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> 227<br />
of design is the only feasible explanation; <strong>and</strong> since the being of any contingent<br />
designer is non-explanatory from the point of view of existence (see<br />
the cosmological argument <strong>and</strong> below), I conclude that reflection on biology<br />
provides a compelling case for divine Creationism.<br />
4 The Prime Thinker<br />
Most of those who have reviewed or otherwise written about <strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Theism</strong> make reference to the argument presented first in chapter 2, which<br />
I entitled the ‘Prime Thinker’ argument. This occurs in the context of a<br />
section of ‘Old Teleology’ bearing the subtitle ‘Mind over Matter’ (pp. 104ff).<br />
The pages leading up to the argument are concerned with presenting a case<br />
against both eliminative <strong>and</strong> non-eliminative materialism, <strong>and</strong> against both<br />
type <strong>and</strong> token versions of the latter. Of necessity this exposition was relatively<br />
brief <strong>and</strong> it omitted explicit discussion of Davidson’s anomalous monism<br />
<strong>and</strong> other contemporary forms of non-reductive identity theory. Also it did<br />
not offer a positive account of the mind–body relation. These omissions led<br />
some to suppose that I had nothing to say against anomalous monism; but<br />
that my own favoured position was that of Cartesian substance dualism. In<br />
fact I have addressed both matters elsewhere <strong>and</strong> here I can simply report my<br />
positions. 6 Firstly, as many of Davidson’s critics have argued, the implication<br />
of anomalous monism is that there is no such thing as mental causation<br />
per se; or put another way, all agency consists of physical causation. 7 Having a<br />
mind makes no difference so far as concerns the disposition of matter; there<br />
are no powers of rational causation. Rather, ‘having’ a mind amounts to being<br />
describable in certain ways. As Davidson himself has observed, in correction<br />
of a common reading to the contrary, his position is that the irreducibility of<br />
psychological explanations to physical ones is ‘due to our special interest in<br />
interpreting human agents as rational agents, rather than to special powers of<br />
those agents’. 8 Allowing that there is much scope for debate in this area I am<br />
persuaded that the idea of non-reductive identity theory is an illusion. If<br />
mentality is real, then materialism must identify mental properties with physical<br />
ones. If, as I maintain, that cannot be done, then materialism is refuted.<br />
So far as concerns my positive, non-materialist view, I reject both the idea<br />
that human persons are material substances (possessed of non-material properties)<br />
<strong>and</strong> the suggestion that we are immaterial objects (conjoined somehow<br />
to physical ones). Instead, I believe that we are examples of a third kind of<br />
irreducible metaphysical substance, namely rational animals. Certainly we<br />
possess material properties, as we do non-material ones; but these inhere in<br />
something distinctive. One implication of this is that when we speak of<br />
a (living) human body, the term ‘body’ is used not in the same, but in an