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> 235<br />
writing after Hegel but before Heidegger, described as ‘teutonic’ philosophy, 12<br />
but the language takes the form it does because of the unique character<br />
of the case. The entities with which we are acquainted, or of which we have<br />
descriptive knowledge, have natures that are characterizable independently of<br />
the fact of their existing. In every case, save that of God, we may speak of the<br />
being of a cat, or of a neutron, or whatever; or of the cat’s, or the neutron’s<br />
existing. Since that which is the ultimate cause of existence in every existing<br />
entity (whose nature is not ‘to-be’) cannot be other than being itself, or else<br />
its existence would call for explanation, we find ourselves speaking in<br />
odd-sounding terms of the ‘being of being’, or of ‘existence’s existing’. More<br />
simply we might say (hearing this both substantively <strong>and</strong> verbally) that God is<br />
Being, or to return to Aquinas’s formulation, God is subsistent being itself.<br />
As with the five ways it is clear that in putting forward the essence <strong>and</strong><br />
existence analysis, <strong>and</strong> in using it to argue to a cause of being in which they<br />
are necessarily coincident, the intended starting point is observation of<br />
independently existing sensible beings. I am suggesting, however, that the<br />
argument need not be so restricted. Moreover, in its metaphysical purity – in<br />
not invoking evidence of change, causality, orders of perfection, or teleology<br />
– it may lay claim to enjoying a special status, since it is available whatever<br />
one’s position in the debates between realism <strong>and</strong> anti-realism. Suppose, for<br />
example, one takes the view that sensible particulars <strong>and</strong>/or intelligible general<br />
natures have no mind-independent being but that their existence consists in<br />
their being entertained as intentional objects of experience <strong>and</strong> of intellection,<br />
respectively. This is the position advanced in full generality by Berkeley; but<br />
one finds partial instances of it in certain interpretations of the scholastic<br />
doctrines that the sensible ‘in act’ is the sense ‘in act’, <strong>and</strong> that the intelligible<br />
in act is the intellect in act. For Aquinas while the being-sensed of a sensible<br />
is one <strong>and</strong> the same reality as the sensing of it, there is nevertheless an<br />
objective mind-independent foundation for the sensible itself. 13 In the eyes of<br />
the Berkeleian, however, this latter insistence is no more than a prejudice,<br />
<strong>and</strong> one which is at best without significant content, rather like Locke’s<br />
postulation of substrata or Kant’s of noumena, <strong>and</strong> is at worst incoherent.<br />
Here there is no need to resolve the issue of the ultimate referents of<br />
cognition, for no party is disputing the existence of intentional states whose<br />
formal objects (what they are ‘about’) may or may not have mind-independent<br />
correlates. Between the realist <strong>and</strong> anti-realist there is agreement that<br />
thoughts are cognitive beings (existing things) with particular intentional<br />
contents. Their esse may be intentionale but it is no less actual; <strong>and</strong> similarly<br />
they are characterized by specific natures expressed by general or singular<br />
concepts. And so the existential proof can begin. While for the anti-realist<br />
the being of an object of cognition consists in its being cognized, on pain of<br />
regress the same cannot be true of the being of the act of cognition itself. In