But warrant can