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>Theism</strong> 223<br />
philosophy of probability to inductive reasoning about the origins of the<br />
cosmos <strong>and</strong> the patterns of its operation; <strong>and</strong> next provided systematic defences<br />
of Christian theological concepts. Thanks to the efforts of these <strong>and</strong> others,<br />
the defensiveness, dreariness, dullness <strong>and</strong> near agnosticism characteristic of<br />
most philosophy of religion in the post-war years came steadily to be replaced<br />
by confident, imaginative <strong>and</strong> lively writings, typically authored by practising<br />
Christians (though with distinguished contributions from non-Christian theists,<br />
agnostics <strong>and</strong> atheists).<br />
That was all to the good, but in view of the evidently bullish confidence<br />
of some analytical philosophers of religion it may be worth striking a cautionary<br />
note. Whereas it was once common for those entering higher education<br />
to have a reasonable level of religious knowledge, <strong>and</strong> often some religious<br />
formation, be it conventional <strong>and</strong> minimalist, that has changed considerably.<br />
In consequence, rising generations of able philosophers are now less likely to<br />
be engaged by religious questions. At the same time there is a general intellectual<br />
scepticism about the plausibility <strong>and</strong> even the intelligibility of largescale,<br />
comprehensive conceptions or explanations of the human condition. In<br />
an age in which relativisms <strong>and</strong> special interests have fragmented intellectual<br />
culture producing a plurality of ‘micro-stories’, the very idea of the ‘metanarrative’<br />
has been ‘problematised’. In consequence of this <strong>and</strong> of the previous<br />
point, philosophy of religion may soon face something of a struggle. Cultural<br />
theory is happier to engage its nominal subject matter than it once was, but<br />
it does so in ways that are broadly sociological rather than analytical; being<br />
concerned with causes, conditions <strong>and</strong> contexts more than with rational content<br />
<strong>and</strong> argumentation.<br />
Rather than auguring ill for the philosophical exploration of religion I think<br />
this situation presents the challenge of engaging colleagues who are not part<br />
of a self-identifying professional constituency, <strong>and</strong> calls for serious interaction<br />
with advocates of non-analytical, <strong>and</strong> even non-philosophical approaches. One<br />
merit of the current debate, therefore, testified to by the large number of<br />
reviews which the first edition attracted, is that by not being, <strong>and</strong> not being<br />
seen as, a piece of specialized philosophy of religion, by making a point of<br />
bringing in matters of science, religious studies <strong>and</strong> theological doctrine,<br />
<strong>and</strong> by being avowedly committed to definite positions, it has engaged philosophers<br />
<strong>and</strong> philosophy students with very different interests <strong>and</strong> inclinations,<br />
<strong>and</strong> reached a wider readership. That represents a hope fulfilled.<br />
3 The Emergence of Life <strong>and</strong> the Origins of Reproduction<br />
Looking back at my original contributions <strong>and</strong> at the criticisms of Smart <strong>and</strong><br />
others I recognize that there are parts of my case that need clarification