12.07.2013 Views

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

240 J.J. <strong>Haldane</strong><br />

rests on implausible <strong>and</strong> avoidable claims about the objects of cognition being<br />

mental items. Berkeley’s arguments for these claims are effectively refuted by<br />

invoking the distinctions drawn earlier (between concepts as id quo <strong>and</strong> as<br />

id quod, <strong>and</strong> between cognitive <strong>and</strong> contiguous presence). But this leaves the<br />

thought, inspired by Berkeley <strong>and</strong> developed by Dummett, that the only way<br />

we can give sense to the anti-Protagorean belief that things are measured not<br />

by us but by the real is to define reality in terms of what is known by God.<br />

While it certainly maintains that the idea of the real is (implicitly) epistemically<br />

constrained, this variety of ‘anti-realism’ is far removed from anything that<br />

would encourage the sorts of ontological relativism, or social constructivism<br />

to which Smart <strong>and</strong> I are opposed.<br />

Moreover, there is perhaps an anticipation of this position in Aquinas. At<br />

the end of my reply to Smart (pp. 189–90) I suggested that God has so<br />

ordered creation that there is a progression from materially embodied forms<br />

(the natures of individual things) to their assimilation in the minds of created<br />

intellects (where they exist as universal concepts). I then added that as this is<br />

achieved we come to be more fully images of the creator, <strong>and</strong> quoted Aquinas<br />

to the effect that while things in nature are expressions of ideas in the mind<br />

of God, ideas in the minds of men are expressions of things in nature.<br />

Aquinas gives another expression of this idea when he writes:<br />

the Divine intellect is the explanation for the nature considered both in itself<br />

<strong>and</strong> as it exists singularly in particular things; <strong>and</strong> the nature considered in itself<br />

<strong>and</strong> in singular things is the explanation for our human underst<strong>and</strong>ing, as in a<br />

certain sense its ‘measure’. 20<br />

In this sense, at least, Mind makes the world in the act of knowing it. Yet<br />

since God’s knowledge of the structure of the world is practical, <strong>and</strong> not<br />

observational or speculative (as is ours), it should properly be said that God<br />

knows the world in making it.<br />

6 The Nature of God<br />

God is the originating <strong>and</strong> sustaining cause of everything other than God;<br />

both of its being <strong>and</strong> of its nature. Considered from a finite perspective this is<br />

an inconceivably vast <strong>and</strong> complex production <strong>and</strong> management responsibility,<br />

<strong>and</strong> it may suggest to some that God’s mind must itself be complex<br />

<strong>and</strong> his activities many <strong>and</strong> multifarious. Yet I claimed that God is perfectly<br />

simple: without parts <strong>and</strong> unchanging. I agree with Smart <strong>and</strong> others that if<br />

God were complex then the order of his mind <strong>and</strong> operations would itself call<br />

for an explanation; however, whereas he sees that as a reductio ad absurdum on

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!