Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Further Reflections on <strong>Theism</strong> 229<br />
theism; <strong>and</strong> fourth, to encourage others to develop the ‘Prime Thinker’<br />
line(s) of thought. Besides the fact that any philosophical claim can be contested,<br />
this argument involves a number of deep <strong>and</strong> controversial assumptions.<br />
I believe these to be correct, but they are not obviously so, <strong>and</strong> each line<br />
of the proof calls for detailed support. It is not possible to attempt that now,<br />
but I do wish to respond to doubts expressed about the argument. First,<br />
however, I need to clarify an uncertainty about the general character of the<br />
reasoning, due in part to the spirited ‘Prime Thinker’ title; <strong>and</strong> this will<br />
provide an opportunity to make good a broader omission in the original<br />
discussion.<br />
Previously I remarked that the ‘linguistic-communitarian’ account of initial<br />
concept aquisition, involving the actualization in a recipient of a potentiality<br />
by an agent that is already possesed of it, instantiates the structure of the first<br />
of Aquinas’s five ways: that from the occurrence of change. I then added that<br />
the particular change in question suggests ‘a more specific proof ’ (p. 104).<br />
Giving an example of a chain of concept-induction involving language learning<br />
among several siblings (Alice having been taught to use ‘cat’ by James<br />
who was taught by Kirsty), I contended (invoking Aquinas) that this could<br />
not go on forever but would only be halted by an intrinsically actual, actualizing<br />
source – this last being provided by God. Finally, I recalled passages in<br />
Genesis <strong>and</strong> in the Gospel of John where language is associated with human<br />
origins (Adam naming the animals) <strong>and</strong> with divine nature (the identification<br />
of Christ with the ‘Word’ (logos) of God).<br />
This additional theological flourish may have been a provocation too far,<br />
for it occasioned the question as to whether I literally suppose that God was<br />
the tutor of the first language users, <strong>and</strong> if so how I would square this with<br />
scientific evidence about the origins of language. It also prompted the observation<br />
that the Genesis passage is one in which Adam is invited to do some<br />
naming of kinds, suggesting that he did not need to have the power of<br />
conception actualized. I confess it would have suited me better had scripture<br />
read that God ‘began teaching Adam the ways of thinking about things’;<br />
but with Genesis we are in the sphere of the mythopoeic, in this case having<br />
to do with man’s place within animate creation. The fact that Adam is<br />
represented as being able to use language marks him out from the animals<br />
<strong>and</strong> emphasizes the special creation of homo loquens. So far as ‘tutoring’ is<br />
concerned, I believe that God’s efficacy is analogous to (<strong>and</strong> is the ultimate<br />
source of) that of the linguistic community in realizing the power of conceptual<br />
thought. If I am right in my claim that the latter involves intensional<br />
modes of (re)presentation, the identity <strong>and</strong> individuation conditions of<br />
which are finer grained than those of properties naturalistically identified (see<br />
pp. 106–7), then the matter of scientific evidence, though relevant to the<br />
question of the antecedents of conceptual language <strong>and</strong> to such matters as