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> 231<br />
Relatedly, there are two causal series operating in the induction of concept<br />
use. In the example of Kirsty, James <strong>and</strong> Alice one may attend either to the<br />
coming-to-be of an ability, or to the content of the ability, the power itself. In<br />
arguing for a ‘first cause’ Aquinas was concerned with ontological ultimacy<br />
not temporal primacy. Accordingly, he focusses on causal dependencies in<br />
which members of a series can be shown to be simultaneously dependent on<br />
an original cause. Let us say, then, that the series: a causes b, b causes c, c causes<br />
d, is per se when a <strong>and</strong> d are contemporaneous, <strong>and</strong> the relation ‘causes’ is<br />
transitive. In which case, a causes d in causing b <strong>and</strong> c; for example, I inscribe<br />
my name in moving my h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> in moving the pen held in it. Here there is<br />
an order of subordination, with the intermediary members mediating the<br />
causality of the initiating agent; <strong>and</strong> only operating under its influence. Hence<br />
even if the series were infinite there would still have to be a ‘First Cause’. By<br />
contrast, the series e causes f, f causes g, g causes h, is per accidens if e <strong>and</strong> h<br />
occur at different times <strong>and</strong> ‘causes’ is intransitive. My great-gr<strong>and</strong>father<br />
conceived my gr<strong>and</strong>father, who conceived my father, who conceived me.<br />
These events occurred over the course of a century <strong>and</strong> although my greatgr<strong>and</strong>father<br />
is among my progenitors, he did not conceive me. There seems to<br />
be no impossibility of an infinity of causes related per accidens; that is to say,<br />
nothing in the relation ‘conceiver of ’ shows that there must be a first member.<br />
Likewise, nothing in the relation ‘teacher of ’ necessitates a finite series.<br />
This much is true, but note, first, that no-one believes that the predicate<br />
‘human teacher of ’ is infinitely applicable into the past, so such a series does<br />
indeed strike us as finite; <strong>and</strong>, second, that even if there were an infinite series<br />
of human teachers this would not explain the genesis of the power itself (as<br />
against its coming to be actual in particular people). So we are obliged to seek<br />
two related explanations: of the emergence of conceptuality in homo sapiens;<br />
<strong>and</strong> of the source of the power of conceptuality per se. Since the first was<br />
pursued explicitly in my original contribution, let me offer a comment on the<br />
second. How is it possible that John came to be able to think of Molly the cat<br />
as a cat? Because Alice helped actualize this in virtue of being able to do so.<br />
And how did Alice come to be in that position? Because of James, <strong>and</strong> he<br />
because of Kirsty, <strong>and</strong> so on. What is missing in this is an answer to the<br />
question how is this ability possible at all ? How can there be conceptuality?<br />
Kirsty possesses <strong>and</strong> exercises a power of which she is not the author, since<br />
she is not intrinsically <strong>and</strong> essentially conceptualizing. Any antecedent source<br />
of this (‘antecedent’ now not being thought of not temporally but ontologically)<br />
must either be contingently conceptualizing or necessarily so; <strong>and</strong> if only<br />
contingently then the power is not yet explained. So we move upwards through<br />
the hierarchy to a first cause of conceptuality. In fact, although this formulation<br />
envisages a series of intermediate members I presume there is nothing<br />
between human conceptuality <strong>and</strong> its causative source, the mind of God.