Is There a God?

RICHARD SWINBURNE

7s

There a God?

offers a powerful response

to m o d e r n d o u b t s about the existence of G o d . It m a y s e e m t o d a y t h a t t h e a n s w e r s to all f u n d a m e n t a l q u e s t i o n s lie in t h e province of science, a n d that the scientific advances of the twentieth century leave little r o o m for G o d . C o s m o l o g i s t s h a v e rolled b a c k their theories to the m o m e n t of the Big B a n g , the d i s c o v e r y of D N A r e v e a l s t h e k e y to life, t h e t h e o r y of evolution explains the d e v e l o p m e n t of life... a n d with each n e w discovery or d e v e l o p m e n t , it s e e m s t h a t w e a r e c l o s e r to a c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h o w things are. For m a n y people, this gives s t r e n g t h to t h e b e l i e f t h a t G o d is n o t n e e d e d to explain the universe; that r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f is n o t b a s e d o n r e a s o n ; a n d that the e x i s t e n c e of G o d is, intellectually, a lost cause. Richard S w i n b u r n e , one of the m o s t distinguished philosophers of religion of o u r day, a r g u e s that o n the contrary, science provides g o o d g r o u n d s for belief i n G o d . W h y is t h e r e a u n i v e r s e

at all?

W h y i s t h e r e any l i f e o n E a r t h ? How

i s it

that discoverable scientific l a w s operate in t h e u n i v e r s e ? P r o f e s s o r S w i n b u r n e uses the m e t h o d s of scientific r e a s o n i n g to a r g u e that the b e s t a n s w e r s to t h e s e questions are given b y the existence of G o d . T h e picture of the universe that s c i e n c e g i v e s u s is c o m p l e t e d b y G o d .

IS THERE A GOD?

IS T H E R E A GOD? Richard Swinburne

Oxford

• New

York

O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS 1996

Oxford University Athens Calcutta

Oxford

New York

Auckland

Bangkok

Bombay

Cape Town Dar es Salaam

Florence Kuala

Oxford o x 2 6DP

Press, Walton Street,

Hong Kong

Lumpur

Istanbul

Madras

Madrid

Mexico City Nairobi Taipei

Paris

Tokyo

and associated

Melbourne Singapore

Toronto

companies

Berlin

Delhi

Karachi

in

Ibadan

Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University

Press

Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Richard

Swinburne

1996

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval s/stem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be sent to the Bights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser British Library

Cataloguing Data

Library

of Congress Cataloging Data ISBN

in Publication

available 0-19-823544-5

ISBN 0-19-823545-3 1 3 5 7 9

in Publication

Data

available

10

(Pbk) 8 6 4 2

Typeset by Hope Services Ltd Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddies Ltd., Guildford & King's Lynn

Data

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I AM g r a t e f u l t o a n u m b e r o f p e o p l e w h o r e a d a first v e r s i o n o f Is There a God? and h e l p e d m e t o e x p r e s s m y ideas in s i m p l e r ways than I w o u l d o t h e r w i s e have d o n e ; and a m o n g t h e m especially Basil M i t c h e l l , N o r m a n K r e t z m a n n , T i m B a r t o n and P e t e r M o m t c h i l o f f o f O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , and m y daught e r C a r o l i n e . I a m also m o s t g r a t e f u l t o M r s A n i t a H o l m e s f o r s o m e v e r y fast t y p i n g o f t w o v e r s i o n s o f this b o o k , in t h e midst of many other commitments.

[v]

CONTENTS Introduction

1

1 . God 2 . How We Explain 3.

3 20

Things

38

The Simplicity of God

4 . How the Existence of God Explains the World 48

and its Order 5 . How the Existence of God Explains the

Existence

of Humans

69

6.

Why God Allows Evil

95

7.

How the Existence of God Explains

Miracles

and Religious Experience

114

E p i l o g u e : So W h a t ?

140

[vii]

INTRODUCTION F o r t h e last t w e n t y o r t h i r t y years t h e r e has b e e n a revival o f s e r i o u s d e b a t e a m o n g p h i l o s o p h e r s in Britain and t h e U n i t e d States a b o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , c o n d u c t e d at a high level o f i n t e l l e c t u a l r i g o u r . It has b e e n r e c o g n i z e d that t h e s u b j e c t is n o t o n l y o f t h e highest i m p o r t a n c e , b u t also o f g r e a t i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t . C h r i s t i a n t h i n k e r s have b e e n t o t h e f o r e in this d e b a t e , and t h e d e b a t e has l e d t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e g r o w t h in n u m b e r s o f p h i l o s o p h y s t u d e n t s taking c o u r s e s o n t h e p h i l o sophy o f r e l i g i o n . L i t t l e o f t h i s , h o w e v e r , has r e a c h e d t h e g e n eral p u b l i c , w h o have b e e n l e d b y j o u r n a l i s t s and b r o a d c a s t e r s t o b e l i e v e that t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d i s , i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , a l o s t cause

and

that

religious

faith

is

an

entirely

non-rational

matter. T h e p u b l i c t h i n k i n g a b o u t such issues has b e e n i n f l u e n c e d by

several

books

by

distinguished

R i c h a r d D a w k i n s ' s The Blind

scientists,

Watchmaker

among

them

( 1 9 8 6 ) and S t e p h e n

H a w k i n g ' s A Brief History of Time ( 1 9 8 8 ) . W i t h t h e scientific t h e o r i e s a d v o c a t e d in t h e s e b o o k s I have relatively little q u a r r e l , and c a n o n l y a d m i r e H a w k i n g ' s d e p t h o f physical i n t u i t i o n and D a w k i n s ' s clarity o f e x p o s i t i o n . B u t t h e s e b o o k s c a r r y t h e suggestion that t h e i r scientific t h e o r i e s i n d i c a t e that t h e r e is n o G o d w h o is in any w a y i n v o l v e d in sustaining t h e w o r l d . T h e s e a u t h o r s a r e n o t , h o w e v e r , v e r y familiar w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l

[1]

Introduction d e b a t e and are o f t e n u n a w a r e o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h

their

v i e w s a b o u t G o d a r e o p e n t o c r i t i c i s m . M y a i m in w r i t i n g this b o o k is t o h e l p t o r e m e d y this situation b y p u t t i n g f o r w a r d f o r a w i d e r p u b l i c a s h o r t v e r s i o n o f t h e positive case f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d p u t f o r w a r d in m y e a r l i e r b o o k The Existence

of

God ( 1 9 7 9 ) . T h e basic s t r u c t u r e o f m y a r g u m e n t is this. S c i e n t i s t s , hist o r i a n s , and d e t e c t i v e s o b s e r v e data and p r o c e e d t h e n c e

to

s o m e theory about what best explains the o c c u r r e n c e o f these data. W e can analyse t h e c r i t e r i a w h i c h t h e y use in r e a c h i n g a c o n c l u s i o n that a c e r t a i n t h e o r y is b e t t e r s u p p o r t e d b y t h e data t h a n a d i f f e r e n t t h e o r y — t h a t i s , is m o r e l i k e l y , o n t h e basis o f t h o s e data, t o b e t r u e . U s i n g t h o s e s a m e c r i t e r i a , w e find that

the

view

that

there

is a

God

explains

everything

we

o b s e r v e , n o t j u s t s o m e n a r r o w r a n g e o f data. It e x p l a i n s t h e fact that t h e r e is a u n i v e r s e at all, that scientific laws o p e r a t e w i t h i n it, that it c o n t a i n s c o n s c i o u s animals and h u m a n s w i t h v e r y c o m p l e x i n t r i c a t e l y o r g a n i z e d b o d i e s , that w e have abundant o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r d e v e l o p i n g o u r s e l v e s and t h e w o r l d , as w e l l as t h e m o r e p a r t i c u l a r data that h u m a n s r e p o r t m i r a c l e s and have religious e x p e r i e n c e s . In s o far as scientific causes and laws e x p l a i n s o m e o f t h e s e things ( a n d in p a r t t h e y d o ) , t h e s e very

causes

and

laws

need

explaining,

and

God's

action

e x p l a i n s t h e m . T h e v e r y s a m e c r i t e r i a w h i c h scientists use t o r e a c h t h e i r o w n t h e o r i e s lead us t o m o v e b e y o n d t h o s e t h e o r ies t o a c r e a t o r G o d w h o sustains e v e r y t h i n g in e x i s t e n c e .

[2]

1 GOD

M y t o p i c is t h e c l a i m that t h e r e is a G o d , u n d e r s t o o d in t h e w a y that W e s t e r n r e l i g i o n ( C h r i s t i a n i t y , J u d a i s m , and Islam) has g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d that c l a i m . I call that c l a i m t h e i s m . In this c h a p t e r I shall spell o u t w h a t t h e claim a m o u n t s t o . T h e n in l a t e r c h a p t e r s w e can g o o n t o t h e g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v ing it t o b e t r u e . I e m p h a s i z e t h a t , in this c h a p t e r , w h e n I w r i t e that G o d d o e s this o r is like t h a t , I a m n o t a s s u m i n g that t h e r e is a G o d , b u t m e r e l y spelling o u t w h a t t h e c l a i m that t h e r e is a G o d a m o u n t s t o . I a m n o t d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d t o assess t h e claim that t h e r e is a G o d , w h e r e

' G o d ' is b e i n g

u n d e r s t o o d in s o m e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t s e n s e , as t h e n a m e o f a quite

different

sort o f being

from

the

one

worshipped

in

W e s t e r n r e l i g i o n . B u t , in arguing at various p o i n t s that t h e ism e x p l a i n s t h e o b s e r v e d data w e l l , I shall o c c a s i o n a l l y p o i n t out

that

other hypotheses,

including

ones which

invoke

a

' G o d ' in s o m e o t h e r s e n s e , e x p l a i n t h e data less w e l l . E v e n w i t h i n t h e m a i n s t r e a m o f t h e W e s t e r n t r a d i t i o n , t h e r e have b e e n s o m e d i f f e r e n c e s a b o u t w h a t G o d is l i k e , and I shall d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o s o m e o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s in this c h a p t e r and sugg e s t that s o m e views a b o u t w h a t G o d is like a r e t o b e p r e ferred to others.

[3]

God T h e i s m c l a i m s that G o d is a p e r s o n a l b e i n g — t h a t i s , in s o m e s e n s e a person.

B y a p e r s o n I m e a n an individual w i t h basic

p o w e r s ( t o act i n t e n t i o n a l l y ) , p u r p o s e s , and b e l i e f s . A n intentional

action is o n e w h i c h a p e r s o n does and m e a n s

t o d o — a s w h e n I w a l k d o w n s t a i r s o r say s o m e t h i n g w h i c h I m e a n t o say. A basic action is o n e w h i c h a p e r s o n d o e s i n t e n t i o n a l l y j u s t like that and n o t b y d o i n g any o t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n . M y g o i n g f r o m O x f o r d t o L o n d o n is a non-basic

action,

b e c a u s e I d o it b y d o i n g various o t h e r a c t i o n s — g o i n g t o t h e station, getting on the train, e t c . But squeezing m y hand o r m o v i n g m y leg and e v e n saying ' t h i s ' are basic a c t i o n s . I j u s t d o t h e m , n o t b y d o i n g any o t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l a c t . ( T r u e , c e r tain e v e n t s have t o h a p p e n in m y b o d y — m y n e r v e s have t o t r a n s m i t i m p u l s e s — i f I a m t o p e r f o r m t h e basic a c t i o n . t h e s e are n o t e v e n t s w h i c h I b r i n g a b o u t i n t e n t i o n a l l y .

But They

j u s t h a p p e n — I m a y n o t e v e n k n o w a b o u t t h e m . ) By a basic power I m e a n a p o w e r t o p e r f o r m a basic a c t i o n . W e h u m a n s have similar basic p o w e r s t o e a c h o t h e r . T h e y a r e n o r m a l l y c o n f i n e d t o p o w e r s o f t h o u g h t and p o w e r s o v e r t h e

small

c h u n k o f m a t t e r w h i c h each o f us calls his o r h e r b o d y . I can o n l y p r o d u c e e f f e c t s in t h e w o r l d o u t s i d e m y b o d y b y d o i n g s o m e t h i n g i n t e n t i o n a l w i t h m y b o d y . I can o p e n a d o o r b y grasping t h e h a n d l e w i t h m y hand and pulling it t o w a r d s m e ; o r I can g e t y o u t o k n o w s o m e t h i n g b y using m y m o u t h t o tell you something. W h e n I produce s o m e effect intentionally ( e . g . the d o o r being open) by doing s o m e o t h e r action (e.g. pulling it t o w a r d s m e ) , d o i n g t h e f o r m e r is p e r f o r m i n g a n o n basic a c t i o n . W h e n I g o t o L o n d o n , o r w r i t e a b o o k , o r e v e n put a s c r e w into a wall, these are non-basic actions which I do b y d o i n g s o m e basic a c t i o n s . W h e n I p e r f o r m any i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n , I s e e k t h e r e b y t o a c h i e v e s o m e purpose—normally

one

b e y o n d t h e m e r e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e a c t i o n i t s e l f (I o p e n a

[4]

God d o o r in o r d e r t o b e able t o leave t h e r o o m ) , b u t s o m e t i m e s simply t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e a c t i o n i t s e l f (as w h e n I sing for its o w n s a k e ) . Beliefs a r e v i e w s , o f t e n t r u e b u t s o m e t i m e s false, a b o u t h o w t h e w o r l d is. W h e n b e l i e f s a r e t r u e and w e l l j u s t i f i e d , t h e y constitute knowledge. beyond smell,

O u r human knowledge o f the

o u r b o d i e s is f o r m e d b y s t i m u l i — o f light, and such l i k e — c o m i n g

world sound,

from the world beyond

our

b o d i e s and landing o n o u r b o d i e s . It is b e c a u s e light p a r t i c l e s land o n o u r e y e s and s o u n d w a v e s ( i n c l u d i n g t h o s e p r o d u c e d b y s p e e c h ) land o n o u r ears that w e a c q u i r e o u r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e w o r l d . G o d is s u p p o s e d t o b e like us, in having b a s i c p o w e r s , b e l i e f s , and p u r p o s e s — b u t o n e s v e r y d i f f e r e n t f r o m ours. H u m a n persons are either male or female. But the theist, o f c o u r s e , c l a i m s that G o d is n e i t h e r m a l e n o r f e m a l e . T h e English language alas d o e s n o t have a p r o n o u n f o r r e f e r r i n g t o p e r s o n s w i t h o u t c a r r y i n g any i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e i r s e x . So I shall follow c u s t o m in r e f e r r i n g t o G o d as ' h e ' , b u t I e m p h a s i z e — w i t h o u t the implication o f maleness. G o d ' s basic p o w e r s a r e s u p p o s e d t o b e infinite: h e c a n b r i n g a b o u t as a basic a c t i o n any e v e n t h e c h o o s e s , and h e d o e s n o t n e e d b o n e s o r m u s c l e s t o o p e r a t e in c e r t a i n w a y s in o r d e r t o d o s o . H e can b r i n g o b j e c t s , i n c l u d i n g m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s , i n t o existence

and

moment.

We

keep

them

in

existence

from

moment

to

can i m a g i n e finding o u r s e l v e s having a basic

p o w e r n o t m e r e l y t o m o v e o b j e c t s , b u t t o c r e a t e t h e m instant a n e o u s l y — f o r e x a m p l e the p o w e r to m a k e a pen o r a rabbit c o m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e ; and t o k e e p t h e m in e x i s t e n c e and t h e n l e t t h e m n o l o n g e r e x i s t . T h e r e is n o c o n t r a d i c t i o n in this supp o s i t i o n , b u t o f c o u r s e in fact n o h u m a n has such a p o w e r . W h a t t h e t h e i s t c l a i m s a b o u t G o d is that he d o e s have a p o w e r t o c r e a t e , c o n s e r v e , o r annihilate a n y t h i n g , big o r s m a l l . A n d

[5]

God h e can also m a k e o b j e c t s m o v e o r d o anything e l s e . H e can m a k e t h e m a t t r a c t o r r e p e l e a c h o t h e r , in t h e w a y that s c i e n tists have d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e y d o , and m a k e t h e m c a u s e o t h e r o b j e c t s t o do o r suffer various t h i n g s : h e can m a k e t h e plane t s m o v e in t h e w a y t h a t K e p l e r d i s c o v e r e d that t h e y m o v e , or m a k e gunpowder explode w h e n w e set a m a t c h t o it; o r h e can m a k e p l a n e t s m o v e in q u i t e d i f f e r e n t w a y s , and c h e m ical s u b s t a n c e s e x p l o d e o r n o t e x p l o d e u n d e r q u i t e d i f f e r e n t conditions from those which n o w govern their behaviour. G o d is n o t l i m i t e d b y t h e laws o f n a t u r e ; h e m a k e s t h e m and h e can c h a n g e o r s u s p e n d t h e m — i f h e c h o o s e s . T o use t h e t e c h nical t e r m , G o d is omnipotent:

h e can d o anything.

H u m a n b e l i e f s are l i m i t e d in t h e i r s c o p e , and s o m e o f t h e m a r e t r u e and s o m e o f t h e m a r e false. G o d is s u p p o s e d t o b e omniscient—that

is, h e

knows

everything.

In o t h e r

words,

w h a t e v e r is t r u e , G o d k n o w s that it is t r u e . I f it s n o w e d o n 1 J a n u a r y 1 0 m i l l i o n BC o n t h e site o f p r e s e n t - d a y N e w Y o r k , G o d k n o w s that it s n o w e d t h e r e and t h e n . I f t h e r e is a p r o o f of

Goldbach's

conjecture

(something

mathematicians

have

b e e n t r y i n g t o d i s c o v e r f o r the past 3 0 0 y e a r s ) , G o d k n o w s w h a t it i s ; i f t h e r e is n o p r o o f , G o d k n o w s that t h e r e is n o p r o o f . All G o d ' s beliefs a r e t r u e , and G o d b e l i e v e s e v e r y t h i n g that is t r u e . H u m a n p e r s o n s a r e i n f l u e n c e d in f o r m i n g t h e i r p u r p o s e s b y t h e i r d e s i r e s , t h e i r i n - b u i l t i n c l i n a t i o n s t o m a k e this c h o i c e and n o t that o n e . O u r desires i n c l u d e t h o s e p r o d u c e d b y o u r b o d ily p h y s i o l o g y — s u c h

as d e s i r e s f o r f o o d ,

drink,

sleep,

and

s e x — a n d t h o s e f o r m e d in p a r t b y o u r c u l t u r e — s u c h as d e s i r e s f o r f a m e and f o r t u n e . W e a r e , it s e e m s t o us (I b e l i e v e , c o r r e c t l y ) , f r e e t o s o m e e x t e n t t o fight against o u r desires and d o s o m e a c t i o n o t h e r than o n e w h i c h w e a r e naturally i n c l i n e d t o d o , b u t it r e q u i r e s e f f o r t .

H u m a n b e i n g s have l i m i t e d f r e e

[6]

God w i l l . B u t G o d is s u p p o s e d t o b e n o t t h u s l i m i t e d . H e is perfectly free, in that d e s i r e s n e v e r e x e r t causal i n f l u e n c e o n h i m at all. N o t m e r e l y , b e i n g o m n i p o t e n t , c a n he do w h a t e v e r h e c h o o s e s , b u t h e is p e r f e c t l y f r e e in m a k i n g his c h o i c e s . G o d t h e n , t h e i s m c l a i m s , is a p e r s o n , o m n i p o t e n t , o m n i s c i e n t , and p e r f e c t l y f r e e .

But now

w e m u s t b e careful h o w

we

u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e c l a i m s . A n o m n i p o t e n t b e i n g c a n d o anyt h i n g . B u t d o e s t h a t m e a n that h e can m a k e t h e u n i v e r s e e x i s t and n o t e x i s t at t h e s a m e t i m e , m a k e 2 + 2 t o equal 5 , m a k e a shape s q u a r e and r o u n d at t h e s a m e t i m e , o r c h a n g e t h e past? T h e m a j o r i t y r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n has c l a i m e d that G o d c a n n o t d o t h e s e t h i n g s ; n o t b e c a u s e G o d is w e a k , b u t b e c a u s e

the

w o r d s — f o r e x a m p l e , ' m a k e a shape s q u a r e and r o u n d at t h e same t i m e ' — d o

n o t d e s c r i b e anything w h i c h m a k e s

sense.

T h e r e is n o t h i n g w h i c h w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a shape b e i n g b o t h s q u a r e and r o u n d . P a r t o f w h a t saying that s o m e t h i n g is s q u a r e involves is saying that that thing is n o t r o u n d . S o , in t e c h n i c a l words,

God

cannot

do what

is logically i m p o s s i b l e

(what

involves a s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t i o n ) . G o d can m a k e t h e u n i v e r s e e x i s t and G o d can m a k e t h e u n i v e r s e n o t e x i s t , b u t G o d

cannot

m a k e t h e u n i v e r s e e x i s t and n o t e x i s t at t h e s a m e t i m e . T h e r e a s o n w h y theists o u g h t t o say w h a t I have j u s t said was first grasped clearly by the great Christian philosophical theologian, St T h o m a s A q u i n a s , in t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . It s e e m s t o m e that t h e s a m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e that w e u n d e r s t a n d G o d b e i n g o m n i s c i e n t in a similarly c a r e f u l w a y . Just

as

God

cannot

be

required

to

do

what

is

logically

i m p o s s i b l e t o d o , so G o d c a n n o t b e r e q u i r e d t o k n o w w h a t is logically i m p o s s i b l e t o k n o w . It s e e m s t o m e that it is l o g i c ally i m p o s s i b l e t o k n o w ( w i t h o u t t h e possibility o f m i s t a k e ) w h a t s o m e o n e w i l l d o f r e e l y t o m o r r o w . If I a m really f r e e t o

[V]

God c h o o s e t o m o r r o w w h e t h e r I will g o t o L o n d o n

o r stay at

h o m e , t h e n i f a n y o n e t o d a y has s o m e b e l i e f a b o u t w h a t I will d o ( e . g . that I will g o t o L o n d o n ) , I have it in m y

power

t o m o r r o w t o m a k e that b e l i e f false ( e . g . b y staying at h o m e ) . So n o o n e ( n o t e v e n G o d ) can k n o w t o d a y ( w i t h o u t t h e p o s sibility o f m i s t a k e ) w h a t I w i l l c h o o s e t o d o t o m o r r o w . So I suggest that w e

understand

G o d being

omniscient

as

God

k n o w i n g at any t i m e all that is logically possible t o k n o w at that t i m e . T h a t w i l l n o t i n c l u d e k n o w l e d g e , b e f o r e t h e y have d o n e i t , o f w h a t h u m a n p e r s o n s w i l l do f r e e l y . S i n c e G o d is o m n i p o t e n t , it will o n l y b e b e c a u s e G o d a l l o w s t h e r e t o b e f r e e p e r s o n s that t h e r e will b e any f r e e p e r s o n s . So this l i m i t t o divine o m n i s c i e n c e arises f r o m t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s

(which

G o d c o u l d f o r e s e e ) o f his o w n c h o i c e t o c r e a t e f r e e a g e n t s . I m u s t , h o w e v e r , w a r n t h e r e a d e r that this v i e w o f m i n e that G o d d o e s n o t k n o w ( w i t h o u t t h e possibility o f m i s t a k e ) w h a t f r e e a g e n t s will do until t h e y d o it is n o t the n o r m a l Christian (or Jewish or Islamic) view. M y view is, h o w e v e r , implied, I b e l i e v e , b y c e r t a i n biblical passages; it s e e m s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e natural i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the b o o k o f J o n a h t h a t , w h e n

God

t o l d J o n a h t o p r e a c h t o N i n e v e h that it w o u l d b e d e s t r o y e d , h e b e l i e v e d that p r o b a b l y he w o u l d n e e d t o d e s t r o y it, b u t that fortunately, since the people o f Nineveh r e p e n t e d , G o d saw no

need

to

carry

out

his

prophecy.

In

advocating

this

r e f i n e m e n t o f o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f o m n i s c i e n c e , I a m simply c a r r y i n g f u r t h e r t h e p r o c e s s o f i n t e r n a l clarification o f t h e basic Christian understanding o f G o d which other Christian philos o p h e r s such as Aquinas p u r s u e d in e a r l i e r days. All this d o e s o f c o u r s e a s s u m e that h u m a n b e i n g s have s o m e l i m i t e d f r e e w i l l , in t h e sense that n o causes ( w h e t h e r b r a i n states o r G o d ) d e t e r m i n e fully h o w t h e y will c h o o s e . T h a t is t h e w a y it o f t e n s e e m s t o us that w e have such a p o w e r . E v e n

[8]

God the inanimate

world,

scientists n o w

realize,

is n o t

a fully

d e t e r m i n i s t i c w o r l d — a n d t h e w o r l d o f t h o u g h t and c h o i c e is e v e n less o b v i o u s l y a p r e d i c t a b l e w o r l d . (I shall h a v e a little m o r e t o say a b o u t this issue in C h a p t e r 5 . ) G o d — t h e o m n i p o t e n t , o m n i s c i e n t , and p e r f e c t l y f r e e p e r s o n — i s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i s m , eternal.

B u t t h e r e a r e t w o dif-

f e r e n t ways o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g ' e t e r n a l ' . W e can u n d e r s t a n d i t , as c l e a r l y t h e biblical w r i t e r s d i d , as e v e r l a s t i n g : G o d is e t e r nal in t h e s e n s e t h a t h e has e x i s t e d at e a c h m o m e n t o f past t i m e , e x i s t s n o w , and will e x i s t at e a c h m o m e n t o f f u t u r e t i m e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d ' e t e r n a l ' as ' t i m e l e s s ' : G o d is e t e r n a l in t h e s e n s e that h e e x i s t s o u t s i d e t i m e . T h i s l a t t e r is h o w all t h e g r e a t p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o l o g i a n s f r o m t h e f o u r t h t o t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y AD ( A u g u s t i n e , B o e t h i u s , and St T h o m a s A q u i n a s , f o r e x a m p l e ) u n d e r s t o o d G o d ' s e t e r n i t y . G o d d o e s n o t , o n this v i e w , s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , e x i s t t o d a y o r y e s t e r d a y o r t o m o r r o w — h e j u s t e x i s t s . In his o n e

timeless

' m o m e n t ' , h e ' s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ' causes t h e e v e n t s o f AD 1 9 9 5 and o f 5 8 7 BC. In this o n e t i m e l e s s m o m e n t also h e k n o w s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y (as t h e y h a p p e n ) w h a t is h a p p e n i n g in AD 1 9 9 5 and in 5 8 7 BC. F o r m y s e l f I c a n n o t m a k e m u c h s e n s e o f this s u g g e s t i o n — f o r m a n y r e a s o n s . F o r e x a m p l e , I c a n n o t s e e that anything can b e m e a n t b y saying t h a t G o d k n o w s (as t h e y happ e n ) t h e e v e n t s o f AD 1 9 9 5 unless it m e a n s that h e e x i s t s in 1 9 9 5 and k n o w s in 1 9 9 5 w h a t is h a p p e n i n g t h e n . A n d t h e n h e c a n n o t k n o w in t h e s a m e a c t o f k n o w l e d g e (as t h e y h a p p e n ) the events o f 5 8 7 B C — f o r these are different years. H e n c e I p r e f e r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f G o d b e i n g e t e r n a l as his b e i n g e v e r l a s t i n g r a t h e r than as his b e i n g t i m e l e s s . H e e x i s t s at e a c h m o m e n t o f unending time. All t h e o t h e r essential p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h t h e i s m to

God

at

each

moment

of time

[9]

follow

from

attributes the

three

God p r o p e r t i e s o f o m n i p o t e n c e , o m n i s c i e n c e , and p e r f e c t f r e e d o m . T h u s G o d is s u p p o s e d t o b e bodiless.

F o r a p e r s o n t o have a

b o d y is f o r t h e r e t o b e a c h u n k o f m a t t e r t h r o u g h w h i c h a l o n e h e o r she can m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e physical w o r l d and a c q u i r e t r u e b e l i e f s a b o u t it. B u t , b e i n g o m n i p o t e n t , G o d can m a k e d i f f e r e n c e s t o t h e w o r l d and l e a r n a b o u t it w i t h o u t b e i n g thus d e p e n d e n t . So h e will have n o b o d y ; h e d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n m a t t e r t o a f f e c t and learn a b o u t t h e w o r l d . H e m o v e s t h e stars, as w e m o v e o u r a r m s , j u s t like t h a t — a s a b a s i c a c t i o n . It f o l l o w s t o o f r o m his o m n i p o t e n c e that G o d is

omnipresent

( i . e . p r e s e n t e v e r y w h e r e ) , in t h e s e n s e that h e can m a k e a diff e r e n c e t o things e v e r y w h e r e everywhere

j u s t like t h a t ,

and k n o w w h a t is h a p p e n i n g

without

needing

arms

or

sense

o r g a n s o r t h e n o r m a l o p e r a t i o n o f light rays in o r d e r t o do s o . B u t , although he is e v e r y w h e r e p r e s e n t , he is n o t

spatially

e x t e n d e d ; h e d o e s n o t t a k e u p a v o l u m e o f s p a c e — f o r he has n o b o d y . N o r , t h e r e f o r e , d o e s h e have any spatial p a r t s : all o f h i m is p r e s e n t e v e r y w h e r e , in t h e s e n s e in w h i c h h e is p r e s e n t at a p l a c e . It is n o t that p a r t o f h i m is in E n g l a n d , and a n o t h e r p a r t in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . G o d b e i n g o m n i p o t e n t c o u l d have p r e v e n t e d t h e u n i v e r s e f r o m e x i s t i n g , i f h e had so c h o s e n . S o it e x i s t s o n l y b e c a u s e he a l l o w s it t o e x i s t . H e n c e e i t h e r he causes t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e u n i v e r s e , o r h e causes o r a l l o w s s o m e o t h e r a g e n t t o do s o . In this s e n s e , t h e r e f o r e , h e is t h e creator of the universe, being—by

the same

argument—equally

responsible

and,

for

its

c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e , h e is t h e sustainer o f t h e u n i v e r s e . H e is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e u n i v e r s e (and e v e r y o b j e c t w i t h i n i t ) f o r as l o n g as it e x i s t s . T h a t m a y b e a finite t i m e — t h e u n i v e r s e m a y have b e g u n t o e x i s t a c e r t a i n n u m b e r

of

years a g o ; c u r r e n t scientific e v i d e n c e suggests that t h e u n i v e r s e b e g a n t o e x i s t w i t h t h e ' B i g B a n g ' s o m e 1 5 , 0 0 0 m i l l i o n years

[10]

God a g o . O r t h e u n i v e r s e m a y have e x i s t e d f o r e v e r . T h e t h e i s t as such is n o t c o m m i t t e d t o o n e o r o t h e r o f t h e s e p o s i t i o n s . B u t t h e t h e i s t c l a i m s t h a t , e v e n i f t h e u n i v e r s e has e x i s t e d f o r e v e r , its e x i s t e n c e at e a c h m o m e n t o f t i m e is d u e t o t h e c o n s e r v i n g a c t i o n o f G o d at that m o m e n t . G o d is s u p p o s e d t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e , n o t m e r e l y f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f all o t h e r o b j e c t s , b u t f o r t h e i r having t h e p o w e r s and liabilities t h e y d o . I n a n i m a t e things h a v e c e r t a i n p o w e r s — f o r e x a m p l e , t o m o v e in c e r t a i n w a y s , a t t r a c t o r r e p e l e a c h o t h e r . T h e s e a r e n o t 'basic p o w e r s ' in t h e sense in w h i c h I was using t h e t e r m e a r l i e r ; a b a s i c p o w e r is a p o w e r t o do s o m e t h i n g i n t e n t i o n a l l y , b y c h o i c e . T h e p o w e r s o f i n a n i m a t e things a r e powers to produce effects, but n o t through choice or for a p u r p o s e . In g e n e r a l i n a n i m a t e things have t o act as t h e y d o , have to e x e r t their p o w e r s under certain

circumstances—the

g u n p o w d e r has t o e x p l o d e w h e n y o u light it at t h e r i g h t t e m p e r a t u r e and p r e s s u r e . T h a t is w h a t I m e a n b y saying that it has a liability t o e x e r t its p o w e r s u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ( O n t h e v e r y small s c a l e , t h e w o r l d is n o t fully d e t e r m i n i s t i c —atoms

and

smaller

particles

have

only

a probability,

a

p r o p e n s i t y t o do this r a t h e r than t h a t . T h e i r liability t o e x e r t t h e i r p o w e r s is o n l y a p r o p e n s i t y . B u t this r a n d o m n e s s is n o t a m a t t e r o f c h o i c e , and so t h e i r a c t i o n s are n o t i n t e n t i o n a l . ) God,

theism

claims,

causes

inanimate

things

to

have

the

p o w e r s and liabilities t h e y d o , at each m o m e n t w h e n t h e y have them.

God

continually

power to explode,

causes t h e g u n p o w d e r

t o have

and t h e liability t o e x e r c i s e t h e

the

power

w h e n it is ignited at t h e right t e m p e r a t u r e and p r e s s u r e . A n d l i k e w i s e , t h e i s m c l a i m s , G o d causes plants and animals ( a n d h u m a n b o d i e s , in so far as t h e y a c t

non-intentionally—for

e x a m p l e , w h e n t h e b l o o d is p u m p e d r o u n d o u r a r t e r i e s and v e i n s ) t o have t h e p o w e r s and liabilities t h e y d o . A n d G o d is

[11]

God also r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f h u m a n s . H e c o u l d cause us t o a c t o f physical n e c e s s i t y . B u t , given that w e have l i m i t e d f r e e w i l l , G o d d o e s n o t cause us t o f o r m t h e p u r p o s e s w e do.

T h a t is up t o u s . B u t G o d d o e s c o n s e r v e in us

from

m o m e n t t o m o m e n t o u r basic p o w e r s t o a c t , and thus e n s u r e s that the purposes w e form make a difference to the world. G o d a l l o w s us t o c h o o s e w h e t h e r t o f o r m t h e p u r p o s e o f m o v ing a h a n d o r n o t ; and G o d e n s u r e s that ( n o r m a l l y ) , w h e n w e f o r m that p u r p o s e , it is e f f i c a c i o u s — i f w e t r y t o m o v e

our

h a n d , it m o v e s . When

God

acts t o

produce

some

effect

by

conserving

o b j e c t s in e x i s t e n c e , and c o n s e r v i n g t h e i r p o w e r s and liabilities t o a c t , h e p r o d u c e s t h e e f f e c t in a n o n - b a s i c w a y . W h e n G o d m a k e s t h e g u n p o w d e r e x p l o d e b y c o n s e r v i n g its e x p l o s ive

power,

and

its

liability

to

exercise

the

power

when

i g n i t e d , h e p r o d u c e s t h e e x p l o s i o n in a n o n - b a s i c w a y — j u s t as w h e n I cause t h e d o o r t o b e o p e n b y pulling it t o w a r d s m e . G o d normally brings about ordinary historical events by these n o n - b a s i c r o u t e s — t h a t is, b y m a k i n g o t h e r o b j e c t s b r i n g a b o u t t h o s e e v e n t s . B u t h e c o u l d b r i n g a b o u t any e v e n t b y a basic a c t i o n ; and j u s t s o m e t i m e s , t h e t h e i s t n o r m a l l y c l a i m s , h e d o e s p r o d u c e e f f e c t s in a b a s i c w a y . H e o c c a s i o n a l l y i n t e r v e n e s in t h e natural w o r l d t o p r o d u c e e f f e c t s d i r e c t l y — f o r

example,

curing s o m e o n e o f cancer, when they would not get b e t t e r by n o r m a l p r o c e s s e s . (I shall say m o r e a b o u t such divine a c t i o n s in C h a p t e r 7 . ) G o d is s u p p o s e d t o b e perfectly

good.

His b e i n g

perfectly

g o o d f o l l o w s f r o m his b e i n g p e r f e c t l y f r e e and o m n i s c i e n t . A p e r f e c t l y f r e e p e r s o n w i l l inevitably d o w h a t h e b e l i e v e s t o b e ( o v e r a l l ) t h e b e s t a c t i o n and n e v e r d o w h a t h e b e l i e v e s t o b e an ( o v e r a l l ) b a d a c t i o n . In any situation t o f o r m a p u r p o s e t o achieve

some

goal,

to

try

to

[12]

achieve

some

goal

involves

God r e g a r d i n g t h e g o a l as in s o m e w a y a g o o d t h i n g . T o t r y t o g o t o L o n d o n , I m u s t r e g a r d m y b e i n g in L o n d o n as in s o m e w a y a good t h i n g — e i t h e r because I would enjoy being there,

or

because

or

thereby

I can

avoid s o m e

unpleasant occasion,

b e c a u s e it is m y d u t y t o b e in L o n d o n . T o r e g a r d s o m e a s p e c t o f b e i n g in L o n d o n as g o o d is t o have a r e a s o n f o r g o i n g t o L o n d o n . If I had n o r e a s o n at all f o r g o i n g t o L o n d o n ,

my

g o i n g t h e r e w o u l d n o t b e an i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n ( w o u l d n o t b e something I m e a n t to d o ) . A person's intentional actions must, t h e r e f o r e , in p a r t b e r a t i o n a l ; in t h e m h e m u s t b e g u i d e d in part by

rational

considerations.

Yet,

as n o t e d

earlier,

we

h u m a n s a r e n o t fully r a t i o n a l , b e i n g s u b j e c t t o d e s i r e s . (In calling d e s i r e s n o n - r a t i o n a l , I do not wish t o i m p l y that t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g w r o n g w i t h t h e m , and that w e o u g h t n o t t o yield t o t h e m . I m e a n o n l y that t h e y a r e i n c l i n a t i o n s w i t h w h i c h w e find o u r s e l v e s , n o t o n e s s o l e l y u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l o f r e a s o n s . ) B u t a p e r s o n f r e e f r o m desires w h o f o r m e d his p u r p o s e s solely o n t h e basis o f r a t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w o u l d inevitably do t h e action which he believed (overall) the best one to do, or (if t h e r e is n o t , t h e p e r s o n b e l i e v e s , a b e s t a c t i o n , b u t a n u m b e r o f equal b e s t a c t i o n s ) o n e o f t h e e q u a l b e s t a c t i o n s . Now,

if there

are

moral

truths—truths

about

what

is

m o r a l l y g o o d and b a d — a n o m n i s c i e n t p e r s o n will k n o w w h a t t h e y a r e . If, f o r e x a m p l e , lying is always m o r a l l y w r o n g , G o d will k n o w t h a t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f lying is w r o n g o n l y in c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e n G o d will k n o w t h a t . D e s p i t e t h e d o u b t s o f t h e o c c a s i o n a l h a r d e n e d s c e p t i c , w e d o a l m o s t all o f us t h i n k a l m o s t all t h e t i m e that t h e r e a r e s o m e acts w h i c h a r e m o r a l l y g o o d (and a m o n g t h e m s o m e w h i c h a r e m o r a l l y obliga t o r y ) , and s o m e w h i c h a r e m o r a l l y bad (and a m o n g

them

s o m e w h i c h a r e m o r a l l y w r o n g ) . It is m o r a l l y g o o d t o give (at least s o m e m o n e y s o m e t i m e s ) t o t h e starving, and o b l i g a t o r y

[13]

God t o f e e d o u r o w n c h i l d r e n w h e n t h e y a r e starving; and it is w r o n g t o t o r t u r e c h i l d r e n f o r fun. W h o can s e r i o u s l y d e n y t h e s e things? T h e m o r a l l y g o o d is t h e o v e r a l l g o o d . T o say that it is m o r a l l y g o o d t o f e e d t h e starving is n o t t o say that it is g o o d in all r e s p e c t s , in d e p r i v i n g us o f m o n e y it m a y d e p r i v e us o f s o m e f u t u r e e n j o y m e n t , and so giving w i l l n o t b e g o o d in all r e s p e c t s . B u t it is g o o d in t h e m o r e i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t that it saves t h e lives o f h u m a n b e i n g s and so gives t h e m t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r m u c h f u t u r e w e l l - b e i n g . In c o n s e q u e n c e , it is o v e r a l l a g o o d a c t — o r so s o m e o n e c l a i m s w h o c l a i m s that it is a m o r a l l y g o o d a c t . G o d , b e i n g o m n i s c i e n t , will have t r u e b e l i e f s a b o u t w h a t is m o r a l l y g o o d , a n d , b e i n g p e r f e c t l y f r e e , h e will d o w h a t h e b e l i e v e s is ( o v e r a l l ) t h e b e s t . S o h e will always do w h a t is overall t h e b e s t , and n e v e r do w h a t is o v e r all b a d . H e n c e G o d will b e p e r f e c t l y g o o d . S o m e m o r a l truths are clearly m o r a l truths, w h e t h e r or n o t t h e r e is a G o d : it is surely w r o n g t o t o r t u r e c h i l d r e n f o r fun w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e is a G o d . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f t h e i s m is t r u e , w e o w e o u r e x i s t e n c e f r o m m o m e n t t o m o m e n t t o t h e c o n s e r v i n g a c t i o n o f G o d ; and he gives us this w o n d e r f u l w o r l d t o e n j o y . ( O f c o u r s e n o t all aspects o f this w o r l d a r e wonderful,

and I will c o m e

t o c o n s i d e r its bad a s p e c t s in

C h a p t e r 6 . ) G o d is a g e n e r o u s b e n e f a c t o r . O n e o f t h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l h u m a n o b l i g a t i o n s ( i . e . d u t i e s ) is ( w i t h i n l i m i t s ) t o please o u r m a j o r b e n e f a c t o r s — t o do in r e t u r n f o r t h e m s o m e small favour w h i c h t h e y r e q u e s t in r e t u r n f o r t h e g r e a t things t h e y have given u s . If t h e i s m is t r u e , G o d is b y far o u r g r e a t e s t b e n e f a c t o r , f o r all o u r o t h e r b e n e f a c t o r s d e p e n d f o r t h e i r ability t o b e n e f i t us on G o d ' s sustaining p o w e r . W e o w e G o d a l o t . H e n c e ( w i t h i n l i m i t s ) , i f G o d tells us t o d o c e r t a i n t h i n g s , it b e c o m e s o u r duty t o d o t h e m . J u s t as ( w i t h i n n a r r o w l i m i t s ) it b e c o m e s o u r duty t o d o c e r t a i n things i f o u r

[14]

God p a r e n t s ( w h e n w e a r e c h i l d r e n ) t e l l us t o d o t h e m , o r t h e state tells us t o d o t h e m , so ( w i t h i n w i d e r l i m i t s ) it b e c o m e s o u r duty t o d o things i f G o d tells us t o d o t h e m . F o r e x a m p l e , it w o u l d n o t b e a d u t y t o w o r s h i p G o d especially o n Sundays i f G o d did n o t tell us t o d o s o ; b u t , i f G o d tells us t o w o r s h i p h i m t h e n , it b e c o m e s o u r d u t y . ( A n d i f his c o m m a n d r e f e r s t o Saturdays o r Fridays i n s t e a d , t h e n o u r duty is t o w o r s h i p h i m t h e n . ) A n d , i f G o d tells us t o d o s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is o u r duty anyway f o r o t h e r r e a s o n s ( e . g . t o e n s u r e that o u r o w n child r e n a r e fed and e d u c a t e d ) , it b e c o m e s e v e n m o r e o u r duty t o d o that t h i n g . G o d is thus a s o u r c e o f m o r a l

obligation—

his c o m m a n d s c r e a t e m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n s . B u t G o d c l e a r l y cann o t m a k e things w h i c h a r e o u r duty n o l o n g e r o u r d u t y : h e c a n n o t m a k e it r i g h t t o t o r t u r e c h i l d r e n f o r fun. T h a t b e i n g s o , it f o l l o w s f r o m his p e r f e c t g o o d n e s s that h e will n o t c o m m a n d us t o d o s o — f o r

it is w r o n g

to command

what

is

wrong. It m a y surprise s o m e m o d e r n r e a d e r s t o suppose that a t h e ist can a l l o w that s o m e m o r a l t r u t h s a r e m o r a l t r u t h s q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e will o f G o d . T h i s i s , h o w e v e r , an issue o n w h i c h t h e C h r i s t i a n p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n has b e e n split right d o w n t h e m i d d l e ; and I side w i t h t w o o f its g r e a t e s t r e p r e sentatives—St

Thomas

Aquinas

and t h e

fourteenth-century

S c o t t i s h p h i l o s o p h e r D u n s S c o t u s — i n h o l d i n g that t h e r e a r e m o r a l t r u t h s i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e will o f G o d . G o d can o n l y enforce these, n o t alter t h e m . But, if there are moral truths such as 'it is w r o n g t o t o r t u r e c h i l d r e n f o r f u n ' w h i c h h o l d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e w i l l o f G o d , t h e y w i l l b e like ' n o shape c a n b e b o t h r o u n d and square at t h e s a m e t i m e ' ; t h e y m u s t h o l d w h a t e v e r t h e w o r l d is l i k e , and that is b e c a u s e t h e r e is n o sense u l t i m a t e l y in supposing t h e m n o t t o h o l d . G o o d actions are o f t w o kinds. T h e r e are obligations ( i . e .

[IS]

God d u t i e s ) , and t h e r e a r e g o o d a c t i o n s b e y o n d o b l i g a t i o n — c a l l e d s u p e r e r o g a t o r y g o o d a c t i o n s . W e a r e b l a m e w o r t h y i f w e fail t o fulfil o u r o b l i g a t i o n s b u t n o r m a l l y n o t p r a i s e w o r t h y

for

fulfilling t h e m . C o n v e r s e l y , n o b l a m e a t t a c h e s t o us i f w e fail to do some supererogatory good act, but w e are praiseworthy i f w e d o i t . J u s t w h e r e t h e line is t o b e d r a w n is n o t always o b v i o u s . B u t it is c l e a r that t h e r e is a l i n e . If I b o r r o w m o n e y , I have an o b l i g a t i o n t o r e p a y .

If I fail t o r e p a y

borrowed

m o n e y , I a m b l a m e w o r t h y ; b u t I d o n o t n o r m a l l y d e s e r v e any praise f o r r e p a y i n g t h e m o n e y . C o n v e r s e l y , I have n o obligat i o n t o t h r o w m y s e l f o n a g r e n a d e w h i c h is a b o u t t o e x p l o d e in o r d e r t o save t h e life o f a f r i e n d w h o is standing c l o s e . B u t i f I d o t h e a c t i o n , I d e s e r v e t h e highest p r a i s e .

Obligations

m o s t l y arise f r o m b e n e f i t s v o l u n t a r i l y a c c e p t e d o r u n d e r t a k ings voluntarily e n t e r e d i n t o . I have n o o b l i g a t i o n t o m a r r y and have c h i l d r e n ; b u t , if I d o have c h i l d r e n , I have an obligat i o n t o f e e d and e d u c a t e t h e m . T h i s suggests that G o d b e f o r e h e c r e a t e s any o t h e r p e r s o n s has n o o b l i g a t i o n s , t h o u g h it is a s u p e r e r o g a t o r y g o o d act f o r h i m t o c r e a t e m a n y o t h e r p e r s o n s i n c l u d i n g h u m a n s . I f h e d o e s c r e a t e t h e m , h e will t h e n i n c u r certain obligations towards t h e m . Exactly what those are may b e d i s p u t e d , b u t t h e C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n has n o r m a l l y

main-

t a i n e d , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t , i f G o d m a k e s p r o m i s e s t o u s , he is obliged to keep t h e m . T o fail t o fulfil y o u r o b l i g a t i o n s is always an o v e r a l l b a d a c t , b u t o b l i g a t i o n s a r e l i m i t e d . G o d can easily, and in v i r t u e o f his p e r f e c t g o o d n e s s will easily, fulfil all his o b l i g a t i o n s .

But

t h e r e is n o l i m i t t o t h e p o s s i b l e acts o f s u p e r e r o g a t o r y g o o d n e s s w h i c h a p e r s o n c a n d o e x c e p t any l i m i t arising f r o m his o r h e r p o w e r s . W e h u m a n s have l i m i t e d p o w e r s ; and can d o o n l y a f e w l i m i t e d s u p e r e r o g a t o r y g o o d a c t s . I can give m y savings t o o n e c h a r i t y , b u t t h e n I will b e u n a b l e t o give any-

[16]

God t h i n g t o a n o t h e r c h a r i t y . If I d e v o t e m y life t o c a r i n g f o r o n e g r o u p o f c h i l d r e n in E n g l a n d , I shall b e u n a b l e t o c a r e a n o t h e r g r o u p o f c h i l d r e n in a distant land. G o d ' s

for

powers,

h o w e v e r , a r e u n l i m i t e d . B u t e v e n G o d , w e have s e e n , c a n n o t d o t h e logically i m p o s s i b l e . A n d it is logically i m p o s s i b l e t o do e v e r y p o s s i b l e s u p e r e r o g a t o r y g o o d a c t . It is g o o d that G o d should c r e a t e p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g h u m a n p e r s o n s . B u t , h o w e v e r m a n y h e c r e a t e s , it w o u l d b e e v e n b e t t e r i f he c r e a t e d m o r e ( p e r h a p s w e l l s p a c e d o u t in an infinitely large u n i v e r s e ) . G i v e n that h u m a n life is in g e n e r a l a g o o d t h i n g , t h e m o r e o f it t h e b e t t e r . G o d c a n n o t c r e a t e t h e b e s t o f all possible w o r l d s , f o r t h e r e can b e n o such w o r l d — a n y w o r l d can b e i m p r o v e d b y adding m o r e p e r s o n s t o it, and n o d o u b t in p l e n t y o f o t h e r ways as w e l l . So w h a t d o e s G o d ' s p e r f e c t g o o d n e s s a m o u n t t o ? N o t that h e d o e s all possible g o o d a c t s — t h a t is n o t logically p o s s i b l e . P r e s u m a b l y t h a t h e fulfils his o b l i g a t i o n s , d o e s n o bad a c t s , and p e r f o r m s very m a n y g o o d a c t s . So G o d ' s p e r f e c t g o o d n e s s p l a c e s v e r y little r e s t r i c t i o n o n w h i c h a c t i o n s h e will d o . T h e r e s t r i c t i o n that he m u s t p e r f o r m n o b a d a c t s , and so fulfil all his o b l i g a t i o n s , m a y l i m i t s o m e w h a t w h a t h e can d o w i t h c r e a t u r e s w h i l e h e k e e p s t h e m in b e i n g . B u t it d o e s n o t , I suggest, o b l i g e h i m t o k e e p t h e m in b e i n g f o r e v e r ( g o o d t h o u g h it is in s o m e cases that h e s h o u l d ) , l e t a l o n e c r e a t e t h e m in t h e first p l a c e . B u t t h e r e is o p e n t o G o d an infinite r a n g e o f g o o d a c t s : infinitely m a n y d i f f e r e n t u n i v e r s e s w h i c h h e c o u l d c r e a t e , and infinitely m a n y d i f f e r e n t things h e c o u l d d o w i t h t h e m — a l l p o s s i b l e e x p r e s s i o n s o f c r e ative o v e r f l o w i n g l o v e . Y e t , although t h e r e a r e infinitely m a n y different universes he could c r e a t e , there are perhaps only a small n u m b e r o f kinds o f u n i v e r s e h e c o u l d c r e a t e . H e c o u l d create universes containing s o m e persons o f limited

powers

such as h u m a n s , o r u n i v e r s e s w i t h o u t s u c h p e r s o n s . A n d t h e

[17]

God o b v i o u s g o o d n e s s o f at l e a s t o n e u n i v e r s e o f t h e f o r m e r k i n d m a k e s it q u i t e likely that h e will c r e a t e o n e . B u t t h e r e is n o l i m i t t o t h e possibilities o f h o w m a n y p e r s o n s it c o u l d c o n t a i n , and i n d e e d w h i c h p e r s o n s t h e y a r e . G o d m u s t c h o o s e w h i c h t o do o f t h e infinitely m a n y g o o d a c t i o n s , e a c h o f w h i c h h e has a r e a s o n t o d o . S o , like o u r s e l v e s in a situation w h e r e w e have a c h o i c e b e t w e e n a c t i o n s e a c h o f w h i c h w e have equal reason to do, God must perform a 'mental t o s s - u p ' — d e c i d e , that is, o n w h i c h r e a s o n t o act in a w a y w h i c h is n o t d e t e r m i n e d b y his n a t u r e o r anything e l s e . W e can u n d e r s t a n d such an o p e r a t i o n o f n o n - d e t e r m i n e d r a t i o n a l c h o i c e , f o r w e s e e m s o m e t i m e s t o e x p e r i e n c e it in o u r s e l v e s . S o it f o l l o w s f r o m G o d b e i n g e v e r l a s t i n g l y o m n i p o t e n t , o m n i scient,

and p e r f e c t l y

free

that h e is everlastingly

bodiless,

o m n i p r e s e n t , c r e a t o r and sustainer o f t h e u n i v e r s e , p e r f e c t l y g o o d , and a s o u r c e o f m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n . B u t t h e i s m d o e s n o t claim m e r e l y that t h e p e r s o n w h o is G o d has t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s o f b e i n g everlastingly o m n i p o t e n t , o m n i s c i e n t , and p e r f e c t l y f r e e . It c l a i m s that G o d has t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s n e c e s s a r i l y — t h e s e a r e essential properties o f G o d . L e t m e e x p l a i n w h a t this m e a n s . E v e r y o b j e c t has s o m e essential p r o p e r t i e s and s o m e a c c i d e n tal ( i . e . n o n - e s s e n t i a l ) p r o p e r t i e s . T h e essential p r o p e r t i e s o f an o b j e c t a r e t h o s e w h i c h it c a n n o t l o s e w i t h o u t ceasing t o e x i s t . O n e o f t h e essential p r o p e r t i e s o f m y d e s k , f o r e x a m p l e , is that it o c c u p i e s s p a c e . It c o u l d n o t c e a s e t o space ( b e c o m e

occupy

d i s e m b o d i e d ) and y e t c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t .

c o n t r a s t , o n e o f its a c c i d e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s is b e i n g b r o w n . c o u l d still e x i s t i f I p a i n t e d it r e d so that it was n o brown.

By It

longer

P e r s o n s a r e essentially o b j e c t s w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l t o

have ( i n t e n t i o n a l ) p o w e r s , p u r p o s e s , and b e l i e f s . I m a y

be

t e m p o r a r i l y paralysed and u n c o n s c i o u s and so h a v e t e m p o r a r -

[18]

God ily l o s t t h e p o w e r t o t h i n k o r m o v e m y l i m b s . B u t , i f I l o s e t h e p o t e n t i a l t o have t h e s e p o w e r s ( i f I lose t h e m b e y o n d t h e p o w e r o f medical or other help t o restore t h e m ) , then I cease t o e x i s t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , m y p o w e r s can g r o w o r d i m i n ish, and m y b e l i e f s c a n c h a n g e (I can f o r g e t things I o n c e k n e w , and a c q u i r e n e w areas o f k n o w l e d g e ) , w h i l e t h e s a m e I c o n t i n u e s t o e x i s t t h r o u g h all t h e c h a n g e . B y c o n t r a s t , t h e i s m m a i n t a i n s that t h e p e r s o n a l b e i n g w h o is G o d c a n n o t l o s e any o f his p o w e r s o r k n o w l e d g e o r b e c o m e s u b j e c t t o i n f l u e n c e b y d e s i r e . If G o d lost any o f his p o w e r s , h e w o u l d c e a s e t o e x i s t , j u s t as m y desk w o u l d c e a s e t o e x i s t i f it c e a s e d t o o c c u p y s p a c e . A n d e t e r n i t y ( t h a t i s , e v e r l a s t i n g n e s s ) also b e i n g an essential p r o p e r t y

of God, no

indi-

vidual w h o had b e g u n t o e x i s t o r c o u l d c e a s e t o e x i s t w o u l d be God. If, as t h e i s m m a i n t a i n s , t h e r e is a G o d w h o is essentially e t e r n a l l y o m n i p o t e n t , o m n i s c i e n t , and p e r f e c t l y f r e e , t h e n h e will b e the u l t i m a t e b r u t e fact w h i c h e x p l a i n s e v e r y t h i n g e l s e . G o d is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e v e r y t h i n g else b e s i d e s h i m s e l f and f o r it b e i n g as it is and having t h e p o w e r s and liabilities it d o e s ; b y his c o n t i n u a l a c t i o n at e a c h m o m e n t o f t i m e , G o d ' s o w n e x i s t e n c e is t h e o n l y thing w h o s e e x i s t e n c e G o d ' s a c t i o n d o e s n o t e x p l a i n . F o r that t h e r e is n o e x p l a n a t i o n . In that sense G o d is a n e c e s s a r y b e i n g , s o m e t h i n g w h i c h e x i s t s u n d e r its o w n s t e a m , n o t d e p e n d e n t o n anything e l s e . So

that

is t h e

God

whom

theists

(Christian,

Jewish,

and

Islamic a m o n g o t h e r s ) c l a i m t o e x i s t . W h y should w e b e l i e v e t h e m ? T o a n s w e r that q u e s t i o n w e m u s t l o o k at t h e c r i t e r i a w h i c h s c i e n t i s t s , h i s t o r i a n s and o t h e r s use w h e n t h e y p u t f o r w a r d t h e i r t h e o r i e s a b o u t t h e causes o f w h a t t h e y o b s e r v e .

[19]

2 HOW WE EXPLAIN THINGS Two Kinds The

of

world

philosophers trees,

Explanation

consists

of

sometimes

objects—or, call

them,

more

technically,

substances.

stars and g a l a x i e s , a t o m s and e l e c t r o n s ,

h u m a n b e i n g s are all substances.

as

Desks

and

animals

and

(I m u s t w a r n t h e r e a d e r that I

a m using t h e w o r d ' s u b s t a n c e ' n o t as t h e n a m e o f a kind o f t h i n g — s u c h as oil o r s u l p h u r — b u t as t h e n a m e o f individual things.

It is this desk o r that t r e e

which

is a

substance.)

S u b s t a n c e s have p r o p e r t i e s : t h e y a r e square o r have such and such a m a s s o r e l e c t r i c c h a r g e ; and t h e y have r e l a t i o n s t o o t h e r s u b s t a n c e s : o n e s u b s t a n c e is 1 0 f e e t away f r o m s o m e

other

s u b s t a n c e o r t o t h e l e f t o f it, e x i s t s e a r l i e r than i t , o r l o o k s y e l l o w t o i t . A s u b s t a n c e having a p r o p e r t y (this desk having a m a s s o f 1 0 k g ) o r r e l a t i o n ( t h e desk standing o n t h e f l o o r ) , o r changing its p r o p e r t i e s (this l u m p o f p u t t y c h a n g i n g f r o m b e i n g s q u a r e t o b e i n g r o u n d ) o r r e l a t i o n s ( m e m o v i n g away f r o m y o u ) , o r c o m i n g i n t o e x i s t e n c e o r ceasing t o e x i s t is an event ( o r p h e n o m e n o n ) . E v e n t s a r e caused b y s u b s t a n c e s . T h e dynamite

caused

the

explosion,

one

billiard

ball

caused

a n o t h e r t o m o v e a w a y , and t h e m a r k s m a n c a u s e d t h e m o t i o n

[20]

How We Explain

Things

o f t h e g u n t r i g g e r . O f t e n m a n y s u b s t a n c e s c o m b i n e t o cause s o m e event. Several painters may c o m b i n e t o cause a house t o b e p a i n t e d , and sun and e a r t h m a y b o t h e x e r t f o r c e o n t h e m o o n so as t o cause it t o m o v e in a c e r t a i n p a t h . H u m a n b e i n g s h a v e always s o u g h t t h e t r u e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f all t h e e v e n t s (all t h e p h e n o m e n a ) o f w h i c h t h e y k n o w , have s o u g h t t o d i s c o v e r t h e causes o f e v e n t s and t h e r e a s o n s w h y t h o s e causes had t h e e f f e c t s t h e y did. W e have had p r a c t i c a l aims in this: i f w e k n o w w h a t causes e x p l o s i o n s o r t h e g r o w t h o f p l a n t s , t h e n w e can b r i n g t h e s e things a b o u t o u r s e l v e s . B u t h u m a n s have also had d e e p n o n - p r a c t i c a l aims in finding o u t t h e causes o f things and t h e r e a s o n s w h y t h e causes p r o d u c e d t h e e f f e c t s t h e y d i d — b o t h t h e causes o f p a r t i c u l a r things ( w h a t m a d e t h e P r e s i d e n t o r t h e P r i m e M i n i s t e r say w h a t h e d i d ) , and o f v e r y g e n e r a l things ( w h a t causes leaves t o b e g r e e n , o r animals t o e x i s t ; and h o w do t h e y cause t h e s e e f f e c t s ) . W e find t w o d i f f e r e n t kinds o f e x p l a n a t i o n s o f e v e n t s , t w o d i f f e r e n t ways in w h i c h o b j e c t s cause e v e n t s . T h e r e is inanim a t e c a u s a t i o n , and t h e r e is i n t e n t i o n a l c a u s a t i o n . W h e n t h e d y n a m i t e causes a p a r t i c u l a r e x p l o s i o n , it d o e s so b e c a u s e it has, a m o n g its p r o p e r t i e s , t h e p o w e r t o d o so and t h e liability t o e x e r c i s e that p o w e r u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s — w h e n it is ignited at a c e r t a i n t e m p e r a t u r e and p r e s s u r e . It has t o cause t h e e x p l o s i o n u n d e r t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s ; it has n o o p t i o n ,

and

t h e r e is n o t h i n g p u r p o s i v e a b o u t it d o i n g s o . B u t t h e d y n a m i t e was ignited b e c a u s e , say, a t e r r o r i s t ignited it. T h e

terrorist

caused t h e i g n i t i o n , b e c a u s e h e had t h e p o w e r t o d o s o , t h e b e l i e f that d o i n g so w o u l d cause an e x p l o s i o n , and t h e p u r p o s e o f causing an e x p l o s i o n . H e c h o s e t o cause t h e i g n i t i o n ; h e c o u l d have d o n e o t h e r w i s e . H e r e w e have t w o kinds o f e x p l a n a t i o n . T h e first, in t e r m s o f p o w e r s and liabilities, is inanimate

explanation.

The

second,

[21]

in

terms

of

powers,

How We Explain

Things

b e l i e f s , and p u r p o s e s , is i n t e n t i o n a l , o r — a s I shall call it in future—personal

explanation.

Different

phenomena

e x p l a i n e d in d i f f e r e n t w a y s : s o m e e v e n t s a r e b r o u g h t

are about

i n t e n t i o n a l l y b y p e r s o n s (and a n i m a l s , s o m e o f w h o m also a c t i n t e n t i o n a l l y ) , and s o m e e v e n t s a r e b r o u g h t a b o u t b y inanim a t e things. T h e p e r s o n a l - e x p l a n a t i o n m o d e l o f e x p l a n a t i o n i s , like t h e i n a n i m a t e o n e , u n a v o i d a b l e in o u r thinking a b o u t t h e w o r l d . S o m e t h i n k e r s have c l a i m e d that p e r s o n s and t h e i r p u r p o s e s r e a l l y m a k e n o d i f f e r e n c e t o w h a t h a p p e n s ; b r a i n e v e n t s cause and a r e caused b y o t h e r n e r v e e v e n t s and b r i n g a b o u t b o d i l y m o v e m e n t s w i t h o u t p e r s o n s and p u r p o s e s m a k i n g any differe n c e . B u t n o o n e can t h i n k c o n s i s t e n t l y in that w a y . T o f o r m a p u r p o s e (in t h e s e n s e w h i c h I have d e s c r i b e d ) t o m o v e o n e ' s h a n d o r w h a t e v e r involves t r y i n g t o m o v e t h e h a n d . A n d w e k n o w v e r y w e l l t h a t , i f w e c e a s e d t o f o r m p u r p o s e s and t o t r y t o e x e c u t e t h e m , n o t h i n g w o u l d h a p p e n ; w e w o u l d cease t o e a t and talk and w r i t e and w a l k as w e d o . W h a t w e t r y t o a c h i e v e m a k e s all t h e d i f f e r e n c e t o w h a t h a p p e n s . Scientists

refine

our

ordinary

everyday

explanations

of

e v e n t s . Physics and c h e m i s t r y p r o v i d e i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n s , and so m u c h h i s t o r y ,

psychology,

sociology,

and

detective

w o r k p r o v i d e p e r s o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n s . W e find that i n a n i m a t e o b j e c t s o f similar kinds all have similar p o w e r s , and similar liabilities t o e x e r c i s e t h o s e p o w e r s u n d e r d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s . It is n o t m e r e l y that h e a t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e o f c o p p e r causes it t o e x p a n d , b u t that all c o p p e r e x p a n d s w h e n h e a t e d . T h e s e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a b o u t w h e n things e x e r c i s e t h e i r p o w e r s called

laws

of nature,

or

natural

laws,

or

scientific

are

laws.

P s y c h o l o g i s t s and s o c i o l o g i s t s have n o t so far b e e n n e a r l y as successful at

finding

generalizations about human

purposive

b e h a v i o u r . B u t n o d o u b t t h e r e a r e s o m e generalizations t o b e

[22]

How We Explain

Things

f o u n d a b o u t w h i c h h u m a n p e r s o n s have w h i c h p o w e r s

and

beliefs under which circumstances; and, to s o m e e x t e n t , about which

purposes

they

will

probably

(though

not

certainly)

form. I f e v e r y o b j e c t in t h e w o r l d had d i f f e r e n t p o w e r s and liabilities ( t o e x e r c i s e t h e m u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s ) f r o m e v e r y o t h e r o n e , t h e w o r l d w o u l d b e a v e r y c o m p l i c a t e d and u n p r e d i c t a b l e p l a c e . B u t it is a f o r t u n a t e f a c t , w h i c h I shall b e g o i n g o n t o e m p h a s i z e q u i t e a l o t , that o b j e c t s fall i n t o kinds w h o s e m e m b e r s all b e h a v e in t h e s a m e w a y . All v o l u m e s o f w a t e r f r e e z e at the s a m e t e m p e r a t u r e — t h a t is, t h e y have the p o w e r t o f r e e z e , and t h e liability t o e x e r c i s e that p o w e r w h e n t h e t e m p e r a t u r e falls t o 0 ° C . All e l e c t r o n s ( t h e p a r t i c l e s o f e l e c t r i c c h a r g e ) r e p e l all o t h e r e l e c t r o n s w i t h t h e s a m e f o r c e in all c o n d i t i o n s . A n d so o n and so o n . A n d it s e e m s that all m a t e r ial o b j e c t s w h a t s o e v e r c o n f o r m t o t h e s a m e v e r y g e n e r a l laws o f b e h a v i o u r — f o r e x a m p l e , each attracts each other with a gravitational Newton

force

codified

which in

his

(to

a high

law

of

degree

of

gravitational

accuracy) attraction.

S c i e n t i s t s a r e t r y i n g t o find t h e m o s t g e n e r a l laws o f n a t u r e f r o m w h i c h all t h e l e s s e r laws applying o n l y v e r y

approxi-

m a t e l y , o r applying o n l y t o special kinds o f o b j e c t s ( w a t e r , o r e l e c t r o n s ) , apply. In discussing t h e laws o f n a t u r e , w h a t scientists a r e discussing a r e t h e p o w e r s and liabilities t o act o f i n n u m e r a b l e p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n c e s , e i t h e r all p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t s or ones o f certain kinds. B e c a u s e o f this w i d e s p r e a d u n i f o r m i t y in t h e b e h a v i o u r o f things, w e m a y p h r a s e o u r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t in t e r m s o f t h e initial c o n d i t i o n s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e causing subs t a n c e w h i c h t r i g g e r e d it t o act and a l a w o f n a t u r e stating w h a t p o w e r s and liabilities substances o f that kind h a v e .

We

m a y say that t h e c o p p e r e x p a n d e d b e c a u s e t h e c o p p e r

was

[23]

How We Explain

Things

h e a t e d and it is a l a w o f n a t u r e t h a t all c o p p e r e x p a n d s w h e n h e a t e d . B u t it is i m p o r t a n t t o b e a r in m i n d that laws o f n a t u r e are n o t substances;

they are just human summaries o f the

p o w e r s and liabilities o f s u b s t a n c e s . It is t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f a p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e o f c o p p e r w h i c h m a k e it e x p a n d w h e n h e a t e d . W h i l e I shall n e e d t o c o m e b a c k t o this p o i n t , I shall find it m o r e c o n v e n i e n t f o r m u c h o f t h e r e s t o f this c h a p t e r t o s u m m a r i z e i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n simply as conditions plus law of nature causing

initial

event.

E x p l a n a t i o n s in t h e physical s c i e n c e s a r e , o f c o u r s e ,

nor-

m a l l y a l o t m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d than t h e ( o v e r - s i m p l i f i e d ) e x a m p l e o f t h e last p a r a g r a p h . T h e y typically i n v o l v e several initial explanation

of

J u p i t e r b e i n g w h e r e it is n o w m a y involve t h e p o s i t i o n s

conditions

and

several

different

laws.

An

of

J u p i t e r and t h e sun last y e a r and also t h o s e o f o t h e r p l a n e t s , and several laws (such as N e w t o n ' s t h r e e laws o f m o t i o n and his l a w o f gravitational a t t r a c t i o n ) , and t h e p r o c e s s o f d e r i v ing f r o m t h e s e t h e p h e n o m e n o n t o b e e x p l a i n e d m a y b e q u i t e a l e n g t h y o n e . T h e e x p l a n a t i o n will b e a t r u e o n e if t h e sugg e s t e d initial c o n d i t i o n s did i n d e e d o c c u r , t h e c i t e d laws a r e i n d e e d t r u e l a w s , and t o g e t h e r t h e s e lead us t o e x p e c t J u p i t e r t o b e w h e r e it is. L a w s o f n a t u r e m a y b e universal o n e s ( e . g . 'all p a r t i c l e s o f light t r a v e l w i t h a v e l o c i t y o f 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 k m / s e c . ' ) o r statistical o n e s ('all a t o m s o f r a d i u m have a p r o b a b i l i t y o f A o f d e c a y i n g l

within 1 , 6 2 0 y e a r s ' ) . T h e f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d in e x p l a n a t i o n can t h e m s e l v e s o f t e n b e e x p l a i n e d . T h e p o s i t i o n o f J u p i t e r last year can b e e x p l a i n e d in t e r m s o f its p o s i t i o n t h e y e a r b e f o r e ; and t h e o p e r a t i o n o f N e w t o n ' s laws o f m o t i o n can b e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e o p e r a t i o n o f m o r e g e n e r a l l a w s — f o r e x a m p l e , E i n s t e i n ' s l a w s . ( T h a t is, the powers

and liabilities t o act w h i c h a s u b s t a n c e has as

[24]

How We Explain

Things

d e s c r i b e d b y N e w t o n ' s laws a r e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e o n e s it has as d e s c r i b e d b y E i n s t e i n ' s l a w s . ) T y p i c a l l y , l o w - l e v e l laws c o n c e r n e d w i t h things r e a d i l y o b s e r v a b l e ( e . g . v o l u m e s o f a gas in a t e s t t u b e ) in s o m e n a r r o w r e g i o n ( e . g . n e a r t h e s u r f a c e o f the earth) are explained by 'higher-level' laws which conc e r n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f things n o t so r e a d i l y o b s e r v a b l e

(the

m o l e c u l e s o r a t o m s o f gases) o v e r a w i d e r r e g i o n . S i m i l a r l y , t o r e v e r t t o p e r s o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n , s o m e p u r p o s e s and beliefs m a y b e e x p l a i n e d b y o t h e r p u r p o s e s and b e l i e f s . I f o r m

a

p u r p o s e o f g o i n g t o t h e c u p b o a r d b e c a u s e I have t h e p u r p o s e of

getting

food

and

I believe

that

there

is

food

in

the

cupboard.

The Justification

of

Explanation

So m u c h f o r t h e e l e m e n t s i n v o l v e d in e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e t w o k i n d s : i n a n i m a t e s u b s t a n c e s , and t h e i r p o w e r s , liabilities, and e v e n t s w h i c h t r i g g e r t h e m off; p e r s o n s , and t h e i r p o w e r s , p u r p o s e s , and b e l i e f s . T h e s e a r e t h e causes o f e v e n t s and t h e r e a sons w h y t h e causes have t h e e f f e c t s t h e y d o . B u t w h a t justifies a claim that so and so is t h e cause o f s o m e e v e n t and such and such is t h e r e a s o n w h y it had t h e e f f e c t it did? L e t us a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n first f o r i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n , and l e t us c o n t i n u e t o o p e r a t e t e m p o r a r i l y in t e r m s o f laws o f n a t u r e and initial c o n d i t i o n s .

Why

do w e

suppose,

for example,

that

N e w t o n ' s laws o f m o t i o n and t h e p r e v i o u s p o s i t i o n s o f sun, moon,

and

other

planets

explain

the

present

position

of

Jupiter? A claim that s o m e p r o p o s e d l a w is really a l a w o f n a t u r e , is j u s t i f i e d ( i . e . likely t o b e t r u e , r e n d e r e d p r o b a b l e ) t o t h e extent to which:

[25]

How We Explain

Things

( 1 ) it leads us t o e x p e c t ( w i t h a c c u r a c y ) m a n y and v a r i e d e v e n t s w h i c h w e o b s e r v e (and w e d o n o t o b s e r v e any e v e n t s w h o s e n o n - o c c u r r e n c e it leads us t o e x p e c t ) , ( 2 ) w h a t is p r o p o s e d is s i m p l e , ( 3 ) it fits w e l l w i t h o u r b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e , ( 4 ) w e w o u l d n o t o t h e r w i s e e x p e c t t o find t h e s e

events

( e . g . t h e r e is n o rival l a w w h i c h leads us t o

expect

t h e s e e v e n t s w h i c h satisfies c r i t e r i a (1—3) as w e l l as does our proposed law). L e t m e illustrate t h e s e c r i t e r i a at w o r k w i t h a s o m e w h a t simplified v e r s i o n o f a f a m o u s h i s t o r i c a l c a s e . C o n s i d e r K e p l e r in t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y studying t h e m o t i o n o f t h e Mars.

Others

have p r o v i d e d h i m

with

planet

a large n u m b e r

of

o b s e r v a t i o n s o f past p o s i t i o n s o f M a r s . H e w i s h e s t o d i s c o v e r t h e l a w g o v e r n i n g t h e m o v e m e n t o f M a r s — t h a t is, t h e path along w h i c h M a r s m o v e s , k n o w l e d g e o f w h i c h will e n a b l e h i m t o p r e d i c t its f u t u r e p o s i t i o n s . H e can m a r k o n a m a p o f t h e sky t h e o b s e r v e d past p o s i t i o n s , and c l e a r l y any l a w g o v e r n i n g t h e m o t i o n o f M a r s will b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y a c u r v e

which

passes t h r o u g h t h o s e p o s i t i o n s ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y — t h e r e m a y b e small i n a c c u r a c i e s o f o b s e r v a t i o n ) . Such a l a w will satisfy c r i t e r i o n 1 . T h e t r o u b l e is that an infinite n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t c u r v e s w i l l satisfy c r i t e r i o n

1 . O n e possibility i s , o f c o u r s e ,

that M a r s m o v e s in an e l l i p s e . A n o t h e r is that M a r s m o v e s in a spiral w h i c h d i v e r g e s hardly at all f r o m t h e ellipse during t h e p e r i o d studied so far, b u t will d i v e r g e significantly h e r e a f t e r . A n o t h e r is that M a r s m o v e s

a l o n g a path w h i c h

describes

i n c r e a s i n g l y large ellipses w h i c h e v e n t u a l l y b e c o m e

parabolic

in shape. T h e n t h e r e a r e c u r v e s o f a k i n d m a r k e d in Fig.

1,

c o i n c i d i n g w i t h t h e ellipse f o r t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e so far b u t diverging s u b s e q u e n t l y in a q u i t e w i l d w a y . H o w is a c h o i c e

[26]

How We Explain

Things

t o b e m a d e ? M o s t p o s s i b l e c u r v e s a r e v e r y u n - s i m p l e in t w o r e s p e c t s — t h e i r e q u a t i o n s a r e highly c o m p l e x and t h e i r graphical r e p r e s e n t a t i o n is u n s m o o t h . T h e e q u a t i o n o f an ellipse is r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e , and t h e c u r v e is s m o o t h . S o m e o t h e r rivals a r e p e r h a p s a l m o s t equally s i m p l e , and w e m a y n o t b e able t o decide b e t w e e n

them

and t h e

ellipse until w e have

more

o b s e r v a t i o n s , o r w e m a y b e able t o do so b y s o m e o t h e r c r i t e r i o n . B u t , f o r t h e s e r i o u s w o r k o f e l i m i n a t i n g a l m o s t all o f t h e infinite n u m b e r o f o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s , C r i t e r i o n 2 — t h e c r i terion o f simplicity—is essential. First observed position

Fig. 1 . Possible curves for the motion o f Mars (positions of Mars marked by crosses) Criterion

3 does, however,

also c o m e i n — t h e

proposed

l a w has t o fit w e l l w i t h o u r b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e . B y ' b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e ' I m e a n k n o w l e d g e o f h o w things w o r k in n e i g h b o u r i n g a r e a s . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n w e are

considering

t h e o r i e s a b o u t h o w a p a r t i c u l a r gas b e h a v e s at l o w t e m p e r a t u r e , w e take into account what, if anything, w e k n o w about h o w o t h e r gases b e h a v e at l o w t e m p e r a t u r e .

O u r third c r i -

t e r i o n is satisfied t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a p r o p o s e d l a w ' f i t s ' w i t h that w i d e r k n o w l e d g e . In p l o t t i n g his c u r v e f o r M a r s ,

[27]

How We Explain

Things

K e p l e r t o o k i n t o a c c o u n t his k n o w l e d g e o f h o w o t h e r p l a n e t s behaved.

If the law

o f planetary

motion

best justified

for

M e r c u r y , V e n u s , J u p i t e r , and Saturn had n o t b e e n that o f an e l l i p s e , b u t , say, that o f a spiral, t h e n , a l t h o u g h a spiral l a w m a y b e less s i m p l e than that o f an e l l i p s e , K e p l e r w o u l d have had g o o d g r o u n d s f o r p r e f e r r i n g it t o t h e ellipse as t h e l a w governing

the motion

of Mars.

In f a c t ,

of course,

Kepler

f o u n d that f o r o t h e r p l a n e t s also t h e s u g g e s t e d law that b e s t satisfied t h e o t h e r c r i t e r i a was t h e l a w that t h e p l a n e t m o v e s in an e l l i p s e . In e a c h case t h e r e was n o f u r t h e r b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t than that o f t h e m o t i o n s

of

o t h e r p l a n e t s , and so K e p l e r c o u l d a d d u c e as t h e l a w o f plane t a r y m o t i o n , n o t m e r e l y f o r M a r s b u t f o r all p l a n e t s , that t h e y m o v e in e l l i p s e s . H o w e v e r w e l l s o m e p r o p o s e d law satisfies c r i t e r i a 1—3, i f t h e r e is an i n c o m p a t i b l e l a w w h i c h satisfies t h o s e c r i t e r i a e v e n b e t t e r , since they cannot both be laws, the f o r m e r m u s t b e r e j e c t e d . T h a t is w h a t c r i t e r i o n 4 says. N o rival l a w p r o p o s e d f o r M a r s satisfied c r i t e r i a 1 3

b e t t e r , and so t h e l a w o f t h e

ellipse satisfied c r i t e r i o n 4 . S c i e n t i f i c l a w s fit t o g e t h e r i n t o scientific t h e o r i e s .

Kepler's

theory o f planetary m o t i o n consisted o f three laws, o f which w e have had t i m e t o discuss o n l y t h e first. B u t t h e s a m e c r i t e r i a c o m e i n t o play t o j u d g e t h e r e s u l t i n g t h e o r y . T h e s i m plicity o f a t h e o r y

will i n c l u d e its c o m p o n e n t

laws

fitting

t o g e t h e r w e l l . As w e n o t e d e a r l i e r , laws and so t h e o r i e s can b e explained by higher-level theories. T h e same criteria are again at w o r k . T h e o p e r a t i o n o f K e p l e r ' s l a w s is e x p l a i n e d b y t h e o p e r a t i o n o f N e w t o n ' s l a w s , given that t h e mass o f sun is large in c o m p a r i s o n t o that o f t h e p l a n e t s . T h e g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v i n g N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y t o b e t r u e a r e ( c r i t e r i o n 1) that w e can d e r i v e f r o m it w e l l - j u s t i f i e d laws o f n a t u r e in m a n y d i v e r s e

[28]

How We Explain fields—Kepler's motions

laws,

Galileo's

o f planetary m o o n s ,

Things law

of

fall,

tides, pendula,

laws

of

and so

the on—

w h i c h ( c r i t e r i o n 4 ) w e w o u l d have n o o t h e r r e a s o n t o e x p e c t t o h o l d . N e w t o n ' s t h r e e laws o f m o t i o n and his law o f gravitational attraction

are simple

(criterion

2)—in

comparison

with wild alternatives which could be constructed. T h e criterion o f background knowledge (criterion 3) does n o t o p e r a t e w h e n w e do n o t have k n o w l e d g e o f h o w things w o r k in any n e i g h b o u r i n g fields o f e n q u i r y . If w e do n o t have any m e a s u r e m e n t s o f t h e p o s i t i o n s o f o t h e r p l a n e t s , l e t a l o n e any p o s t u l a t e d l a w s o f t h e i r b e h a v i o u r , w e c a n n o t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f o t h e r planets in assessing a t h e o r y about the behaviour o f M a r s . And, inevitably, the wider our a r e a o f e n q u i r y , t h e less t h e r e will b e any n e i g h b o u r i n g

fields

t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t . In his t h e o r y o f m e c h a n i c s N e w t o n was t r y i n g t o e x p l a i n so m u c h that ( s i n c e so little was k n o w n in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y a b o u t c h e m i s t r y , light, and e l e c t r o m a g n e t i s m ) t h e r e w a s n o n e i g h b o u r i n g area w i t h w h i c h h e c o u l d c o m p a r e his o w n a r e a . H e j u s t i f i e d his t h e o r y o n t h e g r o u n d s that it w a s a s i m p l e t h e o r y w h i c h l e d h i m t o e x p e c t the

observed

phenomena

which

otherwise

would

not

be

e x p e c t e d . A n d c l e a r l y , w h e r e w e are c o n c e r n e d w i t h e x p l a i n ing ( l i t e r a l l y ) e v e r y t h i n g o b s e r v e d , t h e c r i t e r i o n o f b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e will b e i r r e l e v a n t . A n y w a y , c r i t e r i o n 3 r e d u c e s t o c r i t e r i o n 2 . F o r w h a t is it f o r o n e l a w t o ' f i t ' w i t h a n o t h e r ? K e p l e r ' s laws f o r t h e m o t i o n o f M a r s fitted w i t h his laws f o r t h e m o t i o n o f t h e o t h e r plane t s b e c a u s e t h e y had t h e s a m e f o r m . B u t w h a t this a m o u n t s t o is that t h e

combination

of laws—'the

other

planets

move

always in an ellipse and M a r s m o v e s always in an e l l i p s e ' — w a s t o b e p r e f e r r e d t o ' t h e o t h e r p l a n e t s m o v e always in an ellipse and M a r s m o v e s always in a s p i r a l ' . W h y ? B e c a u s e t h e

[29]

How We Explain

Things

first s u p p o s i t i o n is s i m p l e r than t h e s e c o n d . It c a n b e p h r a s e d simply as 'all p l a n e t s m o v e always in e l l i p s e s ' . In o t h e r w o r d s , a l a w f o r a n a r r o w area fits w e l l w i t h laws o f a n e i g h b o u r i n g a r e a , in so far as t h e y s u p p o r t a s i m p l e r a t h e r than a c o m p l e x law for the whole area. Because the criterion o f background k n o w l e d g e in j u d g i n g t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f a p r o p o s e d n a r r o w l a w in t h e e n d b o i l s d o w n t o t h e c r i t e r i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y f o r a w i d e r l a w , I shall o f t e n b e able t o i g n o r e it in f u t u r e . It is simplicity

w h i c h is t h e k e y c r i t e r i o n f o r j u d g i n g b e t w e e n

laws

w h i c h yield t h e o b s e r v e d data. A r e a d e r m a y t h i n k that w e c o u l d e l i m i n a t e all t h e s e ' w i l d ' curves which are compatible with observations by waiting for m o r e o b s e r v a t i o n s . W i l l n o t t h e n e x t o b s e r v a t i o n o f a posit i o n o f M a r s e l i m i n a t e all t h e c u r v e s w h i c h I h a v e m a r k e d on m y d i a g r a m ( F i g . 1) e x c e p t o n e — p r e s u m a b l y t h e ellipse? Y e s , b u t t h e r e will still b e an infinite n u m b e r o f c u r v e s ( w h i c h I had n o space t o m a r k o n t h e d i a g r a m ) w h i c h pass t h r o u g h t h e o l d p o s i t i o n s and t h e n e w o n e and y e t d i v e r g e w i l d l y in t h e f u t u r e . W i t h o u t t h e c r i t e r i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y , w e n e v e r have any w a y o f c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n an infinite n u m b e r o f t h e o r i e s c o m patible w i t h data. S o m e w r i t e r s claim that o u r p r e f e r e n c e f o r s i m p l i c i t y is a m e r e m a t t e r o f c o n v e n i e n c e , that w e

prefer

s i m p l e r t h e o r i e s b e c a u s e t h e y a r e easy t o o p e r a t e w i t h ;

our

p r e f e r e n c e f o r s i m p l i c i t y has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h an i n t e r e s t in t r u t h . T h a t s e e m s false. O f t e n w e n e e d p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t t h e f u t u r e ; t h e y a r e crucial f o r o u r survival as w e l l as f o r fulfilling m o r e ambitious plans. W e need to k n o w w h e t h e r the bridge will b r e a k if w e drive a l o r r y o v e r it, w h e t h e r t h e d r u g w i l l kill o r c u r e , w h e t h e r t h e n u c l e a r e x p l o s i o n w i l l s e t up a chain r e a c t i o n w h i c h w i l l d e s t r o y all h u m a n i t y , and so o n . W e

get

o u r p r e d i c t i o n s b y using t h e s i m p l e s t t h e o r y w h i c h e x t r a p o lates f r o m past o b s e r v a t i o n s ; and w e b e l i e v e that t h e p r e d i c -

[30]

How We Explain

Things

t i o n s o f such a t h e o r y a r e m o r e p r o b a b l y t r u e than t h o s e o f any o t h e r t h e o r y . If w e really t h o u g h t that t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f all t h e o r i e s ( w h i c h y i e l d e d o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e so far)

were

equally likely t o b e t r u e , w e w o u l d n e v e r b e justified in r e l y ing o n o n e r a t h e r than a n o t h e r . Y e t w e d o r e l y o n o n e r a t h e r t h a n a n o t h e r , and t h i n k t h a t w e a r e justified in d o i n g s o , and t h a t can o n l y b e b e c a u s e w e r e g a r d t h e s i m p l i c i t y o f a t h e o r y as crucial e v i d e n c e o f its t r u t h . T h e ' s i m p l i c i t y ' o f a scientific t h e o r y is a m a t t e r o f it having f e w c o m p o n e n t l a w s , e a c h o f w h i c h r e l a t e s f e w variables by mathematically simple formulae (whose consequences for o b s e r v a t i o n a r e d e r i v a b l e b y m a t h e m a t i c a l l y s i m p l e s t e p s ) . If a theory postulates objects or properties beyond those which w e can o b s e r v e (such as a t o m s and e l e c t r o n s , q u a r k s o r q u a s a r s ) , the

criterion

of

simplicity

tells

us

to

postulate

few

new

o b j e c t s , f e w n e w kinds o f o b j e c t s , f e w n e w p r o p e r t i e s ,

and

f e w n e w kinds o f p r o p e r t y — a n d t h e f e w e r t h e b e t t e r .

The

r u l e that y o u should p o s t u l a t e n o m o r e n e w o b j e c t s than y o u n e e d t o e x p l a i n y o u r o b s e r v a t i o n s is o f t e n called

'Ockham's

r a z o r ' . B u t h o w y o u apply it d e p e n d s o n w h a t y o u u n d e r s t a n d b y ' n e e d ' . It is, o f c o u r s e , r i g h t t o p o s t u l a t e A Jew o b j e c t s , i f t h e y p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n o f many p h e n o m e n a . It m a y s o m e t i m e s s e e m t o n o n - s c i e n t i s t s that scientists p u t f o r w a r d s o m e pretty

un-simple

theories.

Einstein's

General

Theory

of

R e l a t i v i t y d o e s n o t l o o k v e r y s i m p l e , b u t his claim f o r it w a s t h a t it w a s t h e s i m p l e s t a m o n g t h e o r i e s w h i c h yielded t h e data of observation.

The

simplest

theory

for

some

area

which

satisfies c r i t e r i o n 1 m a y n o t b e v e r y s i m p l e , b u t it m a y still b e far s i m p l e r than an infinite n u m b e r o f p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s w h i c h satisfy c r i t e r i o n 1 equally w e l l . M y c r i t e r i o n 2 m u s t also b e u n d e r s t o o d as involving t h e s o m e w h a t o b v i o u s

requirement

that t h e l a w o r t h e o r y m u s t n o t b e s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y . It m u s t

[31]

How We Explain

Things

b e coherent, contain no internal contradictions. A law which is i n c o h e r e n t , w h i c h says that s o m e t h i n g b o t h is and is n o t t h e c a s e , c o u l d n o t possibly b e t r u e , h o w e v e r w e l l it p e r f o r m e d in any o t h e r r e s p e c t . T o r e t u r n briefly t o c r i t e r i o n 1 — n o t e that it, like t h e o t h e r c r i t e r i a , c a n b e satisfied t o d i f f e r e n t d e g r e e s . It is satisfied t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a l a w o r t h e o r y leads us t o e x p e c t

many

e v e n t s . T h e m o r e it can e x p l a i n , t h e b e t t e r . T h e m o r e varied e v e n t s it can e x p l a i n , t h e b e t t e r . A t h e o r y w h i c h can e x p l a i n p h e n o m e n a in d i f f e r e n t areas is t o b e p r e f e r r e d t o o n e w h i c h can e x p l a i n p h e n o m e n a o n l y in o n e a r e a . A t h e o r y is b e t t e r in so far as it can e x p l a i n p h e n o m e n a a c c u r a t e l y ; that i s , t h e t h e o r y leads us t o e x p e c t a p h e n o m e n o n d e s c r i b e d in a c e r t a i n w a y , and a p h e n o m e n o n e x a c t l y as d e s c r i b e d is o b s e r v e d . B u t i f w h a t is o b s e r v e d is n o t q u i t e w h a t t h e t h e o r y leads us t o e x p e c t — f o r e x a m p l e , t h e t h e o r y p r e d i c t s that t h e p l a n e t will be

at an angle

o f celestial

longitude

106° l'2",

and

it is

o b s e r v e d at an angle o f 1 0 6 ° 2 ' 1 2 " , t o t h e e x t e n t o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 ' t h e t h e o r y is i n a c c u r a t e . T h e t h e o r y m a y still b e c o r r e c t b e c a u s e t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s m a y b e slightly i n a c c u r a t e o r b e c a u s e f a c t o r s o f w h i c h w e do n o t k n o w m a y have a f f e c t e d the o u t c o m e ,

b u t t h e less n e e d t h e r e is t o p o s t u l a t e

such

e r r o r s , t h e m o r e r e a s o n t h e r e is t o b e l i e v e t h e t h e o r y t o b e true. And,

finally,

a l a w w h i c h leads us t o e x p e c t w h a t is

o b s e r v e d w i t h o n l y s o m e p r o b a b i l i t y is less w e l l justified than o n e w h i c h leads us t o e x p e c t w h a t is o b s e r v e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y . All t h e s e a r e aspects o f c r i t e r i o n 1 . I have n o t so far s p o k e n o f scientific laws o r t h e o r i e s ' p r e dicting' observations, merely o f them

'leading us t o

expect

o b s e r v a t i o n s ' , b e c a u s e talk o f p r e d i c t i o n (in t h e analysis o f c r i terion

1 and o t h e r c r i t e r i a ) m i g h t suggest that

observations

p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e f o r a t h e o r y o n l y i f first t h e t h e o r y is f o r -

[32]

How We Explain

Things

m u l a t e d , t h e n t h e s c i e n t i s t w o r k s o u t w h a t t h e t h e o r y leads us t o e x p e c t in t h e f u t u r e , and t h e n h e o b s e r v e s w h a t it leads us t o e x p e c t . B u t I c a n n o t see that it m a t t e r s as r e g a r d s t h e supp o r t g i v e n b y o b s e r v a t i o n s t o t h e o r y w h e t h e r , say, 1 0 0 o b s e r vations a r e m a d e explain t h e m ,

first and t h e t h e o r y t h e n c o n s t r u c t e d

to

o r w h e t h e r t h e t h e o r y is c o n s t r u c t e d o n t h e

basis o f fifty o b s e r v a t i o n s and it successfully p r e d i c t s a n o t h e r . T h e s u p p o r t given b y o b s e r v a t i o n s t o t h e o r y c o n c e r n s a logical r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n o b s e r v a t i o n s and t h e o r y and is i n d e pendent o f w h e n the observations are m a d e . T h o s e w h o think o t h e r w i s e say that t h e o r i e s can always b e c o n s t r u c t e d t o observations,

w h e r e a s t h e o r i e s d o n o t always p r e d i c t

r a t e l y ; and so a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n p r o v i d e s a m o r e

fit

accu-

objective

t e s t o f a p r o p o s e d t h e o r y . C e r t a i n l y t h e o r i e s can always b e c o n s t r u c t e d t o fit o b s e r v a t i o n s , b u t w h a t c a n n o t always c o n s t r u c t e d are s i m p l e t h e o r i e s w h i c h yield m a n y

be

observa-

t i o n s . T h e y a r e j u s t as difficult t o find as t h e o r i e s w h i c h p r e d i c t a c c u r a t e l y , and t h e y a r e t h e o n l y o n e s w h i c h o b s e r v a t i o n s s u p p o r t . A n e x a m p l e t o illustrate the i r r e l e v a n c e t o t h e o r y s u p p o r t o f when t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e m a d e is p r o v i d e d

by

N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y o f m o t i o n . T h i s was j u d g e d b y m a n y ( s u r e l y c o r r e c t l y ) t o b e highly p r o b a b l e o n t h e e v i d e n c e available t o scientists o f t h e early e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , e v e n t h o u g h it m a d e no predictions which could be tested for many years,

other

than t h e p r e d i c t i o n s w h i c h w e r e already m a d e b y laws w h i c h w e r e already k n o w n and w h i c h N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y p u r p o r t e d t o e x p l a i n ( e . g . K e p l e r ' s laws o f p l a n e t a r y m o t i o n and G a l i l e o ' s l a w o f f a l l ) . T h e high p r o b a b i l i t y o f N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y

arose

s o l e l y f r o m its b e i n g a v e r y s i m p l e h i g h e r - l e v e l t h e o r y f r o m w h i c h t h o s e d i v e r s e laws a r e d e d u c i b l e . I have m a d e this p o i n t at a little l e n g t h b e c a u s e it is o f t e n c l a i m e d that t h e i s m

and fuller t h e o l o g i c a l

[33]

theories

do

not

How We Explain make

Things

'predictions' which can readily b e tested. ( T h e y

may

m a k e p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t life a f t e r d e a t h , f o r e x a m p l e , b u t t h o s e c a n n o t r e a d i l y b e t e s t e d n o w . ) W h a t I have a r g u e d , and w h a t t h e h i s t o r y o f s c i e n c e s h o w s , is that t h e o r i e s are w e l l e s t a b lished i f t h e y lead us t o e x p e c t o b s e r v a t i o n s , w h e t h e r

the

o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e n e w o n e s o r o l d o n e s ; and I shall b e arguing that t h e i s m is a v e r y s i m p l e t h e o r y w h i c h leads us t o e x p e c t v e r y m a n y o l d o b s e r v a t i o n s . T h i s p o i n t b e i n g m a d e , I shall in f u t u r e s o m e t i m e s talk o f t h e o r i e s

'predicting'

observations,

m e a n i n g t h e r e b y j u s t that t h e y lead us t o e x p e c t o b s e r v a t i o n s , w i t h o u t any i m p l i c a t i o n a b o u t w h e t h e r t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s w e r e made b e f o r e or after the postulation o f the t h e o r y . So t h e s e , t h e n , are t h e f o u r c r i t e r i a at w o r k f o r j u d g i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f s o m e scientific t h e o r y b e i n g t r u e and so c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e t r u e e x p l a n a t i o n o f s o m e e v e n t . N o w t h e laws o f scientific t h e o r i e s a r e s i m p l y r e g u l a r i t i e s in t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n c e s . T h a t all p l a n e t s m o v e

in

ellipses r o u n d t h e sun is j u s t t h e r e g u l a r i t y that e a c h p l a n e t has t h e p o w e r t o m o v e in an ellipse and t h e liability t o e x e r c i s e that p o w e r w h e n t h e sun is at t h e f o c u s o f t h e e l l i p s e . W h a t t h e s c i e n t i s t d i s c o v e r s b y m e a n s o f his c r i t e r i a are t h e p o w e r s and liabilities t o act o f p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n c e s , and h e seeks t h e s i m p l e s t a c c o u n t o f t h e s e w h i c h will e n a b l e h i m t o m a k e successful p r e d i c t i o n s . T h e t r u e e x p l a n a t i o n o f an e v e n t will i n v o l v e n o t o n l y t h e c o r r e c t scientific t h e o r y , b u t also c o r r e c t l y d e s c r i b e d initial c o n d i t i o n s ( i . e . w h i c h s u b s t a n c e s t h e r e w e r e in w h a t c o n d i tions).

What

explains

the

present

position

of the

planet

U r a n u s is n o t j u s t N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y b u t also t h e past p o s i t i o n s o f t h e s u n , U r a n u s , and o t h e r p l a n e t s . H o w d o w e k n o w w h a t these were? W e

m a y have o b s e r v e d t h e m .

[34]

O r , if not,

the

How We Explain

Things

h y p o t h e s i s that t h e r e w e r e p l a n e t s in such and such p o s i t i o n s may provide the best explanation o f p h e n o m e n a which w e do observe. And by 'best explanation' I mean explanation which satisfies b e s t o u r f o u r c r i t e r i a . W e m a y t r y t o explain t h e p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n o f U r a n u s in t e r m s o f N e w t o n ' s l a w s , and t h e past p o s i t i o n s o f t h e sun and U r a n u s and o f t h e o t h e r p l a n e t s w h i c h w e can o b s e r v e . B u t , i f all that d o e s n o t lead us t o expect

exactly

what

we

observe,

we

may

postulate

(as

L e v e r r i e r did in 1 8 4 6 ) that t h e r e is a n o t h e r p l a n e t , N e p t u n e , b e y o n d U r a n u s , w h i c h w e c a n n o t o b s e r v e , pulling U r a n u s o u t o f o r b i t . If w e c a n n o t see this p l a n e t , w h a t a r e t h e g r o u n d s f o r supposing that it is t h e r e ? O n e p o w e r f u l g r o u n d is t h a t o t h e r w i s e w e will have t o a b a n d o n N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y , w h i c h , unless w e p o s t u l a t e N e p t u n e , w o u l d b e u n a b l e t o p r e d i c t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f U r a n u s . T h a t is, t h e s i m p l e s t a c c o u n t o f a vast n u m b e r o f p h e n o m e n a is that N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y is t r u e and t h a t the heavenly bodies include N e p t u n e .

Further grounds

for

asserting t h e e x i s t e n c e o f N e p t u n e w o u l d b e p r o v i d e d i f t h e supposition

o f its e x i s t e n c e w o u l d e x p l a i n o t h e r

otherwise

i n e x p l i c a b l e p h e n o m e n a . In p o s t u l a t i n g u n o b s e r v a b l e

entities

w e p o s t u l a t e t h o s e e n t i t i e s and that scientific t h e o r y ( a b o u t t h e p o w e r s and liabilities t o a c t o f o b j e c t s ) w h i c h t o g e t h e r b e s t satisfy o u r f o u r c r i t e r i a . As I n o t e d e a r l i e r , o n e f a c e t o f s i m plicity is t o p o s t u l a t e f e w o b j e c t s . If p o s t u l a t i n g o n e

unob-

s e r v a b l e p l a n e t suffices t o lead us t o e x p e c t t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s w e find, w e m u s t n o t p o s t u l a t e t w o . T h e s a m e f o u r c r i t e r i a a r e at w o r k in j u d g i n g t h e w o r t h o f personal

explanations.

In

explaining

some

phenomena

as

caused b y p e r s o n s , w e s e e k a h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h leads us t o expect the phenomena which w e would not otherwise expect t o find, as s i m p l e a h y p o t h e s i s as p o s s i b l e , and o n e w h i c h fits in w i t h b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e .

[35]

We

find c e r t a i n p i e c e s

of

How We Explain

Things

m e t a l all having o n t h e m t h e s a m e o u t l i n e o f a h u m a n h e a d . A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n is t h a t t h e y w e r e all caused b y o n e p e r son,

exercising

(by holding a chisel) n o r m a l human

bodily

p o w e r s , w i t h t h e p u r p o s e o f p r o d u c i n g a c o i n and a b e l i e f t h a t a p i e c e o f m e t a l w i t h such m a r k s w o u l d b e a c o i n . T h e r e a r e m a n y rival e x p l a n a t i o n s w h i c h p r e d i c t t h e p h e n o m e n a .

We

c o u l d suggest that e a c h o f t h e m a r k s o n t h e p i e c e s o f m e t a l w a s m a d e b y a d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n at a d i f f e r e n t p e r i o d o f h i s t o r y f o r a d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e and w i t h d i f f e r e n t b e l i e f s and that it w a s , in c o n s e q u e n c e , a c o i n c i d e n c e that all t h e m a r k s had t h e s a m e s h a p e . W h i l e this l a t t e r h y p o t h e s i s satisfies c r i t e r i o n 1 ( o f predicting

the

observations)

as

well

as

does

the

former

h y p o t h e s i s , c l e a r l y it satisfies t h e c r i t e r i o n o f s i m p l i c i t y far less w e l l — f o r it p o s t u l a t e s m a n y p e r s o n s , p u r p o s e s , and b e l i e f s , r a t h e r than o n e p e r s o n , o n e p u r p o s e , and o n e set o f b e l i e f s . B a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e will also e n t e r i n t o t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f such h y p o t h e s e s — k n o w l e d g e ,

for example,

about h o w

and

w h e n and w h e r e o t h e r p e r s o n s m a k e c o i n s . In assessing a m u c h w i d e r r a n g e o f p h e n o m e n a in t e r m s o f t h e i r causation b y h u m a n p e r s o n s w e build up a p i c t u r e o f t h e p h e n o m e n a as caused b y as f e w p e r s o n s w i t h as c o n s t a n t p o w ers and p u r p o s e s and b e l i e f s w h i c h c h a n g e in r e g u l a r

ways

( e . g . in r e s p o n s e t o various s e n s o r y s t i m u l i ) as w e c a n . If w e can e x p l a i n t w o e f f e c t s b r o u g h t a b o u t b y a h u m a n in t e r m s o f the same purpose, w e do not invoke a quite n e w purpose to explain

the

second

effect.

If w e

can

explain

an e f f e c t

as

b r o u g h t a b o u t b y a p e r s o n in v i r t u e o f p o w e r s o f t h e s a m e k i n d as o t h e r h u m a n s h a v e , w e d o n o t p o s t u l a t e s o m e n o v e l p o w e r — w e d o n o t p o s t u l a t e that a p e r s o n has a b a s i c p o w e r o f b e n d i n g s p o o n s at s o m e d i s t a n c e a w a y i f w e can e x p l a i n t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f t h e s p o o n s b e i n g b e n t b y s o m e o n e else b e n d ing t h e m w i t h his h a n d s . A n d so o n .

[36]

How We Explain

Things

J u s t as w e m a y n e e d t o p o s t u l a t e u n o b s e r v a b l e planets and atoms t o explain p h e n o m e n a , so w e may n e e d to postulate n o n - e m b o d i e d p e r s o n s i f s u c h an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p h e n o m e n a satisfies t h e f o u r c r i t e r i a b e t t e r .

If the contents o f m y

r o o m start flying a r o u n d and f o r m t h e m s e l v e s i n t o w o r d s , t h e b e s t e x p l a n a t i o n m a y b e in t e r m s o f t h e a c t i o n o f a p o l t e r g e i s t w i t h c e r t a i n basic p o w e r s o t h e r than n o r m a l h u m a n

powers

(basic p o w e r s o v e r o b j e c t s w i t h i n a c e r t a i n r e g i o n , s a y ) , p u r p o s e s , and b e l i e f s . A l s o , it m a y n o t always b e o b v i o u s w h e n a b o d y is t h e b o d y o f a p e r s o n , and so that t h e m o v e m e n t s

of

s o m e p a r t o f it a r e b r o u g h t a b o u t i n t e n t i o n a l l y . S u p p o s e w e t r a v e l t o a distant p l a n e t and find t h e r e m o v i n g o b j e c t s w i t h appendages. Are these bodies o f persons, or m e r e l y inanimate things? O u r a n s w e r will d e p e n d o n w h e t h e r w e can e x p l a i n vast

numbers

of

their

movements

and

those

of

a p p e n d a g e s b y supposing that t h e y a r e p e r s o n s w i t h basic p o w e r s ( o f c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r a p p e n d a g e s ) ,

their certain

(constant)

p u r p o s e s , and b e l i e f s ( a c q u i r e d in a c e r t a i n r e g u l a r w a y ) . T h e f o u r c r i t e r i a are at w o r k t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h o f all o u r many claims about the world beyond observation are

most

likely t o b e t r u e . In all fields w e s e e k t h e s i m p l e s t h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h leads us t o e x p e c t t h e p h e n o m e n a w e find (and w h i c h , i f t h e r e is b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e , fits b e s t w i t h i t ) .

[37]

3 THE SIMPLICITY OF GOD Ultimate

Explanation

Inanimate

and

personal

causation

interact.

Sometimes

one

e x p l a i n s t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d in t h e o t h e r . Physical s c i e n c e e x p l a i n s w h y a ball d r o p p e d f r o m a t o w e r 6 4 feet above the ground takes t w o seconds to reach the ground. But w e may require a personal explanation o f why t h e ball w a s d r o p p e d at all. It m i g h t b e that G a l i l e o d r o p p e d it in o r d e r t o t e s t his p r o p o s e d law o f g r a v i t y . clearly

human

powers,

beliefs,

and

purposes

Conversely, are

causally

a f f e c t e d b y i n a n i m a t e f a c t o r s . M y b e l i e f s m a y b e caused b y t h e arrival o f light rays o n m y e y e s and s o u n d w a v e s o n m y e a r s . T h e p r o c e s s o f b e l i e f - p r o d u c t i o n d o e s n o t involve t h e light rays having any p u r p o s e t o cause m y b e l i e f s : t h e p r o c e s s is analysable in t e r m s o f t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f i n a n i m a t e o b j e c t s — a t least partially. L i k e w i s e , m y basic p o w e r s o f b o d ily m o v e m e n t

a r e caused b y t h e

states o f m y n e r v e s

and

b r a i n — a t least partially. I can m o v e m y a r m w h e n I c h o o s e o n l y i f m y b r a i n , n e r v e s , m u s c l e s , and so o n a r e in c e r t a i n s t a t e s . T h e i r b e i n g in t h e r e q u i s i t e state is p a r t o f t h e cause o f m y having t h e p o w e r t o m o v e m y a r m . T h e w a y I do m o v e m y a r m i n t e n t i o n a l l y is b y ( u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y ) causing a b r a i n state w h i c h in t u r n

causes t h e

[38]

arm

movement.

Also,

my

The Simplicity of God purposes are

formed

u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f desires

having

t h e i r o r i g i n in t h e state o f m y b o d y — m y d e s i r e t o e a t ,

for

e x a m p l e , b e i n g caused b y t h e e m p t i n e s s o f m y s t o m a c h . ( M y v i e w in t h e case o f p u r p o s e s , as I stated e a r l i e r , is t h a t such i n f l u e n c e s a r e o n l y p a r t i a l . A p e r s o n has t h e p o w e r t o r e s i s t such i n f l u e n c e s . ) I n a n i m a t e and p e r s o n a l causation

interact.

Inanimate factors help to f o r m our choices; our choices help to form the inanimate world. The

human

quest

for

explanation

inevitably

and

rightly

seeks for t h e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f e v e r y t h i n g o b s e r v a b l e — that o b j e c t o r o b j e c t s o n w h i c h e v e r y t h i n g e l s e d e p e n d s f o r its e x i s t e n c e and p r o p e r t i e s . N o t e v e r y t h i n g w i l l have an e x p l a n a t i o n . A m a y b e e x p l a i n e d b y B , and B b y C , b u t in t h e e n d t h e r e w i l l b e s o m e o n e o b j e c t o r m a n y o b j e c t s w i t h such and such p r o p e r t i e s o n w h i c h all o t h e r o b j e c t s d e p e n d . W e have t o a c k n o w l e d g e something

will

as u l t i m a t e — t h e g r e a t m e t a -

physical issue is what t h a t is. T h e r e s e e m t o b e t h r e e p o s s i b l e ultimate

explanations

available.

One

is materialism.

What

I

m e a n b y this is t h e v i e w that t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f all t h e f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d in p e r s o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n h a v e a full i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n . It is n o t t h e e x t r e m e — a n d t o m y m i n d o b v i o u s l y f a l s e — v i e w that p e r s o n s , t h e i r b e l i e f s ,

purposes,

and so o n j u s t are m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s and t h e i r physical s t a t e s . T h a t view seems obviously f a l s e — s o m e o n e ' s purpose t o conq u e r t h e w o r l d is n o t t h e s a m e e v e n t as s o m e n e r v e firing in t h e b r a i n . A list o f t h e e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g in t h e w o r l d w h i c h i n c l u d e d o n l y t h e l a t t e r and n o t t h e f o r m e r w o u l d have left something out. A Martian who discovered everything

about

m y b r a i n w o u l d still w a n t t o k n o w w h e t h e r I had p u r p o s e s o r w a s j u s t an i n a n i m a t e r o b o t . (I shall have m o r e t o say a b o u t this p o i n t in C h a p t e r 5 . ) W h a t I m e a n h e r e b y m a t e r i a l i s m is t h e v i e w that t h e p e r s o n a l and m e n t a l , t h o u g h d i s t i n c t f r o m

[39]

The Simplicity of God i t , a r e fully c a u s e d b y t h e physical; that t h e e x i s t e n c e o f p e r s o n s , and t h e i r having t h e p u r p o s e s , p o w e r s , and b e l i e f s t h e y d o , has a full i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n (in t e r m s o f t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f such m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s as n e r v e c e l l s ) . O n e a l t e r n a t i v e t o m a t e r i a l i s m is a m i x e d t h e o r y — t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d in

personal

e x p l a n a t i o n c a n n o t b e e x p l a i n e d fully in i n a n i m a t e t e r m s ; a n d , conversely,

that t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e

factors

i n v o l v e d in i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n c a n n o t b e e x p l a i n e d fully in p e r s o n a l t e r m s . L e t us call this t h e o r y

humanism.

T h e t h i r d possibility is that t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d in i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n a r e t h e m s e l v e s t o b e e x p l a i n e d in p e r s o n a l t e r m s , w h e r e p e r s o n s i n c l u d e , n o t just human persons, but a personal being o f a quite different k i n d , G o d . T h a t is t h e claim o f theism, t h e v i e w that t h e r e is a G o d . O n this v i e w , as w e saw in C h a p t e r 1 , G o d k e e p s in existence the material objects o f our universe from

moment

t o m o m e n t , w i t h t h e i r p o w e r s and liabilities t o a c t . H e acts o n t h e w o r l d , as w e a c t o n o u r b o d i e s ; b u t , u n l i k e u s , h e is n o t d e p e n d e n t o n any b o d y f o r his p o w e r t o a c t . A n d s o , w h i l e it is t r u e that t h e m e t a l e x p a n d s b e c a u s e it w a s h e a t e d , and that it has the p o w e r t o e x p a n d and t h e liability t o e x e r cise that p o w e r w h e n h e a t e d , the m e t a l exists b e c a u s e

God

k e e p s it in b e i n g , and it has t h e p o w e r t o e x p a n d and t h e liability t o e x e r c i s e that p o w e r w h e n h e a t e d b e c a u s e G o d , a p e r s o n , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y sustains in it that p o w e r and liability in v i r t u e o f his basic p o w e r s . G o d thus k e e p s t h e laws o f n a t u r e o p e r a t i v e ; a n d , in k e e p i n g in e x i s t e n c e t h e m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s o f our universe, he keeps operative the law o f the conservation o f m a t t e r . If t h e u n i v e r s e had a b e g i n n i n g , G o d c r e a t e d t h e first m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s t h e n . G o d also c a u s e s , c l a i m s t h e i s m , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f h u m a n p e r s o n s and k e e p s t h e m in e x i s t e n c e f r o m

[40]

The Simplicity of God m o m e n t t o m o m e n t ; and h e causes t h e m t o have and sustain in t h e m t h e p o w e r s and b e l i e f s t h e y d o . H e d o e s this in p a r t b y such m e a n s as sustaining in g e n e s t h e p o w e r s t o p r o d u c e h u m a n b e i n g s , and in t h e m o l e c u l e s w h i c h f o r m b r a i n s t h e p o w e r s t o sustain h u m a n p o w e r s and b e l i e f s . G o d also p e r m i t s humans to form the purposes they d o , but he does not m a k e t h e m c h o o s e this w a y r a t h e r t h a n t h a t . T h e s e t h r e e rivals f o r p r o v i d i n g t h e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f all o b s e r v a b l e p h e n o m e n a m u s t b e assessed b y t h e f o u r c r i t e r i a for

assessing

proposed

explanations

which

I

analysed

in

C h a p t e r 2 . B u t w h e n w e a r e c o n s i d e r i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s o f all o b s e r v a b l e p h e n o m e n a , c l e a r l y , as w e saw t h e r e , c r i t e r i o n 3 d r o p s o u t . W h e n y o u are t r y i n g t o e x p l a i n e v e r y t h i n g o b s e r v able, there are no neighbouring

fields

a b o u t w h i c h y o u can

have k n o w l e d g e , w i t h w h i c h y o u r t h e o r y n e e d s t o fit. So t h e application o f t h e f o u r c r i t e r i a b o i l s d o w n t o this. T h a t t h e o r y o f u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n is m o s t likely t o b e t h e t r u e w h i c h is t h e s i m p l e s t t h e o r y w h i c h p r e d i c t s t h e phenomena

when

we

would not otherwise

one,

observable

expect

to

find

t h e m . T h e thesis o f this b o o k is that t h e i s m p r o v i d e s b y far t h e s i m p l e s t e x p l a n a t i o n o f all p h e n o m e n a . M a t e r i a l i s m is n o t , I shall a r g u e , a s i m p l e h y p o t h e s i s , and t h e r e is a r a n g e o f p h e n o m e n a w h i c h it is m o s t u n l i k e l y e v e r t o b e able t o e x p l a i n . H u m a n i s m is an e v e n less s i m p l e h y p o t h e s i s than m a t e r i a l i s m . As w e shall see m o r e fully in d u e c o u r s e , t h e g r e a t c o m p l e x i t y o f m a t e r i a l i s m arises f r o m this, that it p o s t u l a t e s that t h e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f things b e h a v i n g as t h e y do n o w is p r o v i d e d b y t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f an i m m e n s e (possibly i n f i n i t e ) n u m b e r o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s . E a c h o f t h e s e is m a d e o f a t o m s , and t h e a t o m s a r e m a d e o f f u n d a m e n t a l p a r t i c l e s , such as e l e c t r o n s and p r o t o n s ; and t h e s e in t h e i r t u r n a r e m a d e o f q u a r k s , a n d , f o r all w e n o w k n o w , t h e quarks a r e m a d e

[41]

of

The Simplicity of God sub-quarks.

These material

objects belong to kinds,

which

have e x a c t l y t h e s a m e p o w e r s and liabilities as e a c h o t h e r . All bits o f c o p p e r ,

as w e

have n o t e d ,

have e x a c t l y

the

same

p o w e r s t o e x p a n d o r m e l t o r c o n v e y e l e c t r i c i t y , and t h e liabilities t o e x e r c i s e t h e s e p o w e r s u n d e r t h e s a m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . F o r e a c h e v e n t , t h e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y it h a p p e n e d is t o b e f o u n d in t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t s i n v o l v e d in i t . T h e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f this s t o n e falling t o t h e g r o u n d in t w o s e c o n d s lies in t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f t h e s t o n e and t h e e a r t h (as codified b y N e w t o n ' s laws o r w h a t e v e r laws e x p l a i n N e w t o n ' s l a w s ) . A n d t h e ultimate

explanation

o f this p i e c e o f c o p p e r

expanding

when

h e a t e d lies in t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f this b i t o f c o p p e r . A c c o r d i n g t o m a t e r i a l i s m , u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n stops at i n n u merable different stopping points, many o f t h e m — a c c o r d i n g t o m a t e r i a l i s m , c o i n c i d e n t a l l y — h a v i n g e x a c t l y the same p o w e r s and liabilities as each o t h e r . Any ultimate inanimate involve

the

continuing

explanation

powers

and

o f things n o w liabilities

of

must

objects.

W h a t e v e r h a p p e n e d in t h e b e g i n n i n g , it is o n l y b e c a u s e e l e c t r o n s and bits o f c o p p e r and all o t h e r m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s have t h e s a m e p o w e r s in t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y as t h e y did in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y that things a r e as t h e y a r e n o w . T h e p r e s e n t p o w e r s o f o b j e c t s m a y have b e e n b r o u g h t a b o u t b y a past c a u s e , b u t t h e i r p r e s e n t c o n t i n u i n g in e x i s t e n c e i s — o n materialist hypothesis—an

ultimate

brute

fact.

My

the

parents

m a y have c a u s e d m y c o m i n g i n t o e x i s t e n c e , b u t m y c o n t i n u ing e x i s t e n c e has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h e i r past a c t ; it is in v i r t u e o f m y s e l f , m y o w n p o w e r s , that I c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t . So the complexity o f materialism cannot be explained away by t h e u n i v e r s e c o m i n g i n t o b e i n g f r o m a ' s i n g u l a r i t y ' in t h e past. It r e m a i n s a v e r y c o m p l i c a t e d h y p o t h e s i s — i n p o s t u l a t i n g t h a t

[42]

The Simplicity of God t h e c o m p l e t e causes o f things n o w a r e i n n u m e r a b l e

separate

o b j e c t s ( c o i n c i d e n t a l l y , w i t h e x a c t l y t h e s a m e p o w e r s as e a c h o t h e r ) . A n d , o f c o u r s e , h u m a n i s m is an e v e n m o r e c a t e d h y p o t h e s i s — f o r it p o s t u l a t e s that c u r r e n t terminates

not

merely

with

innumerable

compli-

explanation

separate

material

o b j e c t s , b u t w i t h v e r y m a n y p e r s o n s and t h e i r p o w e r s

and

p u r p o s e s , all o f w h i c h (as far as t h e i r p r e s e n t e x i s t e n c e is c o n c e r n e d ) are just brute facts. T h e i s m , I shall b e a r g u i n g , can do a l o t b e t t e r . In this c h a p t e r I shall a r g u e that t h e i s m is a v e r y s i m p l e h y p o t h e s i s — t h e s i m p l e s t h y p o t h e s i s t o p r o v i d e an u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n w h i c h t h e r e c o u l d b e ; and in s u b s e q u e n t c h a p t e r s I shall s h o w h o w t h e i s m leads us t o e x p e c t t o find t h e things w h i c h w e find—when

The

do

w e w o u l d n o t o t h e r w i s e e x p e c t t o find t h e m .

Simplicity

of

Theism

T h e i s m c l a i m s that e v e r y o t h e r o b j e c t w h i c h e x i s t s is caused t o e x i s t and k e p t in e x i s t e n c e b y j u s t o n e s u b s t a n c e , G o d . A n d it c l a i m s that e v e r y p r o p e r t y w h i c h e v e r y s u b s t a n c e has is d u e t o G o d causing o r p e r m i t t i n g it t o e x i s t . It is a h a l l m a r k o f a s i m p l e e x p l a n a t i o n t o p o s t u l a t e f e w c a u s e s . T h e r e c o u l d in this r e s p e c t b e n o s i m p l e r e x p l a n a t i o n than o n e w h i c h p o s t u l a t e d o n l y o n e c a u s e . T h e i s m is s i m p l e r t h a n p o l y t h e i s m . A n d t h e ism p o s t u l a t e s f o r its o n e c a u s e , a p e r s o n , infinite d e g r e e s o f those power

properties (God

knowledge know),

can

(God

which do

knows

and infinite

are

essential

anything

everything

freedom

to

logically

(no

persons—infinite possible),

logically

external

infinite

possible

cause

to

influences

w h i c h p u r p o s e s G o d f o r m s : G o d acts o n l y in so far as h e sees reason for acting.)

[43]

The Simplicity of God T h e h y p o t h e s i s that t h e r e is an infinitely p o w e r f u l , k n o w l e d g e a b l e and f r e e p e r s o n is t h e h y p o t h e s i s that t h e r e is a p e r son w i t h z e r o l i m i t s ( a p a r t f r o m t h o s e o f l o g i c ) t o his p o w e r , k n o w l e d g e , and f r e e d o m . Scientists have always s e e n p o s t u lating infinite d e g r e e s o f s o m e q u a n t i t y as s i m p l e r than p o s t u lating s o m e v e r y l a r g e finite d e g r e e o f that q u a n t i t y , and have always d o n e t h e f o r m e r w h e n it p r e d i c t e d o b s e r v a t i o n s equally well.

N e w t o n ' s t h e o r y o f gravity p o s t u l a t e d that t h e

grav-

itational f o r c e t r a v e l l e d w i t h infinite v e l o c i t y , r a t h e r than w i t h some

very

large

finite

velocity

(say

2,000,000,000.325

k m / s e c . ) w h i c h w o u l d have p r e d i c t e d t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s equally well within the limit o f accuracy to which measurements could be m a d e . O n l y when Einstein's General T h e o r y of Relativity, c o n c e r n e d w i t h e l e c t r o m a g n e t i s m as w e l l as w i t h g r a v i t y , was a d o p t e d as t h e s i m p l e s t t h e o r y c o v e r i n g a vast r a n g e o f data did scientists a c c e p t as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f that t h e o r y that t h e gravitational f o r c e t r a v e l l e d w i t h a finite v e l o c i t y . L i k e w i s e in t h e M i d d l e A g e s p e o p l e b e l i e v e d that light t r a v e l l e d w i t h an infinite v e l o c i t y r a t h e r than w i t h s o m e l a r g e finite

velocity

equally c o m p a t i b l e w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n s . O n l y w h e n o b s e r v a t i o n s w e r e m a d e b y R o m e r in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e i n f i n i t e - v e l o c i t y t h e o r y was it a c c e p t e d that light had a finite v e l o c i t y . Z e r o and infinity a r e o p p o s i t e s . T o p o s t u l a t e that light t r a v els w i t h infinite v e l o c i t y is t o p o s t u l a t e that it t a k e s z e r o t i m e t o r e a c h any finitely distant d e s t i n a t i o n . Scientists have s h o w n a p r e f e r e n c e , similar t o t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r infinity, f o r t h e o r i e s w h i c h p o s t u l a t e z e r o d e g r e e s o f s o m e quantity

rather

than s o m e v e r y small d e g r e e o f that q u a n t i t y equally c o m p a t ible w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n s . T h e y have p r e f e r r e d t o p o s t u l a t e , f o r e x a m p l e , that p h o t o n s ( t h e p a r t i c l e s o f light) have z e r o r e s t m a s s ( z e r o m a s s w h e n s t a t i o n a r y ) r a t h e r than a very v e r y small

[44]

The Simplicity of God r e s t m a s s (say 2 . 6 2 X 1 0 ~

1 0 0 0

g m s ) , w h e n either hypothesis

w a s equally c o m p a t i b l e w i t h anything w h i c h c o u l d h a v e b e e n observed. P e r s o n s , as w e have s e e n ,

are o b j e c t s w i t h

(intentional)

p o w e r s , p u r p o s e s , and b e l i e f s . I f t h e a c t i o n o f a p e r s o n is t o explain t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e u n i v e r s e , h e will n e e d t o b e a v e r y p o w e r f u l p e r s o n . It is a s i m p l e r h y p o t h e s i s t o p o s t u l a t e that his p o w e r is infinite r a t h e r than j u s t

very

l a r g e . I f w e said that h e w a s p o w e r f u l e n o u g h t o m a k e a u n i v e r s e o f such and such mass b u t n o t p o w e r f u l e n o u g h t o m a k e a m o r e m a s s i v e o n e , t h e q u e s t i o n w o u l d arise as t o w h y t h e r e was j u s t that r a t h e r than any o t h e r l i m i t t o his p o w e r . It n a t urally fits t h e suggestion that G o d ' s p o w e r is infinite that t h e r e b e n o causal i n f l u e n c e s f r o m o u t s i d e G o d influencing h o w h e e x e r c i s e s t h a t p o w e r , and so it is s i m p l e s t t o h o l d that his f r e e d o m t o o is i n f i n i t e . In o r d e r t o e x e r c i s e p o w e r e f f e c t i v e l y , y o u need t o k n o w what are the consequences

o f your

actions.

H e n c e it naturally fits t h e claim that G o d is infinitely p o w e r ful and f r e e t o claim that h e is infinitely k n o w l e d g e a b l e . If w e a r e t o e x p l a i n t h e various p h e n o m e n a t o b e d e s c r i b e d in subsequent chapters by the purposive action o f G o d , w e

shall

n e e d t o s u p p o s e that h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f his a c t i o n s on a large s c a l e . It is s i m p l e s t t o suppose that his understanding

o f things is u n l i m i t e d .

Hence

the

principles

w h i c h w e use in s c i e n c e and h i s t o r y and all o t h e r

human

e n q u i r i e s i n t o causes i n d i c a t e t h a t , i f w e a r e t o e x p l a i n t h e w o r l d in t e r m s o f p e r s o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n , w e should p o s t u l a t e a p e r s o n a l b e i n g o f infinite p o w e r , k n o w l e d g e , and f r e e d o m . It is s i m p l e r t o s u p p o s e that G o d exists e t e r n a l l y . I f h e c a m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e o n l y at a c e r t a i n past m o m e n t o f t i m e , t h e r e w o u l d have b e e n s o m e e a r l i e r p e r i o d o f t i m e at w h i c h w h a t h a p p e n e d w o u l d have had n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h G o d .

[45]

Other

The Simplicity of God f o r c e s w o u l d have b e e n at w o r k , and it w o u l d have d e p e n d e d o n t h e m w h e t h e r G o d c a m e i n t o b e i n g at all. A n d so hypothesis inevitably

postulated become

to

more

explain

how

complicated,

the in

world

is

our

would

postulating

other

f o r c e s and t o that e x t e n t l i m i t e d divine p o w e r . A n d t h e s a m e applies i f w e s u p p o s e d t h a t G o d c o u l d c e a s e t o e x i s t in f u t u r e . It s e e m s t o m e that it is s i m p l e r t o p o s t u l a t e n o t m e r e l y that G o d is e t e r n a l l y infinitely p o w e r f u l , k n o w l e d g e a b l e , and f r e e , b u t that h e is so essentially. If w e w e r e t o say that it is o n l y an a c c i d e n t that G o d is infinitely p o w e r f u l , e t c . , w e a l l o w that G o d c o u l d , i f h e so c h o s e , a b d i c a t e . H e c o u l d r e d u c e h i m s e l f t o a b e i n g o f l i m i t e d p o w e r . H e c o u l d e v e n c o m m i t suic i d e . A n d t h e n it w o u l d b e o p e n t o s o m e rival t o

become

infinitely p o w e r f u l i n s t e a d . B u t , in that c a s e , it w o u l d have b e e n an a c c i d e n t that o u r G o d was in c h a r g e o f t h e u n i v e r s e ; it c o u l d have b e e n , and c o u l d y e t h a p p e n , that a n o t h e r

God

t o o k c h a r g e ( m a y b e w i t h less e x t e n s i v e p o w e r s . ) B u t all o f that w o u l d m a k e it m u c h less t h e f o u n d a t i o n a l b r u t e fact that o u r G o d is t h e s o u r c e o f all that is. It w o u l d n e e d t o

be

e x p l a i n e d w h y G o d had n o t already l i m i t e d his p o w e r s

or

c o m m i t t e d s u i c i d e . A n d s o m e o t h e r causal f a c t o r s w o u l d b e at w o r k determining under what conditions

s o m e rival

b e c o m e o m n i p o t e n t . All that n o l o n g e r r e q u i r e s

could

explanation

i f w e s u p p o s e that G o d is essentially o m n i p o t e n t , o m n i s c i e n t , p e r f e c t l y f r e e , and e t e r n a l . T h e m o t i v a t i o n h e r e is j u s t t h e s a m e as a similar m o t i v a t i o n in physics w h i c h thinks o f f u n d a m e n t a l p a r t i c l e s as t h e partic l e s t h e y a r e o n l y if t h e y r e t a i n t h e i r p o w e r s . T h e p o w e r s t h e y have a r e p a r t o f w h a t m a k e s t h e m t h e o b j e c t s t h e y a r e . An e l e c t r o n is an e l e c t r o n o n l y i f it r e p e l s all o t h e r e l e c t r o n s w i t h a c e r t a i n fixed f o r c e . A t t h e b o t t o m e x p l a n a t o r y l e v e l , things a r e w h a t t h e y a r e partly in v i r t u e o f t h e i r p o w e r s .

[46]

The Simplicity of God A p e r s o n c o u l d n o t b e a p e r s o n i f h e had z e r o d e g r e e s o f p o w e r , k n o w l e d g e , and f r e e d o m . T o s u p p o s e a finite l i m i t t o t h e s e qualities is less s i m p l e than t o s u p p o s e n o l i m i t . A n d t o suppose infinite d e g r e e s o f t h e s e qualities b o u n d t o g e t h e r , and b o u n d t o e t e r n i t y , is t o p o s t u l a t e t h e s i m p l e s t kind o f p e r s o n t h e r e c o u l d b e ; a n d , as w e saw in C h a p t e r 1 , all t h e

other

essential p r o p e r t i e s o f G o d f o l l o w f r o m t h e t h r e e p r o p e r t i e s o f o m n i p o t e n c e , o m n i s c i e n c e , and p e r f e c t f r e e d o m .

Hence,

theism provides the simplest kind o f personal explanation o f the universe there

could b e .

God

chooses for reasons,

or

b e t w e e n r e a s o n s , and b r i n g s a b o u t t h e u n i v e r s e b e c a u s e it is o n e o f t h e m a n y g o o d things h e c o u l d b r i n g a b o u t . G o d b e i n g o m n i p o t e n t c o u l d b r i n g a b o u t anything, and so s h o w i n g that w h a t w e o b s e r v e is t o b e e x p e c t e d i f t h e r e is a G o d will c o n s i s t in s h o w i n g that w h a t w e o b s e r v e b e l o n g s t o a kind o f u n i v e r s e t h a t , in v i r t u e o f his p e r f e c t g o o d n e s s , G o d has r e a s o n t o b r i n g a b o u t . T h a t does n o t g u a r a n t e e that h e will b r i n g it a b o u t , b u t it m a k e s it q u i t e l i k e l y . I shall s h o w this f o r t h e r a n g e o f p h e n o m e n a w e find a r o u n d u s , w h i l e at t h e s a m e t i m e s h o w i n g t h e g r e a t c o m p l e x i t y o f any m a t e r i a l i s t e x p l a n a t i o n o f s o m e o f t h e s e p h e n o m e n a , and t h e inability o f m a t e r i a l i s m t o e x p l a i n o t h e r p h e n o m e n a at all.

[47]

4 HOW THE EXISTENCE OF GOD EXPLAINS THE WORLD AND ITS ORDER

The

Universe

and

its Natural

Laws

T h e r e is a physical u n i v e r s e c o n s i s t i n g o f i n n u m e r a b l e differe n t l y sized c h u n k s o f m a t t e r .

Our

e a r t h is o n e o f

several

planets w h i c h travel a r o u n d t h e s u n , w h i c h is a small s t a r , a big ball o f f l a m e . T h e star is o n e o f m a n y m i l l i o n s o f stars in o u r g a l a x y , o u r g r o u p o f s t a r s , t h e M i l k y W a y . O u r galaxy b e l o n g s t o a local c l u s t e r o f g a l a x i e s , and a s t r o n o m e r s

can

o b s e r v e m a n y t h o u s a n d s o f m i l l i o n s o f such c l u s t e r s . A l t h o u g h very

largely

uniform,

the

universe

contains

much

local

' c l u m p i n g ' . T h e stars and the planets a r e o f d i f f e r e n t sizes, and p l a n e t s such as o u r o w n a r e u n e v e n in all sorts o f w a y s — c o n sider t h e d i f f e r e n t l y sized and shaped p e b b l e s on t h e sea s h o r e . It is e x t r a o r d i n a r y that t h e r e should e x i s t anything at all. S u r e l y t h e m o s t natural state o f affairs is simply n o t h i n g : n o u n i v e r s e , n o G o d , n o t h i n g . B u t t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g . A n d so

[48]

The World and its Order m a n y t h i n g s . M a y b e c h a n c e c o u l d have t h r o w n up t h e

odd

e l e c t r o n , BUT so m a n y p a r t i c l e s ! N o t e v e r y t h i n g will h a v e an e x p l a n a t i o n . B u t , as w e have s e e n , t h e w h o l e p r o g r e s s o f scie n c e and all o t h e r i n t e l l e c t u a l e n q u i r y d e m a n d s that w e p o s t u l a t e t h e s m a l l e s t n u m b e r o f b r u t e f a c t s . I f w e can e x p l a i n the many bits o f the universe by one simple being which keeps t h e m in e x i s t e n c e , w e should d o s o — e v e n i f inevitably

we

c a n n o t e x p l a i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f that s i m p l e b e i n g . Y e t n o t m e r e l y are there e n o r m o u s n u m b e r s o f things, but t h e y all b e h a v e in e x a c t l y t h e s a m e w a y . T h e s a m e laws o f nature

govern

the

most

distant

galaxies

we

can

observe

t h r o u g h o u r t e l e s c o p e s as o p e r a t e o n e a r t h , and t h e s a m e laws g o v e r n t h e e a r l i e s t e v e n t s in t i m e t o w h i c h w e can i n f e r as o p e r a t e t o d a y . O r , as I p r e f e r t o p u t it, e v e r y o b j e c t ,

how-

e v e r distant in t i m e and space f r o m o u r s e l v e s , has t h e s a m e p o w e r s and t h e s a m e liabilities t o e x e r c i s e t h o s e p o w e r s as do t h e e l e c t r o n s and p r o t o n s o f w h i c h o u r o w n b o d i e s a r e m a d e . I f t h e r e is n o cause o f t h i s , it w o u l d b e a m o s t e x t r a o r d i n a r y coincidence—too

extraordinary

for

any r a t i o n a l p e r s o n

to

b e l i e v e . B u t s c i e n c e c a n n o t e x p l a i n w h y e v e r y o b j e c t has t h e s a m e p o w e r s and liabilities. It can e x p l a i n w h y an o b j e c t has o n e p o w e r in v i r t u e o f it having s o m e w i d e r p o w e r ( w h y this local l a w o f n a t u r e o p e r a t e s in v i r t u e o f s o m e m o r e g e n e r a l l a w o f n a t u r e o p e r a t i n g ) . B u t it c o u l d n o t c o n c e i v a b l y e x p l a i n w h y each o b j e c t has t h e m o s t g e n e r a l p o w e r s it d o e s . S u p p o s e that N e w t o n ' s t h r e e l a w s o f m o t i o n and his law o f gravitational a t t r a c t i o n a r e t h e f u n d a m e n t a l laws o f n a t u r e .

Then

w h a t that m e a n s is that e v e r y a t o m , e v e r y e l e c t r o n , and so o n a t t r a c t s e v e r y o t h e r o b j e c t in t h e u n i v e r s e w i t h e x a c t l y t h e s a m e a t t r a c t i v e f o r c e ( i . e . o n e w h i c h varies w i t h t h e s q u a r e o f t h e i r d i s t a n c e a p a r t ) . N o w N e w t o n s ' s l a w s are n o t t h e fundamental laws o f nature;

they hold very accurately but

[49]

not

The World and its Order t o t a l l y a c c u r a t e l y , and o n l y w h e n t h e b o d i e s w i t h w h i c h t h e y deal a r e n o t t o o massive and n o t m o v i n g t o o fast. B u t , t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h N e w t o n ' s laws d o h o l d , that is b e c a u s e t h e y follow

from

the

laws o f G e n e r a l

Relativity

and

Quantum

T h e o r y ; and m a y b e t h e s e a r e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f s o m e m o r e general t h e o r y — G r a n d

Unified T h e o r y .

But,

wherever

we

stop, the same general point applies. Suppose w e stop with G r a n d U n i f i e d T h e o r y . T h e n e v e r y a t o m and e v e r y e l e c t r o n in t h e u n i v e r s e has j u s t t h e s a m e p o w e r s and l i a b i l i t i e s — t h o s e described by Grand Unified T h e o r y . And that, if you allow y o u r s e l f o n l y scientific e x p l a n a t i o n s , is w h e r e you s t o p . T h a t , says t h e m a t e r i a l i s t , is j u s t h o w things a r e . B u t t h a t s o r t o f s t o p p i n g place is j u s t w h e r e n o

rational

e n q u i r e r will s t o p . If all t h e c o i n s f o u n d o n an a r c h a e o l o g i c a l site have t h e s a m e m a r k i n g s , o r all t h e d o c u m e n t s in a r o o m are w r i t t e n w i t h t h e s a m e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c h a n d w r i t i n g , w e l o o k f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n in t e r m s o f a c o m m o n s o u r c e . T h e apparently coincidental cries out for explanation. It is n o t m e r e l y that all m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s have t h e s a m e v e r y g e n e r a l p o w e r s and liabilities as e a c h o t h e r ( e . g . b e h a v i n g in a c c o r d w i t h G r a n d U n i f i e d T h e o r y ) ; b u t t h e y fall i n t o k i n d s , m e m b e r s o f w h i c h b e h a v e like e a c h o t h e r in m o r e ways.

Each

electron

behaves

like

each

other

specific

electron

in

repelling every other electron with the same electrical f o r c e . A n d l a r g e r o b j e c t s fall i n t o k i n d s , t o o . O a k t r e e s b e h a v e like o t h e r o a k t r e e s , and t i g e r s like o t h e r t i g e r s . A n d m a n y o f t h e s e r e s p e c t s in w h i c h all m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s and o b j e c t s o f p a r t i c u l a r kinds b e h a v e like e a c h o t h e r ( f o r a l m o s t all t h e t i m e ) a r e also s i m p l e and so easily d e t e c t a b l e b y h u m a n b e i n g s . It m i g h t have h a p p e n e d that t h e u l t i m a t e c o n s t i t u e n t s

of

m a t t e r ( e l e c t r o n s , p r o t o n s , p h o t o n s , and s u c h l i k e , o r w h a t e v e r t h e y a r e m a d e o f ) b e h a v e d in t h e s a m e s i m p l e w a y s , b u t

[50]

The World and its Order that, when they came together to make medium-sized material o b j e c t s , t h e y b e h a v e d in such a c o m p l i c a t e d w a y t h a t , f r o m a mere never

superficial study o f t h e i r b e h a v i o u r ,

predict

what

would

happen.

Maybe

humans one

day

could rocks

w o u l d fall a p a r t , and o n a n o t h e r day t h e y w o u l d float in t h e a i r — b u t m e r e u n s c i e n t i f i c o b s e r v a t i o n w o u l d n o t lead us t o have t h e slightest idea w h i c h w o u l d h a p p e n w h e n . B u t f o r t u n a t e l y o u r w o r l d is n o t like t h a t . In o u r w o r l d t h e r e

are regularities

in t h e b e h a v i o u r

of

m e d i u m - s i z e d o b j e c t s w h i c h can b e r e a d i l y d e t e c t e d and u s e d b y t h e u n s c i e n t i f i c — r e g u l a r i t i e s w h i c h h o l d f o r a l m o s t all t h e t i m e and t o a high d e g r e e o f a p p r o x i m a t i o n . H e a v y o b j e c t s fall t o t h e g r o u n d , h u m a n s and o t h e r land animals n e e d air t o l i v e , seeds p l a n t e d and w a t e r e d g r o w i n t o p l a n t s , b r e a d n o u r i s h e s h u m a n s b u t grass d o e s n o t . A n d so o n . T h e r e a r e , o f c o u r s e , e x c e p t i o n s — t h e r e a r e cases w h e n h e a v y o b j e c t s will n o t fall t o t h e g r o u n d ( e . g . i f t h e y a r e heavily m a g n e t i z e d so as t o b e r e p e l l e d b y a m a g n e t b e n e a t h t h e m ) ; and o n l y a s c i e n t i s t c a n p r e d i c t exactly h o w l o n g an o b j e c t will t a k e t o fall, and exactly h o w m u c h b r e a d h u m a n s n e e d f o r n o r m a l activities. T h e o b v i ous a p p r o x i m a t e r e g u l a r i t i e s w h i c h h u m a n s can readily d e t e c t a r e o n e s w i t h i m p o r t a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r w h e t h e r w e live o r die ( e a t e n o u g h t o l i v e , e s c a p e p r e d a t o r s and a c c i d e n t s ) , h o w w e can m a t e , have c h i l d r e n , k e e p w a r m , t r a v e l , and so o n . B y o b s e r v i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e s e r e g u l a r i t i e s , h u m a n s

can

t h e n utilize t h e m t o m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e w o r l d o u t s i d e our bodies,

and t h e r e b y t o o u r o w n

lives. W e

need

true

beliefs a b o u t t h e e f f e c t s o f o u r basic a c t i o n s i f t h r o u g h t h e m w e a r e t o m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e w o r l d . B u t only i f o b j e c t s b e h a v e in r e g u l a r ways sufficiently s i m p l e t o b e u n d e r s t o o d b y h u m a n s w i l l w e b e able t o a c q u i r e t h o s e b e l i e f s . By o b s e r v i n g that b r e a d n o u r i s h e s , w e can t h e n t a k e steps t o stay alive b y

[51]

The World and its Order eating b r e a d .

By observing

that seeds

(including grains

of

w h e a t ) w h e n p l a n t e d and w a t e r e d g r o w i n t o p l a n t s , w e c a n t h e n t a k e steps t o g r o w w h e a t t o m a k e i n t o b r e a d . A n d so o n . But if material objects behaved totally erratically, w e would n e v e r b e able t o c h o o s e t o c o n t r o l t h e w o r l d o r o u r o w n lives in any w a y . S o , in s e e k i n g an e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y all m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s h a v e t h e s a m e s i m p l e p o w e r s and liabilities as e a c h o t h e r , w e should s e e k o n e w h i c h e x p l a i n s w h y t h e y a r e such that t h e a p p r o x i m a t e p o w e r s and liabilities o f m e d i u m - s i z e d m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s ( i n c l u d i n g t h o s e o f i m p o r t a n c e f o r h u m a n life) w h i c h f o l l o w t h e r e f r o m a r e readily d e t e c t a b l e b y h u m a n s . F o r it is a pervasive f e a t u r e o f all m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s — t h a t

their

p o w e r s and liabilities a r e such as t o h a v e this c o n s e q u e n c e . T h e s i m p l e h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e i s m leads us t o e x p e c t all t h e p h e n o m e n a w h i c h I have b e e n d e s c r i b i n g w i t h s o m e r e a s o n able d e g r e e o f p r o b a b i l i t y . G o d b e i n g o m n i p o t e n t is able t o p r o d u c e a w o r l d o r d e r l y in t h e s e r e s p e c t s . A n d h e has g o o d r e a s o n t o c h o o s e t o do s o : a w o r l d c o n t a i n i n g h u m a n p e r s o n s is a g o o d t h i n g . P e r s o n s have e x p e r i e n c e s , and t h o u g h t s , and can m a k e c h o i c e s , and t h e i r c h o i c e s can m a k e big d i f f e r e n c e s t o t h e m s e l v e s , t o o t h e r s , and t o t h e i n a n i m a t e w o r l d . b e i n g p e r f e c t l y g o o d , is g e n e r o u s .

He wants to share.

God, And

t h e r e is a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f g o o d n e s s in h u m a n p e r s o n s w i t h b o d i e s in a l a w - g o v e r n e d u n i v e r s e . W i t h a b o d y w e have a limited chunk of matter under our control,

and, if w e

so

c h o o s e , w e can c h o o s e t o l e a r n h o w t h e w o r l d w o r k s and so l e a r n w h i c h b o d i l y a c t i o n s will have m o r e r e m o t e e f f e c t s . W e can l e a r n q u i c k l y w h e n r o c k s a r e likely t o fall, p r e d a t o r s t o p o u n c e , and plants t o g r o w . T h e r e b y G o d a l l o w s us t o share in his c r e a t i v e activity o f c h o o s i n g . W e can m a k e c h o i c e s c r u cial f o r o u r s e l v e s — w h e t h e r t o avoid falling r o c k s , t o e s c a p e f r o m p r e d a t o r s , t o p l a n t c r o p s in o r d e r t o g e t e n o u g h t o e a t ,

[52]

The World and its Order o r n o t t o b o t h e r ; w h e t h e r t o b u i l d h o u s e s and live c o m f o r t ably o r t o b e c o n t e n t w i t h a m o r e p r i m i t i v e l i f e - s t y l e . A n d w e c a n m a k e c h o i c e s c r u c i a l f o r o t h e r s — w h e t h e r t o give t h e m food or let t h e m starve. B u t , b e c a u s e t h e a p p r o x i m a t e o b s e r v a b l e regularities in t h e b e h a v i o u r o f m e d i u m - s i z e d o b j e c t s are d u e t o m o r e

precise

regularities in t h e b e h a v i o u r o f t h e i r small-scale c o m p o n e n t s , w e can, i f w e so c h o o s e , t r y t o find o u t w h a t are t h e s e l a t t e r c o m p o n e n t s . W i t h this k n o w l e d g e w e can build i n s t r u m e n t s w h i c h e x t e n d f u r t h e r o u r k n o w l e d g e and c o n t r o l o f t h e w o r l d . H u m a n s can d i s c o v e r t h e laws o f d y n a m i c s and c h e m i s t r y and so m a k e cars and a e r o p l a n e s , o r — a l t e r n a t i v e l y — b o m b s g u n s ; and so e x t e n d t h e r a n g e o f o u r p o w e r f r o m

and

control

m e r e l y o f o u r b o d i e s and t h e i r local e n v i r o n m e n t t o a m u c h w i d e r c o n t r o l o f t h e w o r l d . E m b o d i m e n t in an o r d e r l y w o r l d gives t h e possibility n o t m e r e l y o f q u i c k learning o f r e g u l a r i ties utilizable f o r survival, b u t o f s c i e n c e and t e c h n o l o g y — o f d i s c o v e r i n g b y c o - o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t o v e r t h e years d e e p

laws

w h i c h can b e utilized t o r e b u i l d o u r w o r l d in t h e ways w e c h o o s e . It is up t o us w h e t h e r w e c h o o s e t o learn and e x t e n d c o n t r o l , and up t o us h o w w e e x t e n d c o n t r o l . Like a g o o d p a r e n t , a g e n e r o u s G o d has r e a s o n f o r n o t foisting on us a c e r t a i n fixed m e a s u r e o f k n o w l e d g e and c o n t r o l , b u t r a t h e r f o r giving us a c h o i c e o f w h e t h e r t o g r o w in k n o w l e d g e and c o n t r o l . It is b e c a u s e it p r o v i d e s t h e s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r h u m a n s that G o d has a r e a s o n t o c r e a t e a w o r l d g o v e r n e d by natural laws o f t h e k i n d w e f i n d . O f c o u r s e G o d has r e a s o n t o m a k e m a n y o t h e r t h i n g s , and I w o u l d h e s i t a t e t o say t h a t o n e c o u l d b e c e r tain that h e w o u l d m a k e such a w o r l d . B u t c l e a r l y it is t h e s o r t o f thing that t h e r e is s o m e significant p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t h e will m a k e . T h e suitability o f t h e w o r l d as a t h e a t r e f o r h u m a n s is n o t

[53]

The World and its Order t h e o n l y r e a s o n f o r G o d t o m a k e an o r d e r l y w o r l d . T h e h i g h e r animals

too

dictability

are

conscious,

learn,

o f things in t h e i r m o s t

and p l a n — a n d

the

easily d e t e c t a b l e

pre-

aspects

e n a b l e s t h e m t o do s o . B u t b e y o n d t h a t an o r d e r l y w o r l d is a b e a u t i f u l w o r l d . B e a u t y consists in p a t t e r n s o f o r d e r .

Total

c h a o s is u g l y . T h e m o v e m e n t s o f t h e stars in a c c o r d w i t h r e g u lar laws is a b e a u t i f u l d a n c e . T h e m e d i e v a l s t h o u g h t o f t h e p l a n e t s as c a r r i e d b y s p h e r e s t h r o u g h t h e sky, and t h e i r r e g u lar m o v e m e n t s p r o d u c i n g t h e ' m u s i c o f t h e s p h e r e s '

whose

b e a u t y h u m a n s casually i g n o r e d , a l t h o u g h it w a s o n e o f t h e m o s t b e a u t i f u l things t h e r e is. G o d has r e a s o n t o m a k e

an

o r d e r l y w o r l d , b e c a u s e b e a u t y is a g o o d t h i n g — i n m y v i e w w h e t h e r o r n o t a n y o n e e v e r o b s e r v e s it, b u t c e r t a i n l y i f o n l y o n e p e r s o n e v e r o b s e r v e s it. T h e a r g u m e n t t o G o d f r o m t h e w o r l d and its r e g u l a r i t y i s , I b e l i e v e , a c o d i f i c a t i o n b y p h i l o s o p h e r s o f a natural and rational r e a c t i o n t o an o r d e r l y w o r l d d e e p l y e m b e d d e d in t h e human consciousness. the

world

as

H u m a n s see t h e c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y

evidence

of

a comprehending

creator.

of The

p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h lived in an age in w h i c h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a c r e a t o r - g o d o f s o m e s o r t was t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d . W h a t was at stake w a s t h e e x t e n t o f his g o o d n e s s , k n o w l e d g e , and p o w e r . J e r e m i a h a r g u e d f r o m t h e o r d e r o f t h e w o r l d that h e w a s a p o w e r f u l and r e l i a b l e g o d , that g o d was t h e s o r t o f G o d that I d e s c r i b e d in C h a p t e r 1 . J e r e m i a h a r g u e d t o t h e p o w e r o f t h e creator from the e x t e n t o f the c r e a t i o n — ' T h e host o f heaven c a n n o t b e n u m b e r e d , n e i t h e r t h e sand o f t h e sea m e a s u r e d ' ( J e r . 3 3 : 2 2 ) ; and h e a r g u e d that its r e g u l a r b e h a v i o u r s h o w e d t h e reliability o f t h e c r e a t o r , and h e s p o k e o f t h e ' c o v e n a n t o f t h e day and n i g h t ' w h e r e b y t h e y f o l l o w e a c h o t h e r r e g u l a r l y , and ' t h e o r d i n a n c e s o f h e a v e n and e a r t h ' ( J e r . 3 3 : 20—1 and 25-6).

[54]

The World and its Order T h e orderly behaviour o f material bodies, which he

de-

s c r i b e s as t h e i r t e n d e n c y t o m o v e t o w a r d s a goal ( e . g .

the

falling b o d y t e n d i n g t o w a r d s the g r o u n d , t h e air b u b b l i n g up through

water),

was

the

basis

o f the

fifth o f St

Thomas

A q u i n a s ' s 'five w a y s ' t o p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d : The fifth way is based on the guidedness of things. For w e see that certain things lacking awareness, viz, natural bodies, move so as to attain a goal. This is evident from the fact that always o r very frequently they behave in the same way and there follows the best result—which shows that they truly tend to a goal, and do not merely hit it by accident. Nothing however that lacks awareness tends to a goal, except under the direction of someone with awareness and with understanding; the arrow, for example, requires an archer. Everything in nature, therefore, is directed to its goal by someone with understanding and this we call ' G o d ' . (Summa

Theologiae

la 2 . 3 )

T h e a r g u m e n t f r o m t h e e x i s t e n c e and r e g u l a r b e h a v i o u r

of

m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s t o a G o d w h o k e e p s t h e m in e x i s t e n c e w i t h t h e s a m e p o w e r s and liabilities as e a c h o t h e r is an a r g u m e n t w h i c h satisfies v e r y w e l l t h e c r i t e r i a set o u t in C h a p t e r 2 . T h e h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e i s m is a s i m p l e h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h leads us t o expect these observable phenomena,

when no other

hypo-

thesis w i l l do s o . O n t h e m a t e r i a l i s t h y p o t h e s i s it is a m e r e c o i n c i d e n c e that m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s have t h e s a m e p o w e r s as e a c h other,

and

not

a

simple

stopping

point

for

explanation.

B e c a u s e t h e i s m satisfies t h e c r i t e r i a w e l l , t h e e x i s t e n c e

and

regular behaviour o f material objects provide good evidence for the existence o f G o d .

[55]

The World and its Order

Human

and Animal

Bodies

T h e o r d e r l i n e s s o f n a t u r e in t h e r e g u l a r b e h a v i o u r o f o b j e c t s o v e r t i m e , codified in natural l a w s , is n o t t h e o n l y f a c e t o f t h e o r d e r l i n e s s o f t h e natural w o r l d . T h e r e is also t h e m a r v e l l o u s o r d e r o f h u m a n and a n i m a l b o d i e s . T h e y a r e like v e r y v e r y c o m p l i c a t e d m a c h i n e s . T h e y have d e l i c a t e sense o r g a n s w h i c h a r e sensitive t o so m a n y aspects o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , and cause us t o h a v e t r u e b e l i e f s

about

our environment.

We

learn

w h e r e t h e o b j e c t s a r o u n d us a r e , w h e r e o u r friends a r e and w h e r e o u r e n e m i e s a r e , w h e r e t h e r e is f o o d and w h e r e t h e r e is p o i s o n — t h r o u g h o u r e y e s t u r n i n g light rays and o u r ears t u r n i n g s o u n d w a v e s i n t o n e r v e i m p u l s e s . A n d b y using t h e s e r e s u l t a n t b e l i e f s w e can m o v e o u r s e l v e s , o u r a r m s and hands and

mouths—to

climb

and h o l d

rocks

and

talk—as

basic

a c t i o n s in ways w h i c h e n a b l e us t o a c h i e v e all sorts o f d i v e r s e goals ( i n c l u d i n g t h o s e n e e d e d f o r o u r s u r v i v a l ) . T h e c o m p l e x and i n t r i c a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f h u m a n and a n i m a l b o d i e s , w h i c h m a d e t h e m e f f e c t i v e v e h i c l e s f o r us t o a c q u i r e k n o w l e d g e and p e r f o r m a c t i o n s in t h e s e w a y s , was s o m e t h i n g w h i c h

struck

t h e a n a t o m i s t s and naturalists o f t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y e v e n m o r e than t h o s e o f e a r l i e r c e n t u r i e s (partly b e c a u s e t h e i n v e n t i o n o f t h e m i c r o s c o p e at t h e e n d o f t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y a l l o w e d t h e m t o see j u s t h o w i n t r i c a t e l y o r g a n i z e d t h o s e b o d ies w e r e ) . Very many

eighteenth-century

w r i t e r s a r g u e d that

there

w a s n o r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e that c h a n c e w o u l d t h r o w up such b e a u t i f u l o r g a n i z a t i o n , w h e r e a s G o d w a s able t o do so and had a b u n d a n t r e a s o n t o do s o — i n t h e g o o d n e s s , t o w h i c h I have d r a w n a t t e n t i o n in m y o w n w a y e a r l i e r in t h e c h a p t e r , o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e m b o d i e d animals and h u m a n s . H e n c e t h e i r e x istence, they argued, was good evidence o f the existence

[56]

of

The World and its Order G o d . I b e l i e v e this a r g u m e n t (as so far s t a t e d ) t o b e c o r r e c t , b y t h e c r i t e r i a given in C h a p t e r 2 . G o d has r e a s o n f o r c r e a t ing e m b o d i e d p e r s o n s and a n i m a l s , and so f o r c r e a t i n g h u m a n and a n i m a l b o d i e s . W i t h such b o d i e s w e can c h o o s e w h e t h e r t o g r o w in k n o w l e d g e and c o n t r o l o f t h e w o r l d (given that it is an o r d e r l y w o r l d ) . G o d is able t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f such b o d i e s . T h a t h e d o e s s o , w e s a w in C h a p t e r 3 , is a s i m p l e h y p o t h e s i s . H e n c e t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e that G o d is t h e c r e a t o r o f h u m a n and a n i m a l b o d i e s . T h e i r e x i s t e n c e p r o v i d e s a n o t h e r s t r a n d o f e v i d e n c e (additional t o that p r o v i d e d b y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e u n i v e r s e and its c o n f o r m i t y t o natural l a w s ) f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d . The

best-known

presentation

W i l l i a m P a l e y in his Natural

o f this

Theology

argument

( 1 8 0 6 ) , which

was

by

begins

w i t h t h e f a m o u s passage: In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think o f the answer which I had before g i v e n — t h a t , for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? W h y is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz., that, when we c o m e to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e . g . , that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order than that in which

[57]

The World and its Order they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it . . . T h e inference, w e think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some t i m e , and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. T h e r e s t o f P a l e y ' s b o o k is d e v o t e d t o s h o w i n g h o w w e l l built in all t h e i r i n t r i c a t e detail a r e animals and h u m a n s , and so t o c o n c l u d i n g that t h e y m u s t have had G o d as t h e i r m a k e r . T h i s analogy o f animals t o c o m p l e x m a c h i n e s s e e m s t o m e c o r r e c t , and its c o n c l u s i o n j u s t i f i e d . T h e a r g u m e n t d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , g i v e any r e a s o n t o supp o s e that G o d m a d e h u m a n s and animals as a basic act o n o n e particular

day

in

history,

rather

than

through

a

gradual

p r o c e s s . A n d , as w e n o w k n o w , h u m a n s and animals did c o m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e t h r o u g h t h e gradual p r o c e s s o f e v o l u t i o n f r o m a p r i m i t i v e s o u p o f m a t t e r w h i c h f o r m e d as e a r t h c o o l e d d o w n s o m e 4 , 0 0 0 m i l l i o n years a g o . In that p r o c e s s natural s e l e c t i o n played a c e n t r a l r o l e . D a r w i n ' s Origin

of Species

(1859)

taught us t h e o u t l i n e s o f t h e s t o r y , and b i o l o g i s t s have b e e n filling

in t h e details e v e r s i n c e . T h e c l e a r s i m p l e m o d e r n p r e -

s e n t a t i o n in R i c h a r d D a w k i n s ' s The Blind Watchmaker ( 1 9 8 6 ) is deservedly popular. B e c a u s e t h e story is so w e l l k n o w n , I shall s u m m a r i z e it in a q u i c k and v e r y c o n d e n s e d p a r a g r a p h . M o l e c u l e s o f t h e p r i m itive soup c o m b i n e d b y c h a n c e i n t o a very s i m p l e f o r m o f life w h i c h r e p r o d u c e d itself. It p r o d u c e d offspring v e r y similar t o i t s e l f b u t e a c h o f t h e m differing slightly b y c h a n c e in various r e s p e c t s . In v i r t u e o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , s o m e o f t h e offspring w e r e b e t t e r a d a p t e d t o survive and so s u r v i v e d ; o t h e r s w e r e n o t w e l l e q u i p p e d t o survive and did n o t s u r v i v e . T h e n e x t

[58]

The World and its Order g e n e r a t i o n s o f offspring p r o d u c e d o n a v e r a g e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s tics o f t h e i r p a r e n t s , b u t e x h i b i t e d slight variations f r o m t h e m in various w a y s . T h e m o r e a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c gave an advantage in t h e s t r u g g l e f o r survival, t h e m o r e e v o l u t i o n f a v o u r e d its d e v e l o p m e n t . O t h e r things b e i n g e q u a l , c o m p l e x i t y o f o r g a n ization w a s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w i t h survival value, and so m o r e c o m p l e x o r g a n i s m s b e g a n t o appear o n e a r t h . A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w h i c h gave an advantage t o c o m p l e x o r g a n i s m s was

sexual

r e p r o d u c t i o n , and so gradually t o d a y ' s m a l e and f e m a l e o r g a n i s m s e v o l v e d . W h a t e v e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an animal y o u n a m e , t h e r e is a s t o r y t o b e t o l d o f h o w it c a m e t o have that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c in t e r m s

o f it b e i n g o n e

of many

characteristics

w h i c h w e r e slight variants o n t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r e n t s , and it giving an advantage in t h e s t r u g g l e f o r survival o v e r t h e o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . O n c e u p o n a t i m e giraffes had n e c k s o f t h e s a m e l e n g t h as o t h e r animals o f t h e i r b o d i l y size. B u t b y c h a n c e s o m e giraffe c o u p l e s p r o d u c e d offspring w i t h l o n g e r n e c k s than usual. T h e s e offspring w i t h t h e l o n g e r n e c k s w e r e b e t t e r able t o r e a c h f o o d ( e . g . leaves in t h e t r e e t o p s ) than t h e o t h e r s , and so t h e y flourished and m o r e o f t h e m survived t o have m o r e offspring t h a n did t h o s e w i t h s h o r t e r n e c k s .

The

offspring o f t h e l o n g e r - n e c k e d giraffes had o n average n e c k s o f t h e s a m e l e n g t h s as t h e i r o w n p a r e n t s , b u t s o m e had

ones

slightly l o n g e r and o t h e r s had o n e s slightly s h o r t e r . T h e r e was an advantage in e v e n l o n g e r n e c k s , and s o t h e average n e c k o f the population b e c a m e

longer.

B u t giraffes w i t h v e r y

long

n e c k s p r o v e d less a b l e t o e s c a p e f r o m p r e d a t o r s — t h e y c o u l d n o t e s c a p e f r o m w o o d s o r r u n so fast w h e n p u r s u e d b y l i o n s . S o t h e l e n g t h o f giraffe n e c k s stabilized at an o p t i m u m s i z e — l o n g e n o u g h f o r giraffes t o g e t t h e leaves b u t n o t so l o n g as to make

them

unable

to escape

from

predators.

That,

or

s o m e t h i n g like i t , is t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y t h e giraffe has a

[59]

The World and its Order l o n g n e c k . A n d t h e r e is a similar s t o r y t o b e t o l d f o r e v e r y a n i m a l and h u m a n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . A little sensitivity t o light gave s o m e advantage ( t o m a n y animals in m a n y e n v i r o n m e n t s ) in t h e s t r u g g l e f o r survival, a little m o r e sensitivity gave m o r e advantage,

and h e n c e t h e e y e d e v e l o p e d in m a n y

animals.

A n d , a b o v e all, c o m p l e x i t y o f n e r v o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n in supp o r t i n g a r a n g e o f s e n s e organs and b o d i l y m o v e m e n t s gave g r e a t a d v a n t a g e , and so w e have t h e c o m p l e x l y o r g a n i z e d anim a l s and h u m a n s w e have t o d a y . S o , in s u m m a r y , t h e D a r w i n i a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y t h e r e a r e t h e c o m p l e x a n i m a l and h u m a n b o d i e s t h e r e a r e t o d a y is that o n c e u p o n a t i m e t h e r e w e r e c e r t a i n c h e m i c a l s o n e a r t h , a n d , given t h e laws o f e v o l u t i o n ( e . g . r e p r o d u c t i o n w i t h slight variation),

it was p r o b a b l e

that c o m p l e x

organisms

would

e m e r g e . This explanation o f the existence o f c o m p l e x organisms is surely a c o r r e c t e x p l a n a t i o n , b u t it is n o t an u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f that f a c t . F o r an u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n w e n e e d an e x p l a n a t i o n at t h e highest l e v e l o f w h y t h o s e l a w s r a t h e r than any o t h e r o n e s o p e r a t e d . T h e l a w s o f e v o l u t i o n a r e n o doubt

consequences

of

laws

of

chemistry

governing

the

o r g a n i c m a t t e r o f w h i c h animals are m a d e . A n d t h e laws o f c h e m i s t r y h o l d b e c a u s e t h e f u n d a m e n t a l l a w s o f physics h o l d . B u t w h y j u s t t h o s e f u n d a m e n t a l laws o f physics r a t h e r t h a n any o t h e r s ? I f t h e laws o f physics did n o t h a v e t h e

consequence

that s o m e c h e m i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t w o u l d give rise t o l i f e ,

or

that t h e r e w o u l d b e r a n d o m variations b y o f f s p r i n g f r o m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r e n t s , and so o n , t h e r e w o u l d b e n o e v o l u t i o n b y natural s e l e c t i o n .

S o , e v e n given t h a t t h e r e a r e laws

of

n a t u r e ( i . e . t h a t m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s have t h e s a m e p o w e r s and liabilities as e a c h o t h e r ) , w h y j u s t t h o s e laws? T h e m a t e r i a l i s t says t h a t t h e r e is n o e x p l a n a t i o n . T h e t h e i s t c l a i m s that G o d has a r e a s o n f o r b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h o s e l a w s b e c a u s e t h o s e l a w s

[60]

The World and its Order have the

consequence

that eventually

animals and

humans

evolve. E v e n g i v e n that t h e laws o f physics a r e such as t o g i v e rise t o laws o f e v o l u t i o n o f c o m p l e x o r g a n i s m s f r o m a

certain

p r i m i t i v e s o u p o f m a t t e r , animals and h u m a n s will e v o l v e o n l y i f t h e r e is a p r i m i t i v e s o u p w i t h t h e r i g h t c h e m i c a l c o n s t i t u t i o n t o start w i t h . S o m e soups d i f f e r e n t in c h e m i c a l c o n s t i t u t i o n f r o m that f r o m w h i c h t h e e a r t h actually b e g a n w o u l d a l s o , g i v e n t h e actual l a w s o f p h y s i c s , have g i v e n rise t o a n i m a l s . B u t m o s t soups o f c h e m i c a l e l e m e n t s m a d e f r o m

differently

a r r a n g e d f u n d a m e n t a l p a r t i c l e s w o u l d n o t have g i v e n rise t o a n i m a l s . S o w h y w a s t h e r e that p a r t i c u l a r p r i m i t i v e soup? W e can t r a c e t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e w o r l d f u r t h e r b a c k w a r d s .

The

p r i m i t i v e soup e x i s t e d b e c a u s e t h e e a r t h w a s f o r m e d in t h e w a y it w a s ; and t h e e a r t h was f o r m e d in t h e w a y it

was

b e c a u s e t h e galaxy w a s f o r m e d in t h e w a y it w a s , and so o n . . . until w e c o m e r i g h t b a c k t o t h e Big B a n g , t h e e x p l o s i o n 1 5 , 0 0 0 m i l l i o n years ago w i t h w h i c h a p p a r e n t l y t h e u n i v e r s e b e g a n . R e c e n t scientific w o r k has d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t o t h e fact that t h e u n i v e r s e is ' f i n e t u n e d ' . T h e m a t t e r - e n e r g y at t h e t i m e o f t h e Big B a n g had t o have a c e r t a i n density and a c e r tain v e l o c i t y o f r e c e s s i o n t o b r i n g f o r t h l i f e . ( F o r a s i m p l e account

of some

o f this

work,

see J o h n

Leslie,

Universes

( 1 9 8 9 ) . ) I n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e in t h e s e r e s p e c t s b y o n e p a r t in a m i l l i o n w o u l d have had t h e e f f e c t that t h e u n i v e r s e w a s n o t life e v o l v i n g . F o r e x a m p l e , i f t h e Big Bang had c a u s e d t h e c h u n k s o f m a t t e r - e n e r g y t o r e c e d e f r o m each o t h e r a little m o r e q u i c k l y , n o g a l a x i e s , s t a r s , o r p l a n e t s , and n o e n v i r o n m e n t suitable f o r l i f e , w o u l d have b e e n f o r m e d o n e a r t h o r a n y w h e r e else in t h e u n i v e r s e . If t h e r e c e s s i o n had b e e n m a r ginally s l o w e r , t h e u n i v e r s e w o u l d have c o l l a p s e d in o n i t s e l f b e f o r e life c o u l d have b e e n f o r m e d . If t h e r e is an u l t i m a t e

[61]

The World and its Order scientific e x p l a n a t i o n , it w i l l have t o l e a v e it as a b r u t e fact that t h e u n i v e r s e b e g a n in such a state and had such natural laws as t o b e life e v o l v i n g , w h e n a m a r g i n a l d i f f e r e n c e in t h o s e initial c o n d i t i o n s w o u l d have e n s u r e d that n o life e v e r e v o l v e d anywhere. O f c o u r s e , t h e u n i v e r s e m a y n o t have had a b e g i n n i n g w i t h a Big B a n g , b u t m a y have lasted f o r e v e r . E v e n s o , its m a t t e r m u s t have had c e r t a i n g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s i f at any t i m e t h e r e w a s t o b e a s t a t e o f t h e u n i v e r s e suited t o p r o d u c e animals and humans. There would need, for example, to be enough matt e r b u t n o t t o o m u c h o f it f o r c h e m i c a l s u b s t a n c e s t o b e b u i l t up at s o m e t i m e o r o t h e r — a l o t o f f u n d a m e n t a l p a r t i c l e s a r e n e e d e d b u t w i t h l a r g e spaces b e t w e e n t h e m . A n d o n l y a c e r tain r a n g e o f laws w o u l d a l l o w t h e r e t o b e animals and h u m a n s at any t i m e e v e r .

The

recent

scientific w o r k

on the

fine-

tuning o f t h e u n i v e r s e has d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e u n i v e r s e had a b e g i n n i n g , if it had laws o f anything like t h e s a m e k i n d as o u r actual o n e s ( e . g . a law o f gravitational a t t r a c t i o n and t h e laws o f t h e t h r e e o t h e r f o r c e s w h i c h physicists have a n a l y s e d — e l e c t r o m a g n e t i s m , t h e s t r o n g n u c l e a r f o r c e , and t h e w e a k n u c l e a r f o r c e ) , t h e c o n s t a n t s o f t h o s e laws w o u l d n e e d t o lie w i t h i n n a r r o w b a n d s i f t h e r e was e v e r t o b e life a n y w h e r e in the u n i v e r s e . Again t h e m a t e r i a l ist will have t o leave it as an u l t i m a t e b r u t e fact that an e v e r lasting u n i v e r s e and its laws had t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , w h e r e a s t h e t h e i s t has a s i m p l e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y things a r e t h u s , f o l l o w i n g f r o m his b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s w h i c h also leads h i m to e x p e c t the other p h e n o m e n a w e have been describing. T r u e , G o d c o u l d have c r e a t e d h u m a n s w i t h o u t d o i n g so b y t h e l o n g p r o c e s s o f e v o l u t i o n . B u t that is o n l y an o b j e c t i o n t o the theistic hypothesis if you suppose that G o d ' s only reason f o r c r e a t i n g anything is f o r t h e sake o f h u m a n b e i n g s .

[62]

To

The World and its Order r e p e a t m y e a r l i e r p o i n t — G o d also has r e a s o n t o b r i n g a b o u t a n i m a l s . A n i m a l s a r e c o n s c i o u s b e i n g s w h o e n j o y m u c h life and p e r f o r m i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n s , e v e n i f t h e y d o n o t c h o o s e f r e e l y w h i c h o n e s t o d o . O f c o u r s e G o d has a r e a s o n f o r giving life t o e l e p h a n t s and giraffes, tigers and snails. A n d anyway the beauty o f the evolution o f the inanimate w o r l d from t h e Big B a n g ( o r f r o m e t e r n i t y ) w o u l d b e q u i t e e n o u g h o f a r e a s o n f o r p r o d u c i n g it, e v e n i f G o d w e r e t h e o n l y p e r s o n t o have o b s e r v e d i t . B u t h e is n o t ; w e o u r s e l v e s can n o w a d m i r e e a r l i e r and e a r l i e r stages o f c o s m i c e v o l u t i o n t h r o u g h o u r t e l e s c o p e s . G o d paints w i t h a big b r u s h f r o m a large p a i n t b o x and h e has n o n e e d t o b e stingy w i t h t h e paint h e uses t o paint a beautiful universe. D a r w i n s h o w e d t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e is a m a c h i n e f o r m a k i n g animals and h u m a n s . B u t it is m i s l e a d i n g t o gloss t h a t c o r r e c t p o i n t in t h e w a y that R i c h a r d D a w k i n s d o e s : ' o u r o w n e x i s t e n c e o n c e p r e s e n t e d t h e g r e a t e s t o f all m y s t e r i e s , b u t . . . is a m y s t e r y n o l o n g e r . . . D a r w i n and W a l l a c e s o l v e d i t ' Blind

Watchmaker,

it

(The

p . x i i i ) . It is m i s l e a d i n g b e c a u s e it i g n o r e s

t h e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e e x i s t e n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f that m a c h i n e , t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h D a r w i n ( a n d W a l l a c e ) c i t e d t o e x p l a i n ' o u r o w n e x i s t e n c e ' , t h e m s e l v e s have a f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . I have a r g u e d that t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f r a t i o n a l e n q u i r y suggest that t h e y d o . D a r w i n gave a c o r r e c t e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f animals and h u m a n s ; b u t n o t , I t h i n k , an u l t i m a t e o n e . T h e w a t c h m a y have b e e n m a d e w i t h t h e aid of some blind screwdrivers

(or even

a blind

watchmaking

m a c h i n e ) , but they w e r e guided by a w a t c h m a k e r with s o m e v e r y c l e a r sight. Stephen

H a w k i n g has s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e u n i v e r s e is n o t

infinitely o l d , b u t that n e v e r t h e l e s s it did n o t have a b e g i n n i n g , and so t h e r e w a s n o n e e d f o r it t o b e g i n in a p a r t i c u l a r

[63]

The World and its Order initial state i f animals and h u m a n s w e r e t o e m e r g e . H e sugg e s t s , as E i n s t e i n did, t h a t space is c l o s e d — f i n i t e b u t w i t h o u t a b o u n d a r y . T h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e , t h a t is, is like t h e t w o d i m e n s i o n a l surface o f a s p h e r e . If y o u t r a v e l in any d i r e c t i o n along t h e surface o f a s p h e r e , y o u w i l l c o m e b a c k t o y o u r s t a r t i n g - p o i n t f r o m t h e o p p o s i t e side. It is i n d e e d p o s s i b l e that t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l space is also like t h i s , t h o u g h that r e m a i n s a

matter

on

which

there

is

no

scientific

consensus.

But

H a w k i n g also m a k e s t h e p a r a d o x i c a l ' p r o p o s a l ' that t h e s a m e is t r u e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t i m e ( s e e A Brief History of Time ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 1 3 6 ) : t i m e is c l o s e d b e c a u s e it is c y c l i c a l — i f y o u live l o n g enough after 1 9 9 5 into the future, you would

find

yourself

c o m i n g f r o m 1 9 9 4 i n t o 1 9 9 5 ( l o o k i n g and f e e l i n g j u s t like y o u do n o w ) . H a w k i n g c l a i m s that t h e ' r e a l ' t e s t o f his p r o p o s a l is w h e t h e r his t h e o r y w h i c h e m b o d i e s it ' m a k e s p r e d i c t i o n s that a g r e e w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n ' .

B u t t h a t is n o t t h e o n l y

test

w h i c h his p r o p o s a l m u s t pass. As I n o t e d in C h a p t e r 2 ,

a

t h e o r y w h i c h entails a c o n t r a d i c t i o n c a n n o t b e t r u e , h o w e v e r successful it is in m a k i n g p r e d i c t i o n s . A n d t h e ' p r o p o s a l ' that t i m e is c y c l i c a l t o m y m i n d d o e s entail a c o n t r a d i c t i o n .

It

entails that t o m o r r o w is b o t h a f t e r and b e f o r e t o d a y ( b e c a u s e i f y o u live l o n g e n o u g h a f t e r t o m o r r o w , you w i l l find y o u r s e l f b a c k t o t o d a y ) . T h a t in t u r n entails t h a t I t o d a y cause e v e n t s t o m o r r o w w h i c h in t u r n b y a l o n g causal chain cause m y o w n existence

today.

But

it

is

at

any

rate

logically

possible

( w h e t h e r o r n o t possible in p r a c t i c e ) that I should f r e e l y m a k e d i f f e r e n t c h o i c e s f r o m t h e o n e s w h i c h I do m a k e t o d a y ; and in that case I c o u l d c h o o s e so t o a c t t o d a y as t o e n s u r e that m y p a r e n t s w e r e n e v e r b o r n and so I n e v e r e x i s t e d — w h i c h is a c o n t r a d i c t i o n . C y c l i c a l t i m e a l l o w s t h e possibility o f m y a c t ing so as t o cause m y n o t a c t i n g . A n d , s i n c e that is n o t possib l e , c y c l i c a l t i m e is n o t p o s s i b l e . In saying t h i s , I have n o wish

[64]

The World and its Order t o c h a l l e n g e t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f H a w k i n g ' s e q u a t i o n s as parts o f a t h e o r y w h i c h p r e d i c t s o b s e r v a t i o n s . B u t I d o w i s h t o challenge the interpretation

in w o r d s w h i c h H a w k i n g g i v e s

of

those equations. T h e use t o w h i c h H a w k i n g puts his ' p r o p o s a l ' is c o n t a i n e d in this p a r a g r a p h : The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. W i t h the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have c o m e to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started—it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (A Brief History of Time, The

theist's

answer

to

this

paragraph

is

twofold.

140-1) First,

w h e t h e r o r n o t G o d e v e r i n t e r v e n e s in t h e u n i v e r s e t o b r e a k his l a w s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i s m , h e c e r t a i n l y c a n d o s o ; and t h e c o n t i n u e d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s e laws is d u e t o his c o n s t a n t c o n serving o f t h e m , his c h o o s i n g n o t t o b r e a k t h e m . A n d , s e c o n d l y , i f t h e u n i v e r s e had a b e g i n n i n g , G o d m a d e it b e g i n o n e w a y r a t h e r than a n o t h e r . If t h e u n i v e r s e did n o t have a b e g i n n i n g , t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e is that it is e v e r l a s t i n g . In that c a s e , G o d m a y b e h e l d t o k e e p it in b e i n g at e a c h m o m e n t w i t h t h e laws o f n a t u r e as t h e y a r e . It is t h r o u g h his c h o i c e at e a c h m o m e n t t h a t it e x i s t s at that m o m e n t and t h e laws o f n a t u r e a r e as t h e y a r e t h e n . T h e g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v i n g this t h e i s t i c

[65]

The World and its Order answer t o Hawking to b e n o t m e r e l y possible b u t t r u e are t h o s e b e i n g set o u t in this b o o k . A n o b j e c t o r m a y i n v o k e a f o r m o f w h a t is k n o w n as t h e anthropic

principle

t o u r g e t h a t , unless t h e u n i v e r s e e x h i b i t e d

o r d e r o f t h e kinds w h i c h I have d e s c r i b e d ( s i m p l e laws o p e r ating o n m a t t e r in such a w a y as t o lead t o t h e e v o l u t i o n o f animals and h u m a n s ) , t h e r e w o u l d n o t b e any h u m a n s alive t o c o m m e n t o n t h e f a c t . ( I f t h e r e w e r e n o natural l a w s , t h e r e would

be

no

regularly

functioning

organisms,

and

so

no

h u m a n s . ) H e n c e t h e r e is n o t h i n g surprising in t h e f a c t that w e find o r d e r — w e

c o u l d n o t possibly find anything e l s e .

(This

c o n c l u s i o n is c l e a r l y a little t o o s t r o n g . T h e r e w o u l d n e e d t o b e q u i t e a b i t o f o r d e r in and a r o u n d o u r b o d i e s i f w e a r e t o e x i s t and t h i n k , b u t t h e r e c o u l d b e c h a o s o u t s i d e t h e e a r t h , so l o n g as t h e e a r t h w a s largely u n a f f e c t e d b y that c h a o s . T h e r e is a g r e a t deal m o r e o r d e r in t h e w o r l d than is n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f h u m a n s . So t h e r e c o u l d still b e h u m a n s t o c o m m e n t o n t h e f a c t , e v e n i f t h e w o r l d w e r e a m u c h less o r d e r l y p l a c e than it i s . ) B u t , q u i t e apart f r o m this m i n o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e a r g u m e n t still fails t o t a l l y f o r a r e a s o n w h i c h c a n b e s t b e b r o u g h t o u t b y an a n a l o g y . S u p p o s e that a m a d m a n kidnaps a v i c t i m and shuts h i m in a r o o m w i t h a c a r d shuffling m a c h i n e . T h e m a c h i n e shuffles t e n p a c k s o f cards simultaneously

and t h e n d r a w s a c a r d f r o m e a c h p a c k

and

e x h i b i t s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h e t e n c a r d s . T h e k i d n a p p e r tells t h e v i c t i m that h e w i l l s h o r t l y set t h e m a c h i n e t o w o r k and it w i l l e x h i b i t its first d r a w , b u t t h a t , unless t h e d r a w consists o f an a c e o f h e a r t s f r o m each p a c k , t h e m a c h i n e will s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s e t o f f an e x p l o s i o n w h i c h will kill t h e v i c t i m , in c o n s e q u e n c e o f w h i c h h e will n o t see w h i c h cards t h e m a c h i n e d r e w . T h e m a c h i n e is t h e n s e t t o w o r k , and t o t h e a m a z e m e n t and r e l i e f o f t h e v i c t i m t h e m a c h i n e e x h i b i t s an a c e o f h e a r t s d r a w n f r o m

[66]

The World and its Order e a c h p a c k . T h e v i c t i m thinks that this e x t r a o r d i n a r y f a c t n e e d s an e x p l a n a t i o n in t e r m s o f t h e m a c h i n e having b e e n r i g g e d in s o m e w a y . B u t t h e k i d n a p p e r , w h o n o w r e a p p e a r s , casts d o u b t o n this s u g g e s t i o n . 'It is hardly s u r p r i s i n g ' , h e says, ' t h a t t h e m a c h i n e d r a w s o n l y a c e s o f h e a r t s . Y o u c o u l d n o t possibly see anything e l s e . F o r y o u w o u l d n o t b e h e r e t o see anything at all, i f any o t h e r cards had b e e n d r a w n . ' B u t , o f c o u r s e , t h e v i c t i m is right and t h e k i d n a p p e r is w r o n g . T h e r e is i n d e e d s o m e t h i n g e x t r a o r d i n a r y in n e e d o f e x p l a n a t i o n in t e n a c e s o f h e a r t s b e i n g d r a w n . T h e fact that this p e c u l i a r o r d e r is a n e c essary c o n d i t i o n o f t h e d r a w b e i n g p e r c e i v e d at all m a k e s w h a t is p e r c e i v e d n o less e x t r a o r d i n a r y and in n e e d o f e x p l a n a t i o n . T h e t h e i s t ' s s t a r t i n g - p o i n t is n o t that w e p e r c e i v e o r d e r r a t h e r than d i s o r d e r , b u t that o r d e r r a t h e r than d i s o r d e r is t h e r e . M a y b e o n l y i f o r d e r is t h e r e c a n w e k n o w w h a t is t h e r e , b u t that m a k e s w h a t is t h e r e n o less e x t r a o r d i n a r y and in n e e d o f explanation. T r u e , every draw, every arrangement o f matter, is equally i m p r o b a b l e a p r i o r i — t h a t i s , i f c h a n c e a l o n e dictates w h a t is d r a w n . B u t i f a p e r s o n is arranging t h i n g s , h e has r e a son t o p r o d u c e s o m e a r r a n g e m e n t s r a t h e r than o t h e r s

(ten

a c e s o f h e a r t s , a w o r l d fine t u n e d t o p r o d u c e animals

and

h u m a n s ) . A n d if w e find such a r r a n g e m e n t s , that is r e a s o n f o r supposing that a p e r s o n is d o i n g t h e a r r a n g i n g . A n o t h e r o b j e c t o r m a y a d v o c a t e w h a t is c a l l e d t h e

many-

worlds t h e o r y . H e m a y say t h a t , i f t h e r e a r e t r i l l i o n s and trillions o f u n i v e r s e s , e x h i b i t i n g b e t w e e n t h e m all t h e

possible

kinds o f o r d e r and d i s o r d e r t h e r e can b e , it is i n e v i t a b l e that t h e r e will b e o n e g o v e r n e d b y s i m p l e c o m p r e h e n s i b l e

laws

w h i c h give rise t o animals and h u m a n s . T r u e . B u t t h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o suppose that t h e r e a r e any u n i v e r s e s o t h e r than o u r o w n . ( B y ' o u r u n i v e r s e ' I m e a n all t h e stars and o t h e r heave n l y b o d i e s w h i c h lie in s o m e d i r e c t i o n at s o m e d i s t a n c e , h o w -

[67]

The World and its Order e v e r l a r g e , f r o m o u r s e l v e s ; e v e r y t h i n g w e can see in t h e night sky, and e v e r y t h i n g t h e r e t o o small t o b e s e e n , and e v e r y t h i n g f u r t h e r away than t h a t . ) E v e r y o b j e c t o f w h i c h w e k n o w is an observable

component

of

our

universe,

or

postulated

to

e x p l a i n s u c h o b j e c t s . T o p o s t u l a t e a t r i l l i o n t r i l l i o n o t h e r univ e r s e s , r a t h e r than o n e G o d in o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h e o r d e r l i ness o f o u r u n i v e r s e , s e e m s t h e h e i g h t o f i r r a t i o n a l i t y . S o t h e r e is o u r u n i v e r s e . It is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y vast, allpervasive t e m p o r a l o r d e r , t h e c o n f o r m i t y o f n a t u r e t o f o r m u l a , recorded

in

the

scientific

laws

formulated

by

humans.

It

s t a r t e d o f f in such a w a y ( o r t h r o u g h e t e r n i t y has b e e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y such f e a t u r e s ) as t o lead t o t h e e v o l u t i o n o f anim a l s and h u m a n s . T h e s e p h e n o m e n a a r e c l e a r l y things big' for science to explain.

T h e y are where science

'too

stops.

T h e y c o n s t i t u t e t h e f r a m e w o r k o f s c i e n c e itself. I h a v e a r g u e d that it is n o t a r a t i o n a l c o n c l u s i o n t o s u p p o s e that e x p l a n a t i o n stops w h e r e s c i e n c e d o e s , and so w e should l o o k f o r a p e r sonal e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e ,

conformity to law,

and

evolutionary potential o f the universe. Theism provides just s u c h an e x p l a n a t i o n . T h a t is s t r o n g g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v i n g it t o b e t r u e — b y t h e c r i t e r i a w h i c h I set o u t in C h a p t e r 2 .

Note

that I a m n o t p o s t u l a t i n g a ' G o d o f t h e g a p s ' , a g o d m e r e l y t o e x p l a i n t h e things w h i c h s c i e n c e has n o t y e t e x p l a i n e d . I a m postulating a G o d t o explain what science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate G o d to explain why s c i e n c e e x p l a i n s . T h e v e r y s u c c e s s o f s c i e n c e in s h o w i n g us how

deeply

orderly

the

natural

world

is p r o v i d e s

strong

g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e r e is an e v e n d e e p e r cause that o r d e r .

[68]

of

5 HOW THE EXISTENCE OF GOD EXPLAINS THE EXISTENCE OF HUMANS

In w r i t i n g l o o s e l y in t h e last c h a p t e r o f e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o c e s s e s causing t h e e x i s t e n c e o f animals and h u m a n s , I g l o s s e d o v e r something

all

important.

Evolutionary

processes

certainly

cause t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n i m a l and h u m a n b o d i e s in v i r t u e o f t h e laws o f n a t u r e d i s c o v e r e d b y t h e physical s c i e n c e s (sust a i n e d , I c l a i m , b y G o d ) . B u t t h e r e is m o r e t o h u m a n s than their bodies. Humans (and the higher animals) are conscious b e i n g s . T h e y have t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s ; a t o m s d o n o t have t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s . B u t c o n s c i o u s n e s s , I shall b e a r g u i n g , c a n n o t b e t h e p r o p e r t y o f a m e r e b o d y , a m a t e r i a l o b j e c t . It m u s t b e a p r o p e r t y o f s o m e t h i n g else c o n n e c t e d t o a b o d y ; and t o that s o m e t h i n g else I shall give t h e traditional n a m e o f s o u l . A t s o m e t i m e in e v o l u t i o n a r y h i s t o r y b o d i e s o f c o m p l e x animals b e c o m e c o n n e c t e d t o s o u l s , and t h i s , I shall b e arguing,

is s o m e t h i n g

utterly beyond the

[69]

power

of science

to

The Existence of

Humans

e x p l a i n . B u t t h e i s m can e x p l a i n t h i s — f o r G o d has t h e p o w e r and r e a s o n t o j o i n souls t o b o d i e s . F i r s t , h o w e v e r , I n e e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e p h e n o m e n a , and t o b r i n g o u t that h u m a n s (and t h e h i g h e r a n i m a l s ) c o n s i s t o f t w o p a r t s — a b o d y w h i c h is a m a t e r i a l s u b s t a n c e , a n d a soul w h i c h is an i m m a t e r i a l

sub-

s t a n c e and t o w h i c h t h e c o n s c i o u s life o f t h o u g h t and f e e l i n g b e l o n g s . I shall m a k e m y case w i t h r e s p e c t t o h u m a n s , then point

o u t briefly that t h e

same holds for the

and

higher

animals.

Human

Souls

T h e w o r l d , I p o i n t e d o u t in C h a p t e r 2 , consists o f s u b s t a n c e s . T a b l e s and c h a i r s , p e r s o n s , n e r v e cells and b o n e s a r e all subs t a n c e s . S u b s t a n c e s h a v e p r o p e r t i e s such as b e i n g b r o w n

or

s q u a r e , and r e l a t i o n s t o o t h e r s u b s t a n c e s such as b e i n g 1 0 f e e t away f r o m a n o t h e r d e s k o r c o m i n g i n t o e x i s t e n c e a f t e r it. A p a r t i c u l a r s u b s t a n c e having a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t y o r r e l a t i o n at a p a r t i c u l a r t i m e is an e v e n t — f o r e x a m p l e , m y t i e b e i n g g r e e n at 8 a . m . o n 1 J a n u a r y 1 9 9 5 , o r a c e r t a i n n e u r o n e (a n e r v e c e l l ) firing ( i . e . q u i c k l y discharging e l e c t r i c i t y ) at 2 p . m . o n 2 J a n u a r y 1 9 9 4 . A n y t h i n g is a s u b s t a n c e i f it can cause an e v e n t , o r if s o m e t h i n g can cause a c h a n g e in i t . S o , as w e l l as m a terial substances, substances which occupy volumes o f space, t h e r e m a y b e i m m a t e r i a l o n e s as w e l l , w h i c h do n o t o c c u p y s p a c e . I a m arguing in this b o o k that t h e r e is a G o d w h o is such an i m m a t e r i a l s u b s t a n c e ; a n d , i f t h e r e a r e ghosts and p o l tergeists, they t o o are immaterial substances. I am going t o argue in this c h a p t e r that t h e essential p a r t o f each o n e o f us is a soul w h i c h is an i m m a t e r i a l s u b s t a n c e . T h e h i s t o r y o f t h e w o r l d is j u s t t h e s e q u e n c e o f all t h e

[70]

The Existence of

Humans

e v e n t s w h i c h h a v e e v e r h a p p e n e d . If y o u k n e w all t h e e v e n t s w h i c h h a d h a p p e n e d ( w h i c h substances e x i s t e d , w h i c h p r o p e r t i e s and r e l a t i o n s t h e y had t o w h i c h o t h e r s u b s t a n c e s w h e n ) , y o u w o u l d k n o w all that had e v e r h a p p e n e d . P r o p e r t i e s and e v e n t s m a y b e physical o r m e n t a l . I shall u n d e r s t a n d b y a physical e v e n t o n e such t h a t n o o n e p e r s o n is n e c e s s a r i l y b e t t e r p l a c e d t o k n o w that it has h a p p e n e d than is any o t h e r p e r s o n . Physical e v e n t s a r e p u b l i c ; t h e r e is n o p r i v i l e g e d a c c e s s t o t h e m . T h u s m y desk b e i n g s q u a r e is a physical e v e n t b e c a u s e , e v e n t h o u g h I m a y b e t h e o n l y p e r s o n t o have o b s e r v e d this, a n y o n e else c o u l d c h e c k that it is s q u a r e j u s t as w e l l as I c a n . A m o n g physical e v e n t s a r e b r a i n e v e n t s . W h e t h e r a c e r t a i n n e u r o n e in t h e b r a i n fired at a p a r t i c u l a r t i m e is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h c o u l d b e o b s e r v e d equally w e l l b y m a n y d i f f e r e n t o b s e r v e r s , and so t h e firing is also a physical event. Mental events, by contrast, are ones which just one p e r s o n has a special w a y o f experiencing them.

finding

out a b o u t — b y

actually

T h e p e r s o n w h o s e e v e n t s t h e s e a r e has

p r i v i l e g e d a c c e s s t o t h e m , a m e a n s o f finding o u t a b o u t t h e m which n o o n e else can share. E v i d e n t l y — m o r e e v i d e n t l y than a n y t h i n g e l s e — t h e r e really a r e m e n t a l e v e n t s , as w e k n o w f r o m o u r o w n

experience.

T h e y i n c l u d e p a t t e r n s o f c o l o u r in o n e ' s visual field, pains and thrills, b e l i e f s , t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s . T h e y also i n c l u d e t h e p u r p o s e s w h i c h I t r y t o realize t h r o u g h m y b o d y o r in s o m e o t h e r w a y , w h i c h I discussed in C h a p t e r 2 . M y b e i n g in pain at m i d d a y y e s t e r d a y , o r having a r e d i m a g e in m y visual field, or thinking about lunch, o r forming the purpose o f going to L o n d o n — a r e such t h a t i f o t h e r s c o u l d find o u t a b o u t t h e m b y some

method,

method.

I could

find o u t

about

them

by

the

same

O t h e r s c a n l e a r n a b o u t m y pains and t h o u g h t s

by

studying m y b e h a v i o u r and p e r h a p s also b y studying m y b r a i n .

[71]

The Existence of

Humans

Y e t I, t o o , c o u l d study m y b e h a v i o u r : I c o u l d w a t c h a film o f m y s e l f ; I c o u l d study m y b r a i n — v i a a s y s t e m o f m i r r o r s and microscopes—just

as

well

as

anyone

else

could.

But,

of

c o u r s e , I have a w a y o f k n o w i n g a b o u t pains, t h o u g h t s , and suchlike o t h e r than t h o s e available t o t h e b e s t o t h e r s t u d e n t o f my

behaviour

or

brain:

I

actually

experience

them.

C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e y m u s t b e distinct f r o m b r a i n e v e n t s , o r any other bodily events. A neurophysiologist cannot observe the quality o f t h e c o l o u r in m y visual field, o r t h e p u n g e n c y o f t h e smell o f roast b e e f which I smell. A Martian who came

to

e a r t h , c a p t u r e d a h u m a n b e i n g , and i n s p e c t e d his b r a i n c o u l d discover

everything

that

was

happening

in

that

brain

but

w o u l d still w o n d e r ' D o e s this h u m a n really feel anything w h e n I s t a m p o n his t o e ? ' It is a f u r t h e r f a c t b e y o n d t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f b r a i n e v e n t s that t h e r e are pains and a f t e r - i m a g e s , t h o u g h t s , and i n t e n t i o n s . L i k e w i s e , such e v e n t s a r e t o b e distinguished f r o m t h e b e h a v i o u r t o w h i c h t h e y typically give r i s e . P e o p l e have

sensations

to

which

they

give

no

expression—pains

w h i c h t h e y c o n c e a l o r d r e a m sensations w h i c h t h e y r e p o r t t o n o o n e — a n d , i f t h e sensations give rise t o b e h a v i o u r , t h e subj e c t is a w a r e o f t h e sensation as a s e p a r a t e e v e n t f r o m

the

b e h a v i o u r t o w h i c h it gives r i s e . I e m p h a s i z e m y definition o f t h e m e n t a l as t h a t t o w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t has p r i v i l e g e d a c c e s s . T h e r e a r e m a n y p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h w e a t t r i b u t e t o p e o p l e , w h i c h w e m i g h t s o m e t i m e s call ' m e n t a l ' b u t w h i c h a r e n o t m e n t a l in m y sense b u t a r e

merely

p r o p e r t i e s o f p u b l i c b e h a v i o u r . W h e n w e say that s o m e o n e is g e n e r o u s o r i r r i t a b l e o r a useful s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n , it m a y b e that w e

a r e j u s t saying s o m e t h i n g

about the way

they

b e h a v e in p u b l i c , n o t anything a b o u t t h e life o f t h o u g h t and f e e l i n g w h i c h lies b e h i n d such b e h a v i o u r . W e m a y naturally d e s c r i b e b e i n g i r r i t a b l e as a m e n t a l p r o p e r t y , b u t it is n o t a

[72]

The Existence of

Humans

m e n t a l p r o p e r t y in m y d e f i n e d s e n s e . M y c o n c e r n is t o m a k e t h e p o i n t that t h e r e a r e m e n t a l e v e n t s in m y s e n s e ,

distinct

f r o m b r a i n e v e n t s . In m a k i n g this p o i n t , I d o n o t f o r

one

m o m e n t w i s h t o d e n y that m o s t o f m y m e n t a l e v e n t s

are

caused b y m y b r a i n e v e n t s . An e v e n t in m y b r a i n ( i t s e l f caused b y an e v e n t in m y t o o t h ) caused m y t o o t h a c h e ; and a n o t h e r e v e n t in m y b r a i n ( i t s e l f c a u s e d b y t h e b r a n c h o u t s i d e t h e w i n d o w moving) caused m y belief that the branch m o v e d . But the p o i n t is t h a t , j u s t as i g n i t i o n o f p e t r o l is d i s t i n c t f r o m

the

e x p l o s i o n w h i c h it s u b s e q u e n t l y c a u s e s , so t h e b r a i n e v e n t is d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e pain o r w h a t e v e r w h i c h it c a u s e s . A n d ,

of

c o u r s e , t h e r e is causation in t h e o t h e r d i r e c t i o n t o o : m y p u r p o s e s c a u s e ( u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y ) t h e b r a i n e v e n t s w h i c h in t u r n cause t h e m o t i o n o f m y l i m b s ( w h i c h I i n t e n d ) . H u m a n s , unlike inanimate things, have mental properties; t h e y h a v e a m e n t a l l i f e . B u t t h e r e is m o r e t o h u m a n s t h a n j u s t having a m e n t a l life c o n n e c t e d t o a b o d y . T h a t m e n t a l life itself, I n o w a r g u e , is t h e state o f an i m m a t e r i a l s u b s t a n c e , a s o u l , w h i c h is c o n n e c t e d t o t h e b o d y . T h a t h u m a n s c o n s i s t o f two

connected

substances—body

and

soul—is

the

view

k n o w n as s u b s t a n c e d u a l i s m . T h e a l t e r n a t i v e is t o say that h u m a n s a r e j u s t b o d i e s (I a m t h e s a m e t h i n g as w h a t

we

l o o s e l y call m y b o d y ) . In that c a s e , m y m e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s , such as b e i n g in pain o r having an a f t e r - i m a g e , w o u l d b e p r o p e r ties o f m y b o d y . L e t us call this v i e w a b o u t h u m a n s monism—the material

substance

view that there are only substances o f o n e kind,

substances.

If m o n i s m

were

correct,

then

there

would b e nothing m o r e t o the history o f the w o r l d than the succession o f those events which involve material substances, t h e i r c o m i n g i n t o e x i s t e n c e o r c e a s i n g t o e x i s t and having p r o p e r t i e s and r e l a t i o n s (physical o r m e n t a l ) . B u t , I a m n o w g o i n g t o p o i n t o u t , i f y o u k n e w all t h a t , y o u w o u l d still n o t

[73]

The Existence of

Humans

k n o w o n e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t things o f a l l — w h e t h e r y o u o r any o t h e r h u m a n c o n t i n u e d o v e r t i m e t o live a c o n s c i o u s life. L e t m e illustrate this w i t h t h e e x a m p l e o f b r a i n t r a n s p l a n t s . T h e b r a i n consists o f t w o h e m i s p h e r e s and a b r a i n - s t e m . T h e r e is g o o d e v i d e n c e that h u m a n s can survive and b e h a v e as c o n scious b e i n g s i f m u c h o f o n e h e m i s p h e r e is d e s t r o y e d .

Now

i m a g i n e m y brain ( h e m i s p h e r e s plus b r a i n - s t e m ) divided i n t o two,

and each h a l f - b r a i n t a k e n o u t o f m y skull and t r a n s -

p l a n t e d i n t o t h e e m p t y skull o f a b o d y f r o m w h i c h a b r a i n has j u s t b e e n r e m o v e d ; and t h e r e t o b e a d d e d t o e a c h h a l f - b r a i n from some other brain (e.g. the brain o f m y identical twin) w h a t e v e r o t h e r parts ( e . g . m o r e b r a i n - s t e m ) a r e n e c e s s a r y in o r d e r f o r t h e t r a n s p l a n t t o t a k e and f o r t h e r e t o b e t w o living p e r s o n s w i t h lives o f c o n s c i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s . N o w I a m very w e l l a w a r e that an o p e r a t i o n o f this d e l i c a c y is n o t at p r e s e n t p r a c t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e and p e r h a p s n e v e r will b e possible

for

m e r e h u m a n scientists w i t h m e r e h u m a n r e s o u r c e s ; b u t I c a n n o t s e e that t h e r e a r e any i n s u p e r a b l e t h e o r e t i c a l difficulties standing in t h e w a y o f such an o p e r a t i o n . ( I n d e e d t h a t is a m i l d u n d e r s t a t e m e n t — I fully e x p e c t it t o b e d o n e o n e d a y . )

We

a r e , t h e r e f o r e , e n t i t l e d t o ask t h e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n — i f this o p e r a t i o n w e r e d o n e and w e t h e n had t w o living p e r s o n s , b o t h with

lives o f c o n s c i o u s

experiences,

which

would be

me?

P r o b a b l y b o t h w o u l d t o s o m e e x t e n t b e h a v e like m e and c l a i m t o b e m e and t o r e m e m b e r having d o n e w h a t I d i d ; f o r b e h a v i o u r and s p e e c h d e p e n d , in l a r g e p a r t , o n b r a i n - s t a t e s , there are very considerable overlaps b e t w e e n the tion'

carried by

the

two

hemispheres

and

'informa-

w h i c h gives rise

to

b e h a v i o u r and s p e e c h . B u t b o t h p e r s o n s w o u l d n o t b e m e . F o r if they w e r e both identical with m e , they w o u l d be the same p e r s o n as e a c h o t h e r ( i f a is t h e s a m e as b, and b is t h e s a m e

[74]

The Existence of

Humans

as c, t h e n a is t h e s a m e as c) and t h e y a r e n o t . T h e y n o w have d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s and lead d i f f e r e n t lives. T h e r e

remain

t h r e e o t h e r possibilities: that t h e p e r s o n w i t h m y right halfb r a i n is m e , o r t h a t t h e p e r s o n w i t h m y left half-brain is m e , o r t h a t n e i t h e r is m e . B u t w e c a n n o t b e c e r t a i n w h i c h h o l d s . It f o l l o w s that that m e r e k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t happens t o brains o r b o d i e s o r anything else m a t e r i a l d o e s n o t tell y o u w h a t h a p pens to persons. It is t e m p t i n g t o say t h a t it is a m a t t e r o f a r b i t r a r y definition w h i c h o f t h e t h r e e possibilities is c o r r e c t . B u t this t e m p t a t i o n m u s t b e r e s i s t e d . T h e r e is a c r u c i a l factual issue h e r e — w h i c h c a n b e s h o w n i f w e i m a g i n e that I have b e e n c a p t u r e d b y a m a d s u r g e o n w h o is a b o u t t o p e r f o r m t h e split-brain o p e r a t i o n o n m e . H e tells m e (and I have e v e r y r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e h i m ) that t h e p e r s o n t o b e f o r m e d f r o m m y l e f t h a l f - b r a i n is t o h a v e an e n j o y a b l e life and t h e p e r s o n t o b e f o r m e d f r o m m y r i g h t h a l f - b r a i n is t o b e s u b j e c t e d t o a life o f t o r t u r e . W h e t h e r m y f u t u r e life will b e happy o r v e r y painful,

or

w h e t h e r I shall survive an o p e r a t i o n at all, a r e c l e a r l y factual questions. ( O n l y s o m e o n e under the grip o f s o m e very strong p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o g m a w o u l d d e n y t h a t . ) Y e t , as I await t h e t r a n s p l a n t and k n o w e x a c t l y w h a t w i l l h a p p e n t o m y b r a i n , I a m in n o p o s i t i o n t o k n o w t h e a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n — w h a t will h a p p e n t o m e . M a y b e n e i t h e r f u t u r e p e r s o n w i l l b e m e — it m a y b e that c u t t i n g t h e b r a i n - s t e m will d e s t r o y t h e original p e r s o n o n c e and f o r all, and t h a t , a l t h o u g h r e p a i r i n g t h e seve r e d s t e m will c r e a t e t w o n e w p e r s o n s , n e i t h e r o f t h e m will b e m e . Perhaps I will b e the left half-brain person, o r maybe it will b e t h e right h a l f - b r a i n p e r s o n w h o w i l l b e m e . E v e n i f o n e s u b s e q u e n t p e r s o n r e s e m b l e s t h e e a r l i e r m e m o r e in c h a r a c t e r and m e m o r y c l a i m s than d o e s t h e o t h e r , that o n e m a y n o t b e m e . M a y b e I w i l l survive t h e o p e r a t i o n b u t b e c h a n g e d

[75]

The Existence of

Humans

in c h a r a c t e r and h a v e l o s t m u c h o f m y m e m o r y as a r e s u l t o f it, in c o n s e q u e n c e o f w h i c h t h e o t h e r s u b s e q u e n t p e r s o n will r e s e m b l e t h e e a r l i e r m e m o r e in his p u b l i c b e h a v i o u r than I will. R e f l e c t i o n o n this t h o u g h t e x p e r i m e n t s h o w s t h a t , h o w e v e r m u c h w e k n o w a b o u t w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o m y

brain—we

m a y k n o w e x a c t l y w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o e v e r y a t o m in

it—

and t o e v e r y o t h e r m a t e r i a l p a r t o f m e , w e d o n o t n e c e s s a r ily k n o w w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o m e . F r o m that it f o l l o w s that t h e r e m u s t b e m o r e t o m e than t h e m a t t e r o f w h i c h m y b o d y and b r a i n a r e m a d e , a f u r t h e r essential i m m a t e r i a l p a r t w h o s e c o n t i n u i n g in e x i s t e n c e m a k e s t h e b r a i n

(and so b o d y )

to

w h i c h it is c o n n e c t e d m y b r a i n ( a n d b o d y ) , and t o this s o m e t h i n g I give t h e t r a d i t i o n a l n a m e o f ' s o u l ' . I a m m y soul plus w h a t e v e r b r a i n ( a n d b o d y ) it is c o n n e c t e d t o . N o r m a l l y m y soul g o e s w h e n m y b r a i n g o e s , b u t in unusual c i r c u m s t a n c e s (such as w h e n m y b r a i n is split) it is u n c e r t a i n w h e r e it g o e s . T a k e a slightly d i f f e r e n t e x a m p l e . I die o f a b r a i n h a e m o r rhage which today's doctors cannot c u r e , but m y relatives take m y c o r p s e and p u t it straight i n t o a d e e p f r e e z e in C a l i f o r n i a . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e r e is an e a r t h q u a k e as a r e s u l t o f w h i c h m y f r o z e n b r a i n is split i n t o m a n y p a r t s , a f e w o f w h i c h g e t l o s t . H o w e v e r , fifty years l a t e r , w h e n m e d i c a l t e c h n o l o g y has i m p r o v e d , m y d e s c e n d a n t s t a k e t h e bits o f m y b r o k e n c o r p s e , w a r m it up and m e n d i t , r e p l a c i n g t h e missing parts f r o m e l s e w h e r e . T h e b o d y b e c o m e s t h e b o d y o f a living p e r s o n

who

b e h a v e s s o m e w h a t like m e and s e e m s t o r e m e m b e r q u i t e a l o t o f m y past l i f e . H a v e I c o m e t o life again, o r n o t ?

Maybe,

m a y b e n o t . Again t h e r e is a t r u t h h e r e , a b o u t w h e t h e r I have survived t h e h a e m o r r h a g e as I w a n t e d t o , and y e t a t r u t h o f which w e cannot b e sure, h o w e v e r m u c h w e k n o w about the s t o r y o f m y b r a i n . H e n c e , m y survival consists in t h e c o n t i n u -

[76]

The Existence of

Humans

ing o f s o m e t h i n g e l s e , w h i c h I call m y s o u l , l i n k e d t o m y p r e vious b o d y ; and I survive in this n e w b o d y i f and o n l y i f t h a t soul is c o n n e c t e d w i t h i t . A n d n o t e t h a t t h e e x t r a t r u t h is n o t a t r u t h a b o u t w h a t k i n d o f m e n t a l life is c o n n e c t e d t o

the

b r a i n . It is n o t a t r u t h a b o u t m e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s , a b o u t w h a t t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s and p u r p o s e s t h e r e v i v e d p e r s o n h a s . R a t h e r , t h e e x t r a t r u t h , t h e t r u t h a b o u t w h e t h e r I have s u r v i v e d , is a t r u t h a b o u t W H O — t h a t i s , w h i c h s u b s t a n c e — t h o s e properties are instantiated in. A n d , since m e r e k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o e v e r y m a t e r i a l s u b s t a n c e d o e s n o t t e l l m e t h a t , it m u s t b e a t r u t h a b o u t an i m m a t e r i a l s u b s t a n c e . So l o n g as I c o n t i n u e t o h a v e t h o u g h t s and feelings and p u r p o s e s , I

have

survived

any

operation—whatever

happens

to

any

m a t e r i a l parts o f m e . So m y soul is t h e essential p a r t o f m e — its survival c o n s t i t u t e s m y survival; and t h o u g h t s , f e e l i n g s , and so o n b e l o n g t o m e in v i r t u e o f b e l o n g i n g t o m y s o u l . T h e soul is t h e essential p a r t o f t h e h u m a n p e r s o n . D u a l i s m is n o t a p o p u l a r p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o s i t i o n t o d a y , b u t I find t h e s e a r g u m e n t s ( o f an e n t i r e l y n o n - t h e o l o g i c a l k i n d ) in its f a v o u r i n e s c a p a b l e . Y o u h a v e l e f t s o m e t h i n g a l l - i m p o r t a n t out o f the history o f the w o r l d if you tell just the story

of

w h i c h physical e v e n t s w e r e s u c c e e d e d b y w h i c h o t h e r physical e v e n t s . H o w p e o p l e t h o u g h t and f e l t is a l l - i m p o r t a n t . A n d equally i m p o r t a n t is w h o had t h o s e t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s — w h e n did o n e p e r s o n c e a s e t o e x i s t and a n o t h e r c o m e

into

being. N o w c e r t a i n l y , as I h a v e w r i t t e n , w e n o r m a l l y k n o w t h e a n s w e r s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . I d o n o t w i s h t o q u e s t i o n any o f o u r c o m m o n - s e n s e j u d g e m e n t s a b o u t w h e n s o m e o n e is c o n s c i o u s , and w h o t h a t p e r s o n is. O u r o b s e r v a t i o n o f b o d i e s n o r m a l l y t e l l s us w h e n p e r s o n s a r e t h e s a m e and w h a t t h e y are feeling. O f c o u r s e , if a baby screams w h e n prodded with

[77]

The Existence of

Humans

2L n e e d l e , it is in p a i n . B u t it is n o t s o o b v i o u s , w h e n a h u m a n l o o k i n g o r g a n i s m m a d e in a f a c t o r y o r a c r e a t u r e f r o m a n o t h e r planet

is p r o d d e d

with

a needle

and

emits

some

sound,

w h e t h e r that is in p a i n . A n d , o f c o u r s e , t h e p e r s o n w i t h this b o d y t o d a y w h o has n o t b e e n s u b j e c t t o a b r a i n o p e r a t i o n and shares t h e s a m e p a t t e r n s o f b e h a v i o u r as t h e p e r s o n w i t h this b o d y y e s t e r d a y is t h e s a m e p e r s o n

as t h e l a t t e r .

But

after

h u m a n s , let a l o n e c r e a t u r e s f r o m s o m e distant p l a n e t ,

have

had massive b r a i n o p e r a t i o n s , it is n o t at all c l e a r w h e t h e r w e a r e dealing w i t h t h e s a m e p e r s o n as b e f o r e . W h a t t h e s e e x a m ples b r i n g o u t is that s o m e o n e f e e l i n g pain is a d i f f e r e n t e v e n t f r o m t h e i r b e i n g p r o d d e d b y a n e e d l e , and this p e r s o n b e i n g t h e s a m e p e r s o n as that is d i f f e r e n t f r o m this b o d y b e i n g t h e s a m e b o d y as t h a t ; e v e n i f n o r m a l l y an e v e n t o f t h e l a t t e r k i n d g o e s w i t h an e v e n t o f t h e f o r m e r k i n d . A full h i s t o r y o f t h e w o r l d will t e l l t h e s t o r y o f feelings as w e l l as o f b r a i n e v e n t s , and o f p e r s o n s ( a n d so t h e i r essential i m m a t e r i a l p a r t s , souls) as w e l l as o f b o d i e s . T h e s e a r g u m e n t s w h i c h s h o w that h u m a n s have t w o p a r t s — b o d y and s o u l — w i l l s h o w that any c r e a t u r e w h i c h has a m e n tal life will also have t w o p a r t s . T h e s a m e issues w i l l arise f o r a c h i m p a n z e e o r a cat as f o r a h u m a n . If s o m e cat is t o u n d e r g o a s e r i o u s brain o p e r a t i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n arises w h e t h e r t h e c a t has r e a s o n t o f e a r t h e b a d e x p e r i e n c e s and l o o k f o r w a r d t o t h e g o o d e x p e r i e n c e s w h i c h t h e p o s t - o p e r a t i o n cat will h a v e . T h a t question cannot necessarily b e answered m e r e l y by knowing w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o e v e r y m o l e c u l e in t h e c a t ' s b r a i n . So w e m u s t p o s t u l a t e a c a t - s o u l w h i c h is t h e essential p a r t o f t h e c a t , and w h o s e c o n t i n u a t i o n m a k e s f o r t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e c a t . O n l y w h e n w e c o m e t o animals w i t h o u t t h o u g h t o r f e e l i n g d o e s such a q u e s t i o n n o t a r i s e , and t h e n t h e r e is n o n e e d t o p o s t u l a t e an i m m a t e r i a l p a r t o f t h e a n i m a l . C e r t a i n l y h u m a n

[78]

The Existence of

Humans

souls have d i f f e r e n t c a p a c i t i e s f r o m t h e souls o f h i g h e r animals ( t h e f o r m e r can have k i n d s o f t h o u g h t — t h o u g h t s a b o u t m o r a l ity o r l o g i c — w h i c h t h e l a t t e r c a n n o t h a v e ; and f o r m kinds o f p u r p o s e — e . g . t o solve an e q u a t i o n — w h i c h t h e l a t t e r c a n n o t . ) But

what

my

arguments

show

is t h a t

animals

who

have

t h o u g h t and f e e l i n g h a v e as t h e i r essential p a r t an i m m a t e r i a l soul. J u s t as I d o n o t w i s h t o d e n y that b r a i n e v e n t s c a u s e m e n tal e v e n t s ( i . e . e v e n t s in t h e s o u l , o n c e it e x i s t s ) and vice v e r s a , so I d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y wish t o d e n y that e v e n t s in t h e b r a i n play a r o l e in causing t h e e x i s t e n c e o f souls. A t s o m e stage o f a n i m a l e v o l u t i o n , an a n i m a l b r a i n b e c a m e so c o m p l e x that that c a u s e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a soul c o n n e c t e d t o i t , and t h e c o n t i n u e d d e v e l o p m e n t and o p e r a t i o n o f that brain sust a i n e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s o u l ; a n d , as e v o l u t i o n m o v e s o n , similar

complexity

causes

similar

souls.

The

connection

b e t w e e n o n e soul and o n e b r a i n w h i c h g e t s established is a causal o n e . It is e v e n t s in this p a r t i c u l a r brain w h i c h

cause

e v e n t s in this p a r t i c u l a r s o u l , and e v e n t s in this p a r t i c u l a r soul w h i c h cause e v e n t s in this p a r t i c u l a r b r a i n ; this is w h a t t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n this b r a i n and this soul a m o u n t s t o . A t w h i c h stage o f t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o c e s s did animals first start t o have souls and so a m e n t a l life? W e do n o t k n o w . B u t fairly c l e a r l y t h e i r b e h a v i o u r s h o w s that t h e m a m m a l s d o have a m e n t a l l i f e . M y v i e w is that all t h e v e r t e b r a t e s h a v e a m e n tal l i f e , b e c a u s e t h e y all have a b r a i n similar t o t h e h u m a n b r a i n , w h i c h , w e k n o w , causes a m e n t a l life in u s , and t h e i r b e h a v i o u r , t o o , is b e s t e x p l a i n e d in t e r m s o f t h e i r having f e e l ings and b e l i e f s . D o g s and b i r d s and fish all f e e l p a i n . B u t t h e r e is n o r e a s o n at all t o a t t r i b u t e a m e n t a l life t o viruses and b a c t e r i a , n o r in m y v i e w t o ants and b e e t l e s . T h e y do n o t have the kind o f brain which w e d o , n o r do w e need to attribute

[79]

The Existence of

Humans

f e e l i n g s and b e l i e f s t o t h e m in o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h e i r b e h a v i o u r . It f o l l o w s that at s o m e o n e p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t in e v o l u tionary

history

there

appeared

something

utterly

new—

c o n s c i o u s n e s s , a m e n t a l l i f e , t o b e analysed in t e r m s o f souls having m e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s . T h e r e l u c t a n c e o f s o m a n y p h i l o s o p h e r s and scientists t o a d m i t that at a p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t

o f evolutionary

history

t h e r e c a m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e , c o n n e c t e d t o a n i m a l b o d i e s , souls w i t h m e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s s e e m s t o m e t o b e d u e in p a r t t o t h e f a c t t h a t , i f such a t h i n g h a p p e n e d , t h e y a r e u t t e r l y l o s t f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f h o w it c a m e t o h a p p e n . B u t it is highly i r r a t i o n a l t o say that s o m e t h i n g is n o t t h e r e , j u s t b e c a u s e y o u cann o t e x p l a i n h o w it c a m e t o b e t h e r e . W e should a c c e p t t h e e v i d e n t f a c t ; and i f w e c a n n o t e x p l a i n it, w e m u s t j u s t b e h u m b l e and a c k n o w l e d g e that w e a r e n o t o m n i s c i e n t . B u t I a m g o i n g o n t o suggest t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e c a n n o t b e an inanim a t e e x p l a n a t i o n , o f t h e k i n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e n a t u r a l scie n c e s , o f t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f souls and t h e i r m e n t a l l i f e , t h e t h e i s t d o e s have an e x p l a n a t i o n .

No Scientific

Explanation

S i n c e b r a i n e v e n t s cause m e n t a l e v e n t s , and m e n t a l

events

c a u s e b r a i n e v e n t s , scientists c o u l d p e r h a p s establish a l o n g list o f such causal c o n n e c t i o n s in h u m a n s , at any r a t e . T h e list w o u l d state that b r a i n e v e n t s o f a c e r t a i n k i n d cause

blue

i m a g e s , and brain e v e n t s o f a d i f f e r e n t k i n d c a u s e r e d i m a g e s ; b r a i n e v e n t s o f o n e k i n d cause a b e l i e f that 3 6 X 2 = 7 2 , and brain e v e n t s o f a n o t h e r k i n d cause a s t r o n g d e s i r e t o d r i n k t e a ; and that a p u r p o s e t o e a t c a k e t o g e t h e r w i t h a b e l i e f that c a k e is in t h e c u p b o a r d cause t h e b r a i n e v e n t s w h i c h cause

[80]

leg

The Existence of

Humans

m o v e m e n t s in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e c u p b o a r d . A n d so o n . A l s o , j u s t p o s s i b l y , scientists c o u l d list w h i c h p r i m i t i v e b r a i n s give rise

to consciousness—that

is, to souls. T h e reason why I

w r o t e ' j u s t p o s s i b l y ' is t h a t o u r o n l y g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t any o t h e r o r g a n i s m — w h e t h e r s o m e a n i m a l w h o s e b o d y w a s formed by normal sexual processes on earth, or s o m e creature o n a n o t h e r p l a n e t , o r s o m e m a c h i n e m a d e in a f a c t o r y — i s c o n s c i o u s is p r o v i d e d b y t h e similarity o f its b e h a v i o u r and b r a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n t o o u r s e l v e s . W e d o n o t have an i n d e p e n d e n t c h e c k o n w h e t h e r it is c o n s c i o u s . A n d w h e n t h e similarities

are

not

strong—as

between

frogs,

say,

and

human

b e i n g s — i t is in n o w a y o b v i o u s w h e t h e r t h e a n i m a l is c o n s c i o u s . B u t l e t us w a i v e difficulties a b o u t h o w w e c o u l d e s t a b lish such t h i n g s ,

and suppose

that w e have lists o f

causal

c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n b r a i n e v e n t s and m e n t a l e v e n t s , and lists o f w h i c h kinds o f p r i m i t i v e b r a i n g i v e rise t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s — that

is,

souls—in

subsequent

mental

which

subsequent

events,

and

mental

brain

events

events

cause

cause brain

events. So there are the phenomena.

T h e p r o b l e m is t o

explain

t h e m . W h y d o e s t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a b r a i n o f a c o m p l e x i t y as g r e a t as o r g r e a t e r than that o f a c e r t a i n a n i m a l ( p e r h a p s an early v e r t e b r a t e ) give rise t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s — t h a t i s , t o a soul w i t h m e n t a l states? A n d w h y do brain e v e n t s give rise t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r m e n t a l e v e n t s t h e y do? W h y d o e s a b r a i n e v e n t o f this k i n d cause a b l u e i m a g e , and o n e o f that k i n d cause a r e d i m a g e , and n o t v i c e versa? W h y d o e s eating c h o c o l a t e cause the brain

e v e n t s w h i c h cause t h e t a s t e w e

call

chocolatey

r a t h e r than t h e t a s t e w e call p i n e a p p l e y ? A m e r e list o f c o r r e l a t i o n s w o u l d b e l i k e a list o f s e n t e n c e s o f a f o r e i g n language w h i c h t r a n s l a t e s e n t e n c e s o f E n g l i s h , w i t h o u t any g r a m m a r o r w o r d dictionary to explain why those sentences are

[81]

correct

The Existence of

Humans

t r a n s l a t i o n s . A n d , in t h e a b s e n c e o f a g r a m m a r and d i c t i o n a r y , y o u a r e in n o p o s i t i o n t o t r a n s l a t e any n e w s e n t e n c e . T o p r o v i d e an i n a n i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s e

phenomena

w e w o u l d n e e d a scientific soul—body t h e o r y w h i c h satisfied t h e c r i t e r i a d e s c r i b e d in C h a p t e r 2 . It w o u l d c o n t a i n a f e w s i m p l e laws f r o m w h i c h it w o u l d f o l l o w that this n e r v e

or

c o m p u t e r o r o t h e r m a t e r i a l n e t w o r k w o u l d give r i s e t o a s o u l , and that o n e w o u l d n o t ; that this b r a i n e v e n t w o u l d cause a r e d i m a g e and that o n e a b l u e i m a g e ; and that this brain e v e n t w o u l d cause t h e t h o u g h t t h a t Russia is a big c o u n t r y , and that o n e w o u l d cause t h e t h o u g h t that e v e r y h u m a n has his o w n v o c a t i o n . A n d so o n . T h e t h e o r y w o u l d t h e n e n a b l e us t o p r e d i c t w h i c h b r a i n e v e n t s o f a n e w k i n d w o u l d give rise t o w h i c h m e n t a l e v e n t s o f a n e w k i n d , and w h i c h n e w kinds o f m a c h i n e w o u l d have feelings and w h i c h n o t . N o w w h a t m a k e s a t h e o r y o f m e c h a n i c s able t o e x p l a i n a diverse

set

mechanics

o f mechanical all deal

with

phenomena the

same

sort

is that of

the

laws

of

thing—material

o b j e c t s , t h e i r m a s s , shape, size, and p o s i t i o n , and change o f m a s s , shape, size, and p o s i t i o n . A n d m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s

differ

f r o m e a c h o t h e r in r e s p e c t o f t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s in m e a s u r a b l e ways ( o n e has t w i c e as m u c h m a s s as a n o t h e r , o r is t h r e e t i m e s as l o n g as a n o t h e r ) . B e c a u s e t h e p r o p e r t i e s a r e m e a s u r a b l e , w e can have g e n e r a l laws w h i c h r e l a t e t w o o r m o r e

measured

q u a n t i t i e s in all b o d i e s b y a m a t h e m a t i c a l f o r m u l a . W e d o n o t m e r e l y have t o say t h a t , w h e n an o b j e c t o f this m a s s and this v e l o c i t y c o l l i d e s w i t h an o b j e c t o f that m a s s and that v e l o c i t y , such and such r e s u l t s ; and so o n f o r i n n u m e r a b l e

different

o b j e c t s . W e can have a g e n e r a l f o r m u l a , a l a w saying that f o r e v e r y pair o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s in c o l l i s i o n t h e q u a n t i t y o f t h e s u m o f t h e m a s s o f t h e first m u l t i p l i e d b y its v e l o c i t y plus t h e m a s s o f t h e s e c o n d m u l t i p l i e d b y its v e l o c i t y is always c o n -

[82]

The Existence of

Humans

s e r v e d . B u t that can h o l d o n l y i f m a s s can b e m e a s u r e d o n a s c a l e — f o r e x a m p l e , o f g r a m s o r p o u n d s ; and l i k e w i s e

with

velocity. N o w a soul—body t h e o r y w o u l d deal with very different kinds o f thing. T h e mass and v e l o c i t y , and electrical and o t h e r physical p r o p e r t i e s , o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s are utterly different f r o m the m e n t a l (private) p r o p e r t i e s o f thought and feeling w h i c h pertain t o souls. Physical p r o p e r t i e s are m e a s u r a b l e . So brain events differ f r o m each o t h e r in the c h e m i c a l e l e m e n t s involved in t h e m (which in t u r n differ f r o m each o t h e r in m e a s u r a b l e ways) and the speed and direction o f the transmission o f e l e c t r i c c h a r g e . But thoughts do n o t differ f r o m each o t h e r along m e a s u r a b l e scales. O n e thought does n o t have t w i c e as m u c h o f s o m e sort o f m e a n i n g as a n o t h e r o n e . So t h e r e could n o t b e a general form u l a showing the effects o f variations in the p r o p e r t i e s o f brain events on m e n t a l e v e n t s , f o r the f o r m e r differ in m e a s u r a b l e r e s p e c t s and the l a t t e r do n o t . A n d w h a t goes f o r thoughts, goes f o r m e n t a l events o f o t h e r kinds. A desire f o r roast b e e f is n o t distinguished f r o m a desire f o r c h o c o l a t e b y having t w i c e as m u c h o f s o m e t h i n g . ( O f c o u r s e , the underlying causes o f t h e o n e m a y have t w i c e as m u c h o f s o m e t h i n g as t h e u n d e r l y i n g causes o f the o t h e r — b u t that is n o t t h e s a m e . ) So t h e r e c o u l d n o t b e a g e n e r a l f o r m u l a s h o w i n g h o w c e r t a i n variations in brain e v e n t s p r o d u c e d changes o f d e s i r e s ; o n l y a list o f w h i c h variations in t h e brain caused w h i c h changes o f desire and since sensations, t h o u g h t s , and so o n do n o t differ f r o m o t h e r sensations and thoughts in m e a s u r a b l e w a y s , even m o r e obviously sensations d o n o t differ f r o m t h o u g h t s o r p u r p o s e s f r o m beliefs in m e a s u r a b l e w a y s ; and so t h e r e c a n n o t b e an

explanation

deriving f r o m s o m e g e n e r a l f o r m u l a o f w h y this b r a i n e v e n t w a s caused b y a p u r p o s e and that o n e caused a b e l i e f ,

and

a n o t h e r o n e caused a taste o f c h o c o l a t e . N o t m e r e l y a r e t h e

[83]

The Existence of kinds o f p r o p e r t y possessed f r o m

Humans time to time by

o b j e c t s and b y souls so different, b u t , even m o r e

material

obviously,

material o b j e c t s are totally different kinds o f things f r o m souls. Souls do n o t differ f r o m each o t h e r o r anything else in being m a d e o f m o r e o r less o f s o m e quantity o f stuff. S o , again, t h e r e c o u l d b e n o general f o r m u l a correlating increase o f brain c o m p l e x i t y with the o c c u r r e n c e o f a soul. Neural n e t w o r k s m a y b e c o m e m o r e and m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d , b u t t h e r e could n o t b e a f o r m u l a o f which it was a c o n s e q u e n c e that o n e d e g r e e o f c o m p l e x i t y w o u l d n o t and o n e j u s t a little g r e a t e r w o u l d give rise t o a soul. Having a soul is all-or-nothing (a c r e a t u r e e i t h e r has s o m e feeling and awareness and so a soul, o r n o feeling

or

awareness and so n o s o u l ) ; it c a n n o t b e m e a s u r e d . F o r these r e a sons t h e r e could n o t b e an explanation o f soul—brain c o r r e l a t i o n , a soul—brain s c i e n c e ; m e r e l y a long list o f inexplicable causal connections. B u t d o e s n o t s c i e n c e always surprise us w i t h n e w d i s c o v e r ies? T h e h i s t o r y o f s c i e n c e is p u n c t u a t e d w i t h m a n y

'reduc-

tions', o f one whole branch o f science to another apparently t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t , o r ' i n t e g r a t i o n ' o f a p p a r e n t l y v e r y disparate s c i e n c e s i n t o a s u p e r - s c i e n c e . T h e r m o d y n a m i c s dealing w i t h h e a t w a s r e d u c e d t o statistical m e c h a n i c s dealing w i t h v e l o c i ties

o f large

groups

o f particles

of matter

and

collisions

b e t w e e n t h e m ; t h e t e m p e r a t u r e o f a gas p r o v e d t o b e

the

m e a n k i n e t i c e n e r g y o f its m o l e c u l e s . O p t i c s w a s r e d u c e d t o electromagnetism;

light

proved

to

be

an

electromagnetic

w a v e . A n d t h e s e p a r a t e s c i e n c e s o f e l e c t r i c i t y and m a g n e t i s m came together to form a super-science of electromagnetism. H o w is it that such g r e a t i n t e g r a t i o n s c a n b e a c h i e v e d i f m y a r g u m e n t is c o r r e c t that t h e r e c a n n o t b e a s u p e r - s c i e n c e w h i c h e x p l a i n s b o t h m e n t a l e v e n t s and b r a i n - e v e n t s ? T h e r e is a c r u c i a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s e c a s e s .

[84]

Every

The Existence of

Humans

earlier integration into a super-science,

o f sciences

dealing

w i t h e n t i t i e s and p r o p e r t i e s a p p a r e n t l y qualitatively v e r y dist i n c t , w a s a c h i e v e d b y saying that really s o m e o f t h e s e e n t i t i e s and p r o p e r t i e s w e r e n o t as t h e y a p p e a r e d t o b e . A d i s t i n c t i o n was made b e t w e e n the underlying (not immediately observa b l e ) m a t e r i a l e n t i t i e s and physical p r o p e r t i e s o n t h e o n e h a n d , and t h e s e n s o r y p r o p e r t i e s t o w h i c h t h e y gave r i s e . T h e r m o d y n a m i c s was initially c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e laws o f t e m p e r a t u r e e x c h a n g e ; and t e m p e r a t u r e w a s s u p p o s e d t o b e a p r o p e r t y i n h e r e n t in an o b j e c t w h i c h y o u felt w h e n y o u t o u c h e d t h e o b j e c t . T h e f e l t h o t n e s s o f a h o t b o d y is i n d e e d qualitatively d i s t i n c t f r o m p a r t i c l e v e l o c i t i e s and c o l l i s i o n s . T h e r e d u c t i o n t o statistical m e c h a n i c s w a s a c h i e v e d b y distinguishing b e t w e e n the underlying cause o f the hotness (the m o t i o n o f molecules) and t h e sensations w h i c h t h e m o t i o n o f m o l e c u l e s cause in o b s e r v e r s , and saying that really t h e f o r m e r was w h a t t e m p e r a t u r e w a s , t h e l a t t e r was j u s t t h e e f f e c t o f t e m p e r a t u r e o n o b s e r v e r s s u c h as u s . T h a t d o n e , t e m p e r a t u r e falls naturally w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f statistical m e c h a n i c s — f o r m o l e c u l e s a r e p a r t i c l e s ; t h e e n t i t i e s and p r o p e r t i e s a r e n o t n o w o f distinct kinds.

Since the t w o

sciences n o w

dealt w i t h e n t i t i e s

and

properties of the same (measurable) kind, reduction of one to the o t h e r n o w b e c a m e a practical prospect. But the reduction w a s a c h i e v e d at t h e p r i c e o f separating o f f t h e f e l t h o t n e s s fr.om its c a u s e s , and o n l y e x p l a i n i n g t h e l a t t e r . All o t h e r ' r e d u c t i o n s ' o f o n e s c i e n c e t o a n o t h e r and ' i n t e g r a t i o n s ' o f s e p a r a t e s c i e n c e s dealing w i t h a p p a r e n t l y v e r y disp a r a t e p r o p e r t i e s have b e e n a c h i e v e d b y this d e v i c e o f d e n y i n g that t h e a p p a r e n t p r o p e r t i e s ( s u c h as t h e ' s e c o n d a r y q u a l i t i e s ' o f colour, heat, sound, taste) with which one science

dealt

b e l o n g e d t o t h e physical w o r l d at all. It s i p h o n e d t h e m o f f t o t h e w o r l d o f t h e m e n t a l . B u t t h e n , w h e n y o u c o m e t o face t h e

[85]

The Existence of

Humans

p r o b l e m o f t h e m e n t a l e v e n t s t h e m s e l v e s , y o u c a n n o t d o this. If y o u a r e t o e x p l a i n t h e m e n t a l e v e n t s t h e m s e l v e s , y o u cann o t distinguish b e t w e e n t h e m and t h e i r u n d e r l y i n g causes and o n l y e x p l a i n t h e l a t t e r . In f a c t , t h e e n o r m o u s s u c c e s s o f scie n c e in p r o d u c i n g an i n t e g r a t e d p h y s i c o - c h e m i s t r y has b e e n a c h i e v e d at t h e e x p e n s e o f separating o f f f r o m t h e world

colours,

smells,

and

tastes,

and

regarding

physical them

as

purely private sensory p h e n o m e n a . W h a t the evidence o f the h i s t o r y o f s c i e n c e s h o w s is that t h e w a y t o a c h i e v e i n t e g r a t i o n o f s c i e n c e s is t o i g n o r e the m e n t a l . T h e physical w o r l d is g o v e r n e d by s i m p l e l a w s ( i . e . m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s have t h e s a m e s i m p l e p o w e r s and l i a b i l i t i e s ) ; t h e w a y t o d i s c o v e r t h o s e laws is t o i g n o r e t h e m e n t a l . T h e v e r y s u c c e s s o f s c i e n c e in achieving its vast i n t e g r a t i o n s in physics and c h e m i s t r y is t h e v e r y thing w h i c h has a p p a r e n t l y r u l e d o u t any final s u c c e s s in i n t e g r a t i n g t h e w o r l d o f t h e m i n d and t h e w o r l d o f physics. As w e saw in C h a p t e r 4 , t h e D a r w i n i a n t h e o r y o f e v o l u t i o n b y natural s e l e c t i o n is able t o p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e e v o l u t i o n o f h u m a n and a n i m a l b o d i e s , t h o u g h n o t , I a r g u e d , an

ultimate

explanation.

But

that

Darwinian

explanation

w o u l d e x p l a i n equally w e l l t h e e v o l u t i o n o f i n a n i m a t e r o b o t s . C o u l d n o t D a r w i n i s m also tell us s o m e t h i n g a b o u t h o w t h e bodies came

to be

connected

with consciousness—that

is,

souls? N a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n is a t h e o r y o f e l i m i n a t i o n ; it e x p l a i n s w h y so m a n y o f t h e variants t h r o w n up b y e v o l u t i o n

were

e l i m i n a t e d — t h e y w e r e n o t fitted f o r survival. B u t it d o e s n o t e x p l a i n w h y t h e y w e r e t h r o w n up in t h e first p l a c e . In t h e case o f physical variants ( s u c h as t h e l e n g t h o f t h e g i r a f f e ' s n e c k ) , t h e r e is n o d o u b t an a d e q u a t e e x p l a n a t i o n in t e r m s o f a m u t a t i o n (a r a n d o m c h e m i c a l c h a n g e ) p r o d u c i n g a n e w g e n e w i t h p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h cause t h e n e w variant t o a p p e a r in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e b a s i c laws o f c h e m i s t r y . B u t o u r p r o b l e m is t o

[86]

The Existence of

Humans

e x p l a i n w h y s o m e physical state c a u s e d t h e e m e r g e n c e o f souls with

such

mental

properties

as b e l i e f s ,

desires,

purposes,

t h o u g h t s , and s e n s a t i o n s . D a r w i n i s m is o f n o use in solving this p r o b l e m . D a r w i n i a n t h e o r y m i g h t , h o w e v e r , b e o f use in solving o n e d i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m , and c e r t a i n l y is o f use in solving a t h i r d p r o b l e m ; but neither of these problems must be confused with t h e original p r o b l e m . T h e first o f t h e s e additional p r o b l e m s is w h y , having first a p p e a r e d in e v o l u t i o n a r y h i s t o r y ,

conscious

animals s u r v i v e d . D a r w i n i a n t h e o r y m i g h t b e able t o s h o w that c o n s c i o u s o r g a n i s m s have s o m e advantage in t h e s t r u g g l e f o r survival o v e r n o n - c o n s c i o u s o r g a n i s m s p r o g r a m m e d t o r e a c t t o t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t in similar w a y s . It is difficult t o see w h a t that c o u l d b e , b u t m a y b e t h e r e is an a d v a n t a g e . T h e s e c o n d additional p r o b l e m is o n e t o w h i c h D a r w i n i s m c a n p r o d u c e a c l e a r , and t o m y m i n d fairly o b v i o u s l y c o r r e c t , answer.

That

mind—brain

is

this

connections,

problem. and

Given

given

that

the

existence

organisms

with

of a

m e n t a l life will b e f a v o u r e d in t h e s t r u g g l e f o r survival, w h y a r e t h e b r a i n e v e n t s w h i c h cause and a r e c a u s e d b y m e n t a l e v e n t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h o t h e r b o d i l y e v e n t s and

extra-bodily

e v e n t s in t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e y a r e . T a k e b e l i e f s . A brain e v e n t causes t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e is a t a b l e p r e s e n t . T h a t b r a i n e v e n t is c a u s e d b y a n e r v e i m p u l s e a l o n g t h e o p t i c n e r v e f r o m t h e e y e w h e n a t a b l e i m a g e is f o r m e d in t h e e y e b y light rays arriving f r o m a t a b l e . B u t an a n i m a l c o u l d have e v o l v e d in w h i c h t h e brain e v e n t w h i c h c a u s e d t h e t a b l e b e l i e f was caused b y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t e v e n t s in t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d . W h y t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e b r a i n and t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d ? T h e a n s w e r is e v i d e n t : animals w i t h b e l i e f s a r e m o r e likely t o survive

if their beliefs

a r e largely

true.

False

beliefs—for

e x a m p l e , a b o u t t h e l o c a t i o n o f f o o d o r p r e d a t o r s — w i l l lead

[87]

The Existence of

Humans

t o rapid e l i m i n a t i o n in t h e s t r u g g l e f o r f o o d o r p r e d a t o r s . If y o u b e l i e v e that t h e r e is n o t a b l e p r e s e n t , w h e n t h e r e is o n e , y o u will fall o v e r it, and so o n . T h o s e in w h o m t h e b r a i n states w h i c h give rise t o b e l i e f s a r e c o n n e c t e d b y causal chains t o t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d , in such a w a y that t h e causal chain is n o r m a l l y o n l y a c t i v a t e d b y a state o f affairs w h i c h causes t h e b r a i n state w h i c h in t u r n causes t h e b e l i e f that t h e state o f affairs h o l d s , will n o r m a l l y h o l d t r u e b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e w o r l d and in c o n s e q u e n c e b e m o r e likely t o s u r v i v e . S i m i l a r l y , g i v e n that I a m g o i n g t o have d e s i r e s caused b y brain e v e n t s , t h e r e a r e e v o l u t i o n a r y advantages in m y having s o m e u n d e r s o m e stances rather

than

others

under

other

circum-

circumstances—for

e x a m p l e , d e s i r e f o r f o o d w h e n I a m h u n g r y r a t h e r than w h e n I a m satiated. T h e s a m e k i n d o f a c c o u n t can b e given o f w h y t h e brain e v e n t s p r o d u c e d b y p u r p o s e s give rise t o t h e m o v e m e n t s o f b o d y p u r p o s e d . If, w h e n I t r i e d t o m o v e m y f o o t , m y hand m o v e d i n s t e a d , p r e d a t o r s w o u l d s o o n o v e r t a k e m e . B u t this c o r r e c t e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y (given that b r a i n e v e n t s cause m e n t a l e v e n t s ) t h e brain is c o n n e c t e d b y n e r v e s t o t h e r e s t o f t h e b o d y in t h e w a y it is d o e s n o t e x p l a i n w h y brain e v e n t s cause m e n t a l e v e n t s , w h i c h is a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t p r o b l e m . A n d similarily f o r w h y m e n t a l e v e n t s cause b r a i n e v e n t s . So t h e n , in s u m m a r y , t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e m e n t a l life o f animals ( i . e . animals having souls w i t h c e r t a i n m e n t a l e v e n t s ) involves: (a) t h e r e e x i s t i n g c e r t a i n physical—mental c o n n e c t i o n s ( c e r tain physical e v e n t s causing t h e e x i s t e n c e o f souls w i t h c e r t a i n m e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s , and c o n v e r s e l y ) ; (b) t h e r e e x i s t i n g animals w i t h brains w h o s e states give rise t o souls having an advantage in t h e s t r u g g l e f o r survival; (c) e v o l u t i o n s e l e c t i n g animals w h o s e b r a i n s a r e ' w i r e d i n ' t o t h e i r b o d i e s in c e r t a i n w a y s .

[88]

The Existence of

Humans

D a r w i n i a n m e c h a n i s m s can e x p l a i n ( c ) , and possibly (b);

but

n e i t h e r D a r w i n i s m n o r any o t h e r s c i e n c e has m u c h p r o s p e c t o f e x p l a i n i n g (a).

T h e o r i g i n a t i o n o f t h e m o s t n o v e l and strik-

ing f e a t u r e s o f animals ( t h e i r c o n s c i o u s life o f f e e l i n g , c h o i c e , and r e a s o n ) s e e m t o lie u t t e r l y b e y o n d t h e r a n g e o f s c i e n c e . Y e t t h e r e a r e t h e s e causal c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n soul and b r a i n w h i c h d o n o t s e e m t o arise f r o m t h e p o w e r s and liabilities o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s o f a k i n d that s c i e n c e can

explain.

T h e r e a r e causal c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n p a r t i c u l a r kinds o f b r a i n e v e n t and p a r t i c u l a r kinds o f m e n t a l e v e n t ; and causal c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n b r a i n e v e n t s and t h e v e r y e x i s t e n c e o f s o u l s . I m u s t h o w e v e r n o w qualify e v e n t h e l a t t e r c l a i m . It m a y w e l l b e that c e r t a i n p r i m i t i v e b r a i n states cause t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s o u l s — a s t h e f o e t a l b r a i n r e a c h e s a c e r t a i n state o f d e v e l o p m e n t it gives rise t o a soul c o n n e c t e d w i t h i t . B u t w h a t it c o u l d n o t cause i s — w h i c h soul is c o n n e c t e d w i t h it. It c o u l d n o t b e t h e p o w e r s o f this b r a i n , o f t h e m o l e c u l e s o f this f o e tus arising f r o m t h e s e g e n e s , w h i c h cause it t o b e the case that my soul is c o n n e c t e d t o this b r a i n and y o u r s t o t h a t , r a t h e r than v i c e v e r s a . It w o u l d b e equally c o m p a t i b l e w i t h all t h e r e g u l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n kinds o f e v e n t (this k i n d o f brain o r g a n i zation and t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a k i n d o f t h i n g

a s o u l ) t h a t sci-

e n c e c o u l d e v e r d i s c o v e r that y o u and I should have

been

c o n n e c t e d t o b r a i n s in t h e o p p o s i t e w a y t o t h e w a y in w h i c h w e a r e c o n n e c t e d . T h e r e simply is n o p o s s i b l e scientific discovery which anyone could ever imagine which would explain w h y it h a p p e n e d this w a y r a t h e r than that w a y . O n c e t h e c o n n e c t i o n is m a d e , w e b e g i n t o b e c o m e suited t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r brain;

connected

to

a male

brain,

I begin

to

have

male

t h o u g h t s . B u t that has n o r e l e v a n c e t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h y t h e T

o f u n f o r m e d c h a r a c t e r w a s fitted t o a m a l e r a t h e r than t o

a f e m a l e b r a i n . H e r e s c i e n c e simply s t o p s .

[89]

The Existence of

Theistic

Humans

Explanation

B u t t h e i s m can p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s e t h i n g s . G o d , b e i n g o m n i p o t e n t , is able t o j o i n souls t o b o d i e s . H e can cause there to b e the particular brain event mental event c o n n e c t i o n s w h i c h t h e r e a r e . H e c a n d o this b y causing m o l e c u l e s when f o r m e d into brains t o have p o w e r s t o p r o d u c e mental e v e n t s in souls t o w h i c h t h e y a r e c o n n e c t e d , and t h e liabilities t o e x e c u t e t h e p u r p o s e s o f such c o n n e c t e d souls ( n e w p o w e r s and liabilities

not

deriving

from

the

ordinary

ones

which

c h e m i s t r y a n a l y s e s ) . A n d h e can m a k e t h e souls in t h e

first

p l a c e and c h o o s e t o w h i c h b r a i n ( a n d so b o d y ) e a c h soul is t o b e c o n n e c t e d w h e n f o e t a l b r a i n e v e n t s r e q u i r e a soul t o b e connected to the brain. H e has g o o d r e a s o n t o cause t h e e x i s t e n c e o f souls and j o i n t h e m t o b o d i e s , in t h e g o o d n e s s o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e m b o d i e d animals and h u m a n b e i n g s w h o can have e n j o y a b l e s e n s a t i o n s , satisfy t h e i r d e s i r e s , have t h e i r b e l i e f s a b o u t w h a t t h e w o r l d is l i k e , and f o r m t h e i r o w n p u r p o s e s in t h e light o f t h e s e b e l i e f s which m a k e a difference t o the w o r l d . This involves the e x i s t e n c e o f r e g u l a r causal c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n m e n t a l

events

and brain e v e n t s . W e c a n n o t m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e w o r l d if, e a c h t i m e w e t r y t o m o v e o u r l e g , s o m e d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t is caused in t h e b r a i n and t h e r e b y in t h e b o d y — o n e t i m e t h e a r m m o v e s , o n e t i m e w e find o u r s e l v e s s n e e z i n g , and so o n . L i k e w i s e , i f w e a r e t o d i s c r i m i n a t e b e t w e e n o n e o b j e c t and a n o t h e r , t h e y have t o l o o k ( f e e l , e t c . ) d i f f e r e n t , and so t h e r e has t o b e a r e g u l a r causal c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e b r a i n e v e n t s c a u s e d b y o b j e c t s o f e a c h k i n d and t h e m e n t a l visual i m p r e s sions o f t h e m . A n d , i f w e a r e t o have t h e a w e s o m e p o w e r o f r e p r o d u c t i o n , t h e r e have t o b e r e g u l a r c o n n e c t i o n s

between

o u r s e x u a l a c t s , t h e f o e t u s t o w h i c h t h e y give r i s e , and s o m e

[90]

The Existence of

Humans

soul o r o t h e r l i n k e d t o that f o e t u s . G o d has r e a s o n t o set up all t h e s e c o n n e c t i o n s . H e m a y also have a r e a s o n t o j o i n this soul t o this p a r t i c u l a r b o d y , b u t , i f t h e r e is n o r e a s o n f o r j o i n ing o n e soul t o o n e b o d y r a t h e r than t o a d i f f e r e n t b o d y , h e has r e a s o n b y a ' m e n t a l t o s s u p ' t o p r o d u c e o n e - o r - o t h e r c o n n e c t i o n — t h a t i s , t o m a k e it a c h a n c e m a t t e r w h i c h c o n n e c tion holds. A p e r f e c t l y g o o d G o d will l o v e c r e a t u r e s , and l o v e c r e a tures

o f varying n a t u r e s — i n c l u d i n g

creatures

with

narrow

r a n g e s o f p u r p o s e s and b e l i e f s , such as rats and d o g s . B u t h e has a special

reason

for producing

human

beings.

Human

b e i n g s differ f r o m t h e h i g h e r animals in t h e kinds o f beliefs and p u r p o s e s t h e y h a v e . F o r i n s t a n c e , w e have m o r a l b e l i e f s , b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e origin o f o u r e x i s t e n c e o r f u n d a m e n t a l t h e o r i e s o f m a t h e m a t i c s . W e can r e a s o n f r o m this t o t h a t , and o u r b e l i e f s are c o n s c i o u s l y b a s e d o n o t h e r b e l i e f s ( w e c o m e t o have a p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f a b o u t t h e R o m a n s b e c a u s e w e b e l i e v e t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g w a s f o u n d in C h i c h e s t e r ) . A n d o u r p u r poses are n o t just i m m e d i a t e purposes t o get food o r drink, but purposes t o create complicated machines, build beautiful buildings, and p u r p o s e s t o c h a n g e o u r s e l v e s and each o t h e r — t o f o r m o u r c h a r a c t e r s so that w e a r e naturally i n c l i n e d t o d o this s o r t o f a c t i o n and n o t t h a t . H u m a n s a l s o , I b e l i e v e , and I s u g g e s t e d in C h a p t e r 1 , have f r e e w i l l — t h a t is, o u r p u r p o s e s a r e n o t fully d e t e r m i n e d b y o u r b r a i n states o r anything e l s e . It d o e s s e e m t o us that w a y , as w e c h o o s e , t h a t it is up t o us h o w w e c h o o s e . I should at this stage say s o m e t h i n g briefly a b o u t an o b j e c t i o n

to

this

w h i c h will o c c u r t o t h e r e a d e r . Is n o t t h e b r a i n an o r d i n a r y m a t e r i a l o b j e c t in w h i c h n o r m a l scientific laws o p e r a t e ? H o w , t h e n , c a n a h u m a n f r e e l y c h o o s e t o m o v e his a r m o r n o t , o r perform

any

piece

o f public

behaviour,

[91]

without

violating

The Existence of

Humans

scientific laws? F o r t h e w a y a h u m a n m o v e s his a r m o r d o e s anything p u b l i c is b y b r i n g i n g a b o u t a b r a i n e v e n t

(uninten-

t i o n a l l y ) and t h e r e b y i n t e n t i o n a l l y b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e p u b l i c m o v e m e n t . S o , i f h u m a n s have f r e e w i l l , w o u l d t h e y n o t t h e n be

able t o p r e v e n t n o r m a l scientific laws o p e r a t i n g in

the

b r a i n ? O n e a n s w e r t o this is t h a t q u i t e o b v i o u s l y t h e b r a i n is n o t an o r d i n a r y m a t e r i a l o b j e c t , s i n c e — u n l i k e o r d i n a r y m a t e rial o b j e c t s — i t

gives rise t o

souls and t h e i r m e n t a l

H e n c e w e w o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e x p e c t it t o b e

lives.

governed

t o t a l l y b y t h e n o r m a l laws o f physics w h i c h c o n c e r n o r d i n a r y m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s . B u t a s e c o n d a n s w e r is t h a t , e v e n i f t h e brain is g o v e r n e d b y t h e s a m e laws as g o v e r n o t h e r m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s , t h a t c o u l d still b e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h h u m a n s having f r e e w i l l . T h i s is b e c a u s e

one

o f the t w o

great theories

of

modern

physics, Q u a n t u m T h e o r y , s h o w s that t h e physical w o r l d o n t h e small scale is n o t fully d e t e r m i n i s t i c . An e l e m e n t o f u n p r e dictability

governs

the

behaviour

of atoms,

and

the

even

s m a l l e r e l e c t r o n s , p r o t o n s and p h o t o n s , and o t h e r f u n d a m e n tal p a r t i c l e s o u t o f w h i c h a t o m s a r e m a d e . T h i s u n p r e d i c t a b i l ity is n o t j u s t a l i m i t t o h u m a n ability t o p r e d i c t e f f e c t s , b u t , i f Q u a n t u m T h e o r y is t r u e , a l i m i t t o t h e e x t e n t t o

which

m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s have p r e c i s e e f f e c t s , a l i m i t t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e physical w o r l d is d e t e r m i n i s t i c .

Exactly how

an

e l e c t r o n o r p h o t o n will m o v e is u n p r e d i c t a b l e , t h o u g h w e can o f t e n say that it is m o r e p r o b a b l e that it will m o v e along o n e path than a l o n g a n o t h e r p a t h . often

Likewise atoms of one

kind

' d e c a y ' , t u r n i n g i n t o a t o m s o f a n o t h e r k i n d . All that

Q u a n t u m T h e o r y can t e l l us is h o w p r o b a b l e it is that an a t o m o f , say, r a d i u m will d e c a y w i t h i n a given t i m e , n o t e x a c t l y w h e n it will d e c a y . B u t , w h i l e such u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y at t h e a t o m i c l e v e l d o e s n o t n o r m a l l y give rise t o any

significant

u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y o n t h e l a r g e r s c a l e , it c a n d o s o . W e

[92]

could

The Existence of

Humans

construct a machine which would ensure that, if some atom decayed within a certain t i m e , a nuclear b o m b would explode but

otherwise

it

would

not.

Then

we

could

not

predict

w h e t h e r t h e b o m b w o u l d e x p l o d e o r n o t . N o w t h e brain is an i n t r i c a t e m a c h i n e w h i c h also magnifies small c h a n g e s , and it m a y w e l l b e l i k e t h i s : that t h e u n p r e d i c t a b l e small changes in t h e brain a r e t h e o n e s w h i c h c a u s e o u r t h o u g h t and o b s e r v a b l e b e h a v i o u r . In that c a s e , w h e n h u m a n s f o r m t h e i r p u r p o s e s t o t h i n k o f this o r that o r b e h a v e in such and s u c h a w a y , t h e y t h e r e b y cause t h o s e small changes u n p r e d i c t a b l e b y

science

w h i c h in t u r n cause t h e t h o u g h t and b e h a v i o u r . In this w a y , h u m a n s can e x e r c i s e f r e e will w i t h o u t t h e i r d o i n g so i n v o l v ing any v i o l a t i o n o f t h e physical laws w h i c h g o v e r n t h e b r a i n . These

two

answers

suggest

that

there

is n o

reason

from

physics f o r supposing that things a r e n o t as t h e y s e e m t o b e with respect to free human choice. So w e h u m a n s have g r e a t possibilities f o r a c q u i r i n g t r u e and d e e p b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e w o r l d and f o r m o u l d i n g n o t j u s t o u r e n v i r o n m e n t o n t h e l a r g e scale in c o m p l e x w a y s , b u t also o u r s e l v e s . In s o m a n y d i f f e r e n t w a y s w e can c h o o s e b e t w e e n g o o d and evil, and o u r c h o i c e s m a k e a b i g d i f f e r e n c e . A g e n e r o u s G o d has r e a s o n t o c r e a t e such b e i n g s . The

e v i d e n c e d e p l o y e d in this c h a p t e r suggests that

the

e x i s t e n c e o f souls and t h e i r c o n n e c t i o n s t o b o d i e s a r e n o t d u e t o t h e physical p r o c e s s e s codified in natural l a w s . S o m e n e w p o w e r s have b e e n given t o f o e t a l b r a i n s , and t o t h e souls t o w h i c h t h e y a r e j o i n e d , p o w e r s w h i c h d o n o t have a scientific explanation. T h e existence o f G o d , a simple hypothesis which leads us w i t h s o m e p r o b a b i l i t y t o e x p e c t t h e p h e n o m e n a disc u s s e d in t h e last c h a p t e r , also leads us t o e x p e c t t h e s e p h e nomena.

Hence

they

constitute

further

evidence

for

his

e x i s t e n c e . A l t h o u g h t h e p o w e r s o f t h e b r a i n and its liability t o

[93]

The Existence of

Humans

e x e r c i s e t h e s e w h e n it r e c e i v e s c e r t a i n n e r v e i m p u l s e s f r o m t h e e y e p r o v i d e a full e x p l a n a t i o n o f m y having a b l u e i m a g e w h e n I d o , t h o s e p o w e r s a r e c r e a t e d and c o n s e r v e d b y G o d , and so his a c t i o n p r o v i d e s t h e u l t i m a t e

explanation of the

o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e b l u e i m a g e . G o d ' s a c t i o n also p r o v i d e s t h e u l t i m a t e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e r e b e i n g a soul ( a n d it b e i n g m y soul r a t h e r than y o u r s ) w h i c h is j o i n e d t o this b o d y . It has b e e n a c o m m o n (though n o t universal) Christian doctrine that, while G o d operates through 'secondary causes' ( i . e . natural p r o c e s s e s ) t o d o m u c h else in t h e w o r l d , h e i n t e r v e n e s d i r e c t l y t o c r e a t e h u m a n souls and link t h e m t o b o d i e s . I have g o n e b e y o n d it t o suggest that t h e s a m e is t r u e o f t h e souls o f t h e higher animals.

[94]

6 W H Y GOD ALLOWS EVIL

T h i s w o r l d is a clearly providential w o r l d in this s e n s e — t h a t w e h u m a n s can have a g r e a t influence o n o u r o w n destiny, and on the destiny o f o u r w o r l d and its o t h e r inhabitants; and it is very g o o d f o r us that it is like that. A n d y e t animals and h u m a n s suffer ( t h r o u g h natural p r o c e s s e s o f disease and a c c i d e n t ) , and t h e y cause each o t h e r t o suffer ( w e h u r t and m a i m each o t h e r and cause each o t h e r t o s t a r v e ) . T h e w o r l d , that is, contains m u c h evil. An o m n i p o t e n t G o d could have p r e v e n t e d this evil, and surely a p e r f e c t l y g o o d and o m n i p o t e n t G o d w o u l d have d o n e s o . So w h y is t h e r e this evil? Is n o t its e x i s t e n c e strong e v i d e n c e against the e x i s t e n c e o f G o d ? It w o u l d b e unless w e can c o n s t r u c t w h a t is k n o w n as a t h e o d i c y , an explanation o f w h y G o d w o u l d allow such evil t o o c c u r . I b e l i e v e that that can b e d o n e , and I shall outline a t h e o d i c y in this c h a p t e r . I e m p h a size that in this c h a p t e r , as in C h a p t e r 1, in writing that G o d w o u l d d o this o r that, I a m n o t taking f o r g r a n t e d the e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , b u t m e r e l y claiming that, i f t h e r e is a G o d , it is t o b e e x p e c t e d that h e w o u l d do certain things, including allowing the o c c u r r e n c e o f certain evils; and s o , I am claiming,

their

o c c u r r e n c e is n o t e v i d e n c e against his e x i s t e n c e . It is i n e v i t a b l e that any a t t e m p t b y m y s e l f o r a n y o n e else t o

[95]

Why God Allows Evil c o n s t r u c t a t h e o d i c y will s o u n d c a l l o u s , i n d e e d t o t a l l y i n s e n sitive t o h u m a n suffering. M a n y t h e i s t s , as w e l l as a t h e i s t s , have felt that any a t t e m p t t o c o n s t r u c t a t h e o d i c y e v i n c e s an i m m o r a l a p p r o a c h t o s u f f e r i n g . I can o n l y ask t h e r e a d e r t o b e l i e v e t h a t I a m n o t t o t a l l y insensitive t o h u m a n

suffering,

and that I d o m i n d a b o u t t h e a g o n y o f p o i s o n i n g , child a b u s e , b e r e a v e m e n t , solitary i m p r i s o n m e n t , and m a r i t a l infidelity as m u c h as a n y o n e e l s e . T r u e , I w o u l d n o t in m o s t cases r e c o m m e n d that a p a s t o r give this c h a p t e r t o v i c t i m s o f sudden distress at t h e i r w o r s t m o m e n t , t o r e a d f o r c o n s o l a t i o n .

But

this is n o t b e c a u s e its a r g u m e n t s a r e u n s o u n d ; it is simply that m o s t p e o p l e in d e e p distress n e e d c o m f o r t , n o t a r g u m e n t . Y e t t h e r e is a p r o b l e m a b o u t w h y G o d a l l o w s e v i l , a n d , i f t h e t h e ist d o e s n o t have (in a c o o l m o m e n t ) a satisfactory a n s w e r t o it, t h e n his b e l i e f in G o d is less t h a n r a t i o n a l , and t h e r e is n o r e a s o n w h y t h e atheist should share i t . T o a p p r e c i a t e t h e a r g u m e n t o f this c h a p t e r , e a c h o f us n e e d s t o stand b a c k a b i t f r o m t h e p a r t i c u l a r situation o f his o r h e r o w n life and that o f c l o s e relatives and friends ( w h i c h c a n so easily s e e m t h e o n l y i m p o r t a n t thing in t h e w o r l d ) , and ask v e r y g e n e r a l l y w h a t g o o d things w o u l d a g e n e r o u s and e v e r l a s t i n g G o d give t o h u m a n b e i n g s in t h e c o u r s e o f a s h o r t earthly l i f e . O f c o u r s e thrills o f p l e a s u r e and p e r i o d s o f c o n t e n t m e n t a r e g o o d t h i n g s , a n d — o t h e r things b e i n g e q u a l — G o d w o u l d c e r t a i n l y s e e k t o p r o vide p l e n t y o f t h o s e . B u t a g e n e r o u s G o d w i l l s e e k t o give d e e p e r g o o d things than t h e s e . H e will s e e k t o give us g r e a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r o u r s e l v e s , e a c h o t h e r , and t h e w o r l d ,

and

thus a share in his o w n c r e a t i v e activity o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t s o r t o f w o r l d it is t o b e . A n d h e w i l l s e e k t o m a k e o u r lives v a l u a b l e , o f g r e a t use t o o u r s e l v e s and e a c h o t h e r . T h e p r o b l e m is that G o d c a n n o t give us t h e s e g o o d s in full m e a s u r e w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g m u c h evil o n t h e w a y .

[96]

Why God Allows Evil T h e p r o b l e m o f evil is n o t that o f t h e a b s e n c e o f various g o o d s t a t e s . W e n o t e d in C h a p t e r 1 t h a t , h o w e v e r m u c h g o o d G o d c r e a t e s , h e c o u l d c r e a t e m o r e ; and h e d o e s n o t in g e n eral have any o b l i g a t i o n t o c r e a t e . T h a t is w h y death is n o t in i t s e l f an e v i l ; d e a t h is j u s t t h e e n d o f a g o o d s t a t e , life ( a n d in any case o n e o f w h i c h G o d m a y c h o o s e t o give us m o r e — b y giving us a life a f t e r d e a t h ) . D e a t h m a y b e an evil i f it c o m e s p r e m a t u r e l y , o r causes g r e a t g r i e f t o o t h e r s ; b u t in i t s e l f it is n o t an e v i l . B u t t h e r e a r e p l e n t y o f e v i l s , positive b a d s t a t e s , w h i c h G o d c o u l d i f h e c h o s e r e m o v e . I divide t h e s e i n t o m o r a l evils and n a t u r a l evils. I u n d e r s t a n d b y ' n a t u r a l e v i l ' all evil w h i c h is n o t d e l i b e r a t e l y p r o d u c e d b y h u m a n b e i n g s and w h i c h is n o t a l l o w e d b y h u m a n b e i n g s t o o c c u r as a r e s u l t o f t h e i r n e g l i g e n c e . N a t u r a l evil i n c l u d e s b o t h physical suffering and m e n t a l suffering, o f animals as w e l l as h u m a n s ; all t h e trail o f suffering w h i c h disease, n a t u r a l disasters, and a c c i d e n t s u n p r e d i c t a b l e b y h u m a n s b r i n g in t h e i r t r a i n . ' M o r a l e v i l ' I u n d e r stand as i n c l u d i n g all evil c a u s e d d e l i b e r a t e l y b y h u m a n s d o i n g what they ought not to do (or allowed to occur by humans n e g l i g e n t l y failing t o d o w h a t t h e y o u g h t t o d o ) and also t h e evil c o n s t i t u t e d b y such d e l i b e r a t e a c t i o n s o r n e g l i g e n t f a i l u r e . It i n c l u d e s t h e s e n s o r y pain o f t h e b l o w inflicted b y t h e b a d p a r e n t o n his c h i l d , t h e m e n t a l pain o f t h e p a r e n t d e p r i v i n g t h e child o f l o v e , t h e starvation a l l o w e d t o o c c u r in A f r i c a because of negligence by m e m b e r s

o f foreign

governments

w h o c o u l d have p r e v e n t e d it, and also t h e evil o f t h e p a r e n t o r politician d e l i b e r a t e l y b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e pain o r n o t t r y i n g to prevent the starvation.

[97]

Why God Allows Evil

Moral

Evil

T h e c e n t r a l c o r e o f any t h e o d i c y m u s t , I b e l i e v e , b e t h e ' f r e e w i l l d e f e n c e ' , w h i c h d e a l s — t o start w i t h — w i t h m o r a l e v i l , b u t c a n b e e x t e n d e d t o deal w i t h m u c h n a t u r a l evil as w e l l . T h e f r e e - w i l l d e f e n c e c l a i m s that it is a g r e a t g o o d that h u m a n s have a c e r t a i n s o r t o f f r e e w i l l w h i c h I shall call f r e e

and

responsible choice, but that, if they do, then necessarily there will b e t h e natural possibility o f m o r a l e v i l . ( B y t h e

'natural

p o s s i b i l i t y ' I m e a n that it will n o t b e d e t e r m i n e d in advance w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e evil will o c c u r . ) A G o d w h o gives h u m a n s such f r e e will n e c e s s a r i l y b r i n g s a b o u t t h e possibility, and puts o u t s i d e his o w n c o n t r o l w h e t h e r o r n o t that evil o c c u r s . It is n o t logically p o s s i b l e — t h a t i s , it w o u l d b e s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o s u p p o s e — t h a t G o d c o u l d give us such f r e e will and y e t e n s u r e that w e always use it in t h e r i g h t w a y . F r e e and r e s p o n s i b l e c h o i c e is n o t j u s t f r e e w i l l in t h e n a r r o w sense o f b e i n g able t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s , w i t h o u t o u r c h o i c e b e i n g causally n e c e s s i t a t e d b y s o m e p r i o r c a u s e . I have u r g e d , f o r t h e r e a s o n s given in t h e last c h a p t e r , that h u m a n s d o have such f r e e w i l l . B u t h u m a n s c o u l d have that k i n d o f f r e e will m e r e l y in v i r t u e o f b e i n g able t o c h o o s e freely b e t w e e n

t w o equally g o o d and u n i m p o r t a n t

alterna-

t i v e s . F r e e and r e s p o n s i b l e c h o i c e is r a t h e r f r e e will ( o f t h e k i n d discussed) t o m a k e significant c h o i c e s b e t w e e n g o o d and e v i l , w h i c h m a k e a big d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e a g e n t , t o o t h e r s , and to the world. G i v e n that w e have f r e e w i l l , w e c e r t a i n l y have f r e e and r e s p o n s i b l e c h o i c e . L e t us r e m i n d o u r s e l v e s o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e that h u m a n s can m a k e t o t h e m s e l v e s , o t h e r s , and t h e w o r l d . Humans

have

opportunities

to

give t h e m s e l v e s

and

others

p l e a s u r a b l e s e n s a t i o n s , and t o p u r s u e w o r t h w h i l e a c t i v i t i e s —

[98]

Why God Allows Evil t o play t e n n i s o r t h e p i a n o , t o a c q u i r e k n o w l e d g e o f h i s t o r y and s c i e n c e and p h i l o s o p h y , and t o h e l p o t h e r s t o d o s o , and t h e r e b y t o b u i l d d e e p p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s f o u n d e d u p o n such sensations and activities. A n d h u m a n s a r e so m a d e that t h e y can f o r m t h e i r c h a r a c t e r s . A r i s t o t l e f a m o u s l y r e m a r k e d :

'we

b e c o m e just by doing just acts, prudent by doing prudent acts, b r a v e b y d o i n g b r a v e a c t s . ' T h a t i s , b y d o i n g a j u s t act w h e n it is d i f f i c u l t — w h e n it g o e s against o u r natural

inclinations

( w h i c h is w h a t I u n d e r s t a n d b y d e s i r e s ) — w e m a k e it easier t o d o a j u s t act n e x t t i m e . W e c a n gradually c h a n g e o u r d e s i r e s , so

that—for

example—doing

just

acts

becomes

natural.

T h e r e b y w e can f r e e o u r s e l v e s f r o m t h e p o w e r o f t h e less g o o d desires t o w h i c h w e a r e s u b j e c t . A n d , b y c h o o s i n g t o a c q u i r e k n o w l e d g e and t o use it t o b u i l d m a c h i n e s o f various s o r t s , h u m a n s can e x t e n d t h e r a n g e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h e y c a n make to the w o r l d — t h e y

c a n build u n i v e r s i t i e s t o last f o r

c e n t u r i e s , o r save e n e r g y f o r t h e n e x t g e n e r a t i o n ; and b y c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t o v e r m a n y decades they can e l i m i n a t e p o v e r t y . T h e possibilities f o r f r e e and r e s p o n s i b l e c h o i c e are e n o r m o u s . It is g o o d that t h e f r e e c h o i c e s o f h u m a n s should i n c l u d e genuine

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r o t h e r h u m a n s , and that involves t h e

o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e n e f i t or h a r m t h e m . G o d has t h e p o w e r t o b e n e f i t o r t o h a r m h u m a n s . If o t h e r agents a r e t o b e given a share in his c r e a t i v e w o r k , it is g o o d that t h e y have that p o w e r t o o ( a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s t o a l e s s e r d e g r e e ) . A w o r l d in w h i c h agents can b e n e f i t each o t h e r b u t n o t d o e a c h o t h e r h a r m is o n e w h e r e t h e y have o n l y v e r y l i m i t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e a c h o t h e r . If m y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r y o u is l i m i t e d t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t o give y o u a c a m c o r d e r , b u t I c a n n o t cause y o u p a i n , s t u n t y o u r g r o w t h , o r l i m i t y o u r e d u c a t i o n , t h e n I d o n o t have a g r e a t deal o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r y o u . A G o d w h o gave agents only such limited responsibilities for their fellows would n o t

[99]

Why God Allows Evil h a v e given m u c h . G o d w o u l d have r e s e r v e d f o r h i m s e l f t h e a l l - i m p o r t a n t c h o i c e o f t h e k i n d o f w o r l d it w a s t o b e , w h i l e simply a l l o w i n g h u m a n s t h e m i n o r

c h o i c e o f filling in

the

d e t a i l s . H e w o u l d b e like a f a t h e r asking his e l d e r son t o l o o k a f t e r t h e y o u n g e r s o n , and adding that h e w o u l d b e w a t c h i n g t h e e l d e r s o n ' s e v e r y m o v e and w o u l d i n t e r v e n e t h e m o m e n t t h e e l d e r son did a thing w r o n g . T h e e l d e r s o n m i g h t j u s t l y r e t o r t t h a t , w h i l e he w o u l d b e happy t o share his

father's

w o r k , h e c o u l d really d o so o n l y i f h e w e r e l e f t t o m a k e his o w n j u d g e m e n t s as t o w h a t t o d o w i t h i n a significant r a n g e o f t h e o p t i o n s available t o t h e f a t h e r . A g o o d G o d , like a g o o d f a t h e r , w i l l d e l e g a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In o r d e r t o a l l o w c r e a t u r e s a share in c r e a t i o n , h e will a l l o w t h e m t h e c h o i c e o f h u r t i n g and m a i m i n g , o f frustrating t h e divine p l a n . O u r w o r l d is o n e w h e r e c r e a t u r e s have j u s t such d e e p r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e a c h other. I can n o t only benefit m y children, but harm t h e m . O n e w a y in w h i c h I can h a r m t h e m is that I can inflict physical pain o n t h e m . B u t t h e r e a r e m u c h m o r e d a m a g i n g things w h i c h I can d o t o t h e m . A b o v e all I can stop t h e m g r o w i n g i n t o c r e a t u r e s w i t h significant k n o w l e d g e , p o w e r , and f r e e d o m ; I can d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e y c o m e t o have t h e kind o f f r e e and r e s p o n s i b l e c h o i c e w h i c h I h a v e . T h e possibility o f h u m a n s b r i n g i n g a b o u t significant evil is a logical c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e i r having this f r e e and r e s p o n s i b l e c h o i c e . N o t e v e n G o d c o u l d give us this c h o i c e w i t h o u t t h e possibility o f r e s u l t i n g e v i l . Now,

as w e saw in C h a p t e r

1 , an a c t i o n w o u l d n o t

be

i n t e n t i o n a l unless it w a s d o n e f o r a r e a s o n — t h a t is, s e e n as in s o m e w a y a g o o d t h i n g ( e i t h e r in i t s e l f o r b e c a u s e o f its c o n sequences).

And,

if

reasons

alone

influence

r e g a r d e d b y t h e s u b j e c t as m o s t i m p o r t a n t

actions,

will

that

determine

w h a t is d o n e ; an a g e n t u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f r e a s o n a l o n e will i n e v i t a b l y d o t h e a c t i o n w h i c h h e r e g a r d s as o v e r a l l t h e b e s t .

[100]

Why God Allows Evil I f an a g e n t d o e s n o t d o t h e a c t i o n w h i c h h e r e g a r d s as o v e r all t h e b e s t , h e m u s t have a l l o w e d f a c t o r s o t h e r than r e a s o n t o e x e r t an i n f l u e n c e o n h i m . In o t h e r w o r d s , h e m u s t have a l l o w e d d e s i r e s f o r w h a t h e regards as g o o d o n l y in a c e r t a i n r e s p e c t , b u t n o t o v e r a l l , t o i n f l u e n c e his c o n d u c t . S o , in o r d e r t o have a c h o i c e b e t w e e n g o o d and e v i l , a g e n t s n e e d already a certain d e p r a v i t y , in t h e s e n s e o f a s y s t e m o f desires f o r w h a t t h e y c o r r e c t l y b e l i e v e t o b e evil. I n e e d t o want t o o v e r e a t , g e t m o r e than m y fair share o f m o n e y o r p o w e r , indulge m y sexual a p p e t i t e s e v e n b y d e c e i v i n g m y s p o u s e o r p a r t n e r , w a n t t o see y o u h u r t , i f I a m t o have c h o i c e b e t w e e n g o o d and e v i l . T h i s d e p r a v i t y is i t s e l f an evil w h i c h is a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n o f a g r e a t e r g o o d . It m a k e s p o s s i b l e a c h o i c e m a d e seriously and d e l i b e r a t e l y , b e c a u s e m a d e in t h e face o f a g e n u i n e a l t e r n a t i v e . I stress t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f r e e - w i l l d e f e n c e , it is t h e natural possibility o f m o r a l evil w h i c h is t h e n e c e s s a r y c o n dition o f t h e g r e a t g o o d , n o t t h e actual evil itself. that o c c u r s is ( t h r o u g h G o d ' s c h o i c e ) o u t s i d e G o d ' s

Whether control

and up t o u s . N o t e f u r t h e r and c r u c i a l l y t h a t , i f I suffer in c o n s e q u e n c e o f y o u r f r e e l y c h o s e n b a d a c t i o n , that is n o t b y any m e a n s p u r e loss f o r m e . In a c e r t a i n r e s p e c t it is a g o o d f o r me. M y suffering w o u l d b e p u r e loss f o r m e i f t h e o n l y g o o d thing in life was s e n s o r y p l e a s u r e , and t h e o n l y b a d thing s e n s o r y p a i n ; and it is b e c a u s e t h e m o d e r n w o r l d t e n d s t o t h i n k in t h o s e t e r m s that t h e p r o b l e m o f evil s e e m s so a c u t e . I f t h e s e w e r e t h e o n l y g o o d and b a d t h i n g s , t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f suffering w o u l d i n d e e d b e a c o n c l u s i v e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d . B u t w e have already n o t e d t h e g r e a t g o o d o f f r e e l y c h o o s i n g and influencing o u r f u t u r e , that o f o u r f e l l o w s , and that o f the w o r l d . A n d n o w n o t e a n o t h e r g r e a t g o o d — t h e g o o d o f o u r life serving a p u r p o s e , o f b e i n g o f use t o o u r s e l v e s and o t h e r s . R e c a l l t h e

[101]

Why God Allows Evil w o r d s o f C h r i s t , ' i t is m o r e b l e s s e d t o give t h a n t o r e c e i v e ' (as q u o t e d b y S t Paul ( A c t s 2 0 : 3 5 ) ) . W e t e n d t o t h i n k , w h e n t h e b e g g a r appears o n o u r d o o r s t e p and w e feel o b l i g e d t o give and d o g i v e , that that was l u c k y f o r h i m b u t n o t f o r us w h o h a p p e n e d t o b e at h o m e . T h a t is n o t w h a t C h r i s t ' s w o r d s say. T h e y say t h a t we a r e t h e l u c k y o n e s , n o t j u s t b e c a u s e w e have a l o t , o u t o f w h i c h w e c a n give a l i t t l e , b u t b e c a u s e w e are privileged t o contribute t o the beggar's

happiness—and

that p r i v i l e g e is w o r t h a l o t m o r e than m o n e y . A n d , j u s t as it is a g r e a t g o o d f r e e l y t o c h o o s e t o d o g o o d , so it is also a g o o d t o b e u s e d b y s o m e o n e else f o r a w o r t h y p u r p o s e (so l o n g , that i s , that h e o r she has t h e r i g h t , t h e a u t h o r i t y , t o u s e us in this w a y ) . B e i n g a l l o w e d t o suffer t o m a k e possible a g r e a t g o o d is a p r i v i l e g e , e v e n i f t h e p r i v i l e g e is f o r c e d u p o n y o u . T h o s e w h o a r e a l l o w e d t o die f o r t h e i r c o u n t r y and t h e r e b y save t h e i r c o u n t r y

from

foreign

oppression

are

privileged.

C u l t u r e s less o b s e s s e d t h a n o u r o w n b y t h e evil o f p u r e l y physical pain have always r e c o g n i z e d that. A n d t h e y have r e c o g n i z e d that it is still a b l e s s i n g , e v e n if t h e o n e w h o d i e d had b e e n c o n s c r i p t e d t o

fight.

A n d e v e n t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y m a n can b e g i n t o see

that—

s o m e t i m e s — w h e n h e s e e k s t o help p r i s o n e r s , n o t b y giving them m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e quarters, but by letting them help the h a n d i c a p p e d ; o r w h e n h e pities r a t h e r than envies t h e

'poor

little r i c h g i r l ' w h o has e v e r y t h i n g and d o e s n o t h i n g f o r anyo n e e l s e . A n d o n e p h e n o m e n o n p r e v a l e n t in Britain

draws

this e s p e c i a l l y t o

end-of-century

our attention—the

evil

of

u n e m p l o y m e n t . B e c a u s e o f o u r s y s t e m o f Social S e c u r i t y , t h e u n e m p l o y e d o n t h e w h o l e have e n o u g h m o n e y t o live w i t h o u t t o o m u c h discomfort; certainly they are a lot b e t t e r off than a r e m a n y e m p l o y e d in A f r i c a o r Asia o r V i c t o r i a n

Britain.

W h a t is evil a b o u t u n e m p l o y m e n t is n o t so m u c h any r e s u l t -

[102]

Why God Allows Evil ing p o v e r t y b u t t h e uselessness o f t h e u n e m p l o y e d . T h e y o f t e n r e p o r t f e e l i n g u n v a l u e d b y s o c i e t y , o f n o u s e , ' o n t h e scrap h e a p ' . T h e y rightly t h i n k it w o u l d b e a g o o d f o r t h e m t o c o n t r i b u t e ; b u t t h e y c a n n o t . M a n y o f t h e m w o u l d w e l c o m e a syst e m w h e r e t h e y w e r e o b l i g e d t o do useful w o r k in p r e f e r e n c e t o o n e w h e r e s o c i e t y has n o use f o r t h e m . It f o l l o w s f r o m that fact t h a t b e i n g o f use is a b e n e f i t f o r h i m w h o is o f u s e , and that t h o s e w h o suffer at t h e hands o f o t h e r s , and t h e r e b y m a k e p o s s i b l e t h e g o o d o f t h o s e who

have

free

and

responsible

choice,

are

others

themselves

b e n e f i t e d in this r e s p e c t . I a m f o r t u n a t e i f t h e natural p o s s ibility o f m y suffering i f y o u c h o o s e t o h u r t m e is t h e v e h i c l e w h i c h m a k e s y o u r c h o i c e really m a t t e r . M y v u l n e r a b i l i t y , m y o p e n n e s s t o suffering ( w h i c h n e c e s s a r i l y involves m y actually suffering i f y o u m a k e t h e w r o n g c h o i c e ) , m e a n s that y o u are n o t j u s t like a pilot in a s i m u l a t o r , w h e r e it d o e s n o t m a t t e r if mistakes are m a d e . That our choices m a t t e r tremendously, that w e c a n m a k e g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e s t o things f o r g o o d o r ill, is o n e o f t h e g r e a t e s t gifts a c r e a t o r can give us. A n d i f m y suffering is t h e m e a n s b y w h i c h h e can give you that c h o i c e , I

too

am

in

this

respect

fortunate.

Though

of

course

suffering is in i t s e l f a b a d t h i n g , m y g o o d f o r t u n e is t h a t t h e suffering is n o t r a n d o m ,

pointless

suffering.

It is

suffering

w h i c h is a c o n s e q u e n c e o f m y v u l n e r a b i l i t y w h i c h m a k e s m e o f such u s e . S o m e o n e m a y o b j e c t t h a t t h e only g o o d thing is n o t

being

o f use (dying f o r o n e ' s c o u n t r y o r b e i n g v u l n e r a b l e t o suffering at y o u r h a n d s ) , b u t believing that o n e is o f u s e — b e l i e v i n g that o n e is dying f o r o n e ' s c o u n t r y and that this is o f u s e ; t h e 'feel-good' experience.

B u t that c a n n o t b e c o r r e c t .

Having

c o m f o r t i n g b e l i e f s is o n l y a g o o d t h i n g i f t h e y a r e t r u e b e l i e f s . It is n o t a g o o d t h i n g t o b e l i e v e t h a t things a r e g o i n g w e l l

[103]

Why God Allows Evil w h e n t h e y a r e n o t , o r that y o u r life is o f use w h e n it is n o t . G e t t i n g p l e a s u r e o u t o f a c o m f o r t i n g f a l s e h o o d is a c h e a t . B u t i f I g e t p l e a s u r e o u t o f a t r u e b e l i e f , it m u s t b e that I r e g a r d t h e state o f things w h i c h I b e l i e v e t o h o l d t o b e a g o o d t h i n g . If I g e t p l e a s u r e o u t o f t h e t r u e b e l i e f that m y d a u g h t e r is d o i n g w e l l at s c h o o l , it m u s t b e t h a t I r e g a r d it as a g o o d thing that m y d a u g h t e r d o e s w e l l at s c h o o l ( w h e t h e r o r n o t I b e l i e v e t h a t she is d o i n g w e l l ) . If I did n o t t h i n k t h e l a t t e r , I w o u l d n o t g e t any p l e a s u r e o u t o f b e l i e v i n g that she is d o i n g w e l l . L i k e w i s e , t h e b e l i e f that I a m v u l n e r a b l e t o suffering at y o u r h a n d s , and that that is a g o o d t h i n g , c a n o n l y b e a g o o d thing i f b e i n g v u l n e r a b l e t o suffering at y o u r hands is i t s e l f a g o o d thing ( i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f w h e t h e r I b e l i e v e it o r n o t ) . C e r t a i n l y , w h e n m y life is o f use and t h a t is a g o o d f o r m e , it is e v e n b e t t e r if I b e l i e v e it and g e t c o m f o r t t h e r e f r o m ; b u t it can o n l y b e e v e n b e t t e r i f it is already a g o o d f o r m e w h e t h e r I b e l i e v e it o r n o t . B u t t h o u g h suffering m a y in t h e s e w a y s s e r v e g o o d p u r p o s e s , d o e s G o d have t h e right t o a l l o w m e t o suffer f o r y o u r b e n e f i t , w i t h o u t asking m y p e r m i s s i o n ? F o r s u r e l y , an o b j e c t o r will say, n o o n e has t h e r i g h t t o a l l o w o n e p e r s o n A t o suffer f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f a n o t h e r o n e B w i t h o u t A ' s c o n s e n t . W e j u d g e that d o c t o r s w h o use patients as i n v o l u n t a r y o b j e c t s o f e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n in m e d i c a l e x p e r i m e n t s w h i c h t h e y h o p e will p r o d u c e results w h i c h can b e u s e d t o b e n e f i t o t h e r s a r e d o i n g s o m e t h i n g w r o n g . A f t e r all, i f m y a r g u m e n t s a b o u t t h e utility o f suffering are s o u n d , o u g h t w e n o t all t o b e causing suffering t o o t h e r s in o r d e r that t h o s e o t h e r s m a y have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e a c t in t h e right way? T h e r e a r e , h o w e v e r , c r u c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n G o d and t h e d o c t o r s . T h e first is that G o d as t h e a u t h o r o f o u r b e i n g has c e r t a i n r i g h t s , a c e r t a i n a u t h o r i t y o v e r u s , w h i c h w e d o

[104]

Why God Allows Evil n o t have o v e r o u r f e l l o w h u m a n s . H e is t h e cause o f o u r e x i s t e n c e at e a c h m o m e n t o f o u r e x i s t e n c e and sustains t h e l a w s o f n a t u r e w h i c h give us e v e r y t h i n g w e a r e and h a v e . T o a l l o w s o m e o n e t o suffer f o r his o w n g o o d o r that o f o t h e r s , o n e has t o stand in s o m e kind o f p a r e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o w a r d s h i m . I d o n o t have t h e right t o l e t s o m e s t r a n g e r suffer f o r t h e sake o f s o m e g o o d , w h e n I c o u l d easily p r e v e n t t h i s , b u t I d o have some r i g h t o f this k i n d in r e s p e c t o f m y o w n c h i l d r e n . I m a y l e t t h e y o u n g e r s o n suffer somewhat f o r his o w n g o o d o r t h a t o f his b r o t h e r . I have this r i g h t b e c a u s e in small p a r t I a m r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e y o u n g e r s o n ' s e x i s t e n c e , his b e g i n n i n g and c o n t i n u a n c e . If I have b e g o t t e n h i m , n o u r i s h e d , and e d u c a t e d h i m , I have s o m e l i m i t e d rights o v e r h i m in r e t u r n ; t o a very limited e x t e n t I can use h i m f o r s o m e w o r t h y p u r p o s e . If this is c o r r e c t , t h e n a G o d w h o is s o m u c h m o r e t h e a u t h o r o f o u r b e i n g than a r e o u r p a r e n t s has so m u c h m o r e r i g h t in this r e s p e c t . D o c t o r s do have o v e r us e v e n t h e rights o f p a r e n t s . B u t s e c o n d l y and a i l - i m p o r t a n t l y ,

t h e d o c t o r s could

have

asked t h e p a t i e n t s f o r p e r m i s s i o n ; and t h e p a t i e n t s , b e i n g f r e e agents o f s o m e p o w e r and k n o w l e d g e , c o u l d have m a d e an informed choice of whether or not to allow themselves to be used.

By contrast,

God's

c h o i c e is n o t a b o u t h o w

to

use

already e x i s t i n g a g e n t s , b u t a b o u t t h e s o r t o f agents t o m a k e and t h e s o r t o f w o r l d i n t o w h i c h t o p u t t h e m . In G o d ' s s i t u a t i o n t h e r e a r e n o agents t o b e a s k e d . I a m arguing t h a t it is g o o d that o n e a g e n t A should have d e e p r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

for

a n o t h e r B ( w h o in t u r n c o u l d have d e e p responsibility

for

a n o t h e r C ) . It is n o t logically possible f o r G o d t o have asked B i f h e w a n t e d things t h u s , f o r , i f A is t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r B ' s g r o w t h in f r e e d o m , k n o w l e d g e , and p o w e r , t h e r e will n o t b e a B w i t h e n o u g h f r e e d o m and k n o w l e d g e t o m a k e

any

c h o i c e , b e f o r e G o d has t o c h o o s e w h e t h e r o r n o t t o give A

[105]

Why God Allows Evil r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i m . O n e c a n n o t ask a b a b y i n t o w h i c h s o r t o f w o r l d h e o r she wishes t o b e b o r n . T h e c r e a t o r has t o m a k e t h e c h o i c e i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f his c r e a t u r e s . H e will s e e k o n b a l a n c e t o b e n e f i t t h e m — a l l o f t h e m . A n d , in giving t h e m t h e o f l i f e — w h a t e v e r suffering g o e s w i t h i t — t h a t is a substantial b e n e f i t . B u t w h e n o n e suffers at t h e hands o f a n o t h e r , o f t e n p e r h a p s it is n o t e n o u g h o f a b e n e f i t t o o u t w e i g h t h e suff e r i n g . H e r e is t h e p o i n t t o r e c a l l that it is an additional b e n e f i t t o t h e s u f f e r e r that his suffering is t h e m e a n s w h e r e b y t h e o n e w h o h u r t h i m had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o m a k e a significant c h o i c e b e t w e e n g o o d and evil w h i c h o t h e r w i s e h e w o u l d n o t have had. A l t h o u g h f o r these r e a s o n s , as I have b e e n u r g i n g , G o d has the right t o a l l o w h u m a n s t o cause each o t h e r t o suffer, t h e r e m u s t b e a l i m i t t o the a m o u n t o f suffering w h i c h he has t h e right t o a l l o w a h u m a n b e i n g t o suffer f o r t h e sake o f a g r e a t g o o d . A p a r e n t m a y a l l o w an e l d e r child t o have t h e p o w e r t o do s o m e h a r m t o a y o u n g e r child f o r t h e sake o f t h e r e s p o n s ibility given t o t h e e l d e r c h i l d ; b u t t h e r e are l i m i t s . A n d t h e r e a r e limits e v e n t o t h e m o r a l right o f G o d , o u r c r e a t o r and sust a i n e r , t o use f r e e s e n t i e n t b e i n g s as p a w n s in a g r e a t e r g a m e . Y e t , if t h e s e limits w e r e t o o n a r r o w , G o d w o u l d b e unable t o give h u m a n s m u c h real r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; h e w o u l d b e able

to

a l l o w t h e m only t o play a t o y g a m e . Still, limits t h e r e m u s t b e t o G o d ' s rights t o a l l o w h u m a n s t o h u r t each o t h e r ; and l i m its t h e r e are in t h e w o r l d t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e y can h u r t each o t h e r , p r o v i d e d a b o v e all by the s h o r t finite life e n j o y e d b y h u m a n s and o t h e r c r e a t u r e s — o n e h u m a n can h u r t a n o t h e r f o r n o m o r e than eighty years o r s o . A n d t h e r e are a n u m b e r o f o t h e r safety-devices i n - b u i l t i n t o o u r physiology and psyc h o l o g y , limiting the a m o u n t o f pain w e can suffer. B u t t h e p r i m a r y safety l i m i t is that p r o v i d e d b y t h e s h o r t n e s s o f o u r

[106]

Why God Allows Evil finite l i f e . U n e n d i n g u n c h o s e n suffering w o u l d i n d e e d t o m y m i n d p r o v i d e a v e r y s t r o n g a r g u m e n t against t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d . B u t that is n o t t h e h u m a n situation. So t h e n G o d , w i t h o u t asking h u m a n s , has t o c h o o s e

for

t h e m b e t w e e n t h e kinds o f w o r l d in w h i c h t h e y can l i v e — basically e i t h e r a w o r l d in w h i c h t h e r e is v e r y little o p p o r t u n ity f o r h u m a n s t o b e n e f i t o r h a r m e a c h o t h e r , o r a w o r l d in w h i c h t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y . H o w shall h e c h o o s e ? T h e r e a r e c l e a r l y r e a s o n s f o r b o t h c h o i c e s . B u t it s e e m s t o m e ( j u s t , o n b a l a n c e ) that his c h o o s i n g t o c r e a t e t h e w o r l d

in

w h i c h w e have c o n s i d e r a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e n e f i t o r h a r m e a c h o t h e r is t o b r i n g a b o u t a g o o d at least as g r e a t as t h e evil w h i c h h e t h e r e b y a l l o w s t o o c c u r . Of course t h e suffering h e a l l o w s is a b a d t h i n g ; a n d , o t h e r things b e i n g e q u a l , t o b e a v o i d e d . B u t having t h e natural possibility o f causing suffering m a k e s p o s s i b l e a g r e a t e r g o o d . G o d , in c r e a t i n g h u m a n s w h o ( o f logical n e c e s s i t y ) c a n n o t c h o o s e f o r t h e m s e l v e s t h e k i n d o f world into which they are to c o m e ,

plausibly e x h i b i t s

his

g o o d n e s s in m a k i n g f o r t h e m t h e h e r o i c c h o i c e that t h e y c o m e i n t o a risky w o r l d w h e r e t h e y m a y have t o suffer f o r t h e g o o d of others.

Natural

Evil

N a t u r a l evil is n o t t o b e a c c o u n t e d f o r a l o n g t h e s a m e lines as m o r a l e v i l . Its m a i n r o l e r a t h e r , I s u g g e s t , is t o m a k e it p o s sible f o r h u m a n s t o have t h e k i n d o f c h o i c e w h i c h t h e f r e e w i l l d e f e n c e e x t o l s , and t o m a k e available t o h u m a n s specially w o r t h w h i l e kinds o f c h o i c e . T h e r e are t w o ways in w h i c h natural evil o p e r a t e s t o give humans those

choices.

First,

the operation

[107]

o f natural

laws

Why God Allows Evil p r o d u c i n g evils gives h u m a n s k n o w l e d g e

(if they choose

to

s e e k i t ) o f h o w t o b r i n g a b o u t such evils t h e m s e l v e s . O b s e r v i n g y o u c a t c h s o m e disease b y t h e o p e r a t i o n o f natural p r o c e s s e s gives m e t h e p o w e r e i t h e r t o use t h o s e p r o c e s s e s t o give that disease t o o t h e r p e o p l e , o r t h r o u g h n e g l i g e n c e t o a l l o w o t h e r s t o c a t c h it, o r t o t a k e m e a s u r e s t o p r e v e n t o t h e r s f r o m c a t c h ing t h e disease. Study o f t h e m e c h a n i s m s o f n a t u r e p r o d u c i n g various evils (and g o o d s ) o p e n s up f o r h u m a n s a w i d e r a n g e o f c h o i c e . T h i s is the way in w h i c h in fact w e learn h o w t o b r i n g a b o u t ( g o o d and) evil. B u t c o u l d n o t G o d give us the r e q u i s i t e k n o w l e d g e ( o f h o w t o b r i n g a b o u t g o o d o r evil) w h i c h w e n e e d in o r d e r t o have f r e e and r e s p o n s i b l e c h o i c e b y a less c o s t l y m e a n s ? C o u l d he n o t j u s t w h i s p e r in o u r ears f r o m t i m e t o t i m e what are the different consequences o f different actions o f ours? Y e s . B u t a n y o n e w h o b e l i e v e d that an a c t i o n o f his w o u l d have s o m e e f f e c t b e c a u s e he b e l i e v e d that G o d had t o l d h i m so w o u l d see all his actions as d o n e u n d e r the a l l - w a t c h ful e y e o f G o d . H e w o u l d n o t m e r e l y b e l i e v e strongly that t h e r e was a G o d , b u t w o u l d k n o w it w i t h real c e r t a i n t y . T h a t k n o w l e d g e w o u l d greatly inhibit his f r e e d o m o f c h o i c e , w o u l d m a k e it v e r y difficult f o r h i m t o c h o o s e t o d o evil. T h i s is b e c a u s e w e all have a natural inclination t o wish t o b e t h o u g h t w e l l o f b y e v e r y o n e , and a b o v e all by an a l l - g o o d G o d ; that w e have such an inclination is a very g o o d f e a t u r e o f h u m a n s , w i t h o u t w h i c h w e w o u l d b e less than h u m a n . A l s o , i f w e w e r e directly

informed

o f the

consequences

of our

actions,

we

w o u l d b e d e p r i v e d o f the c h o i c e w h e t h e r t o s e e k t o d i s c o v e r w h a t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s w e r e t h r o u g h e x p e r i m e n t and hard c o o p e r a t i v e w o r k . K n o w l e d g e w o u l d b e available o n t a p . N a t u r a l p r o c e s s e s a l o n e give h u m a n s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e i r actions w i t h o u t inhibiting t h e i r f r e e d o m , and if evil is t o b e a possibility f o r t h e m t h e y m u s t k n o w h o w t o a l l o w it t o o c c u r .

[108]

Why God Allows Evil T h e o t h e r w a y in w h i c h natural evil o p e r a t e s t o give h u m a n s t h e i r f r e e d o m is that it m a k e s possible c e r t a i n kinds o f a c t i o n t o w a r d s it b e t w e e n w h i c h agents can c h o o s e . It increases t h e r a n g e o f significant c h o i c e . A p a r t i c u l a r natural evil, such as physical

pain,

gives

to

the

sufferer

a choice—whether

to

e n d u r e it w i t h p a t i e n c e , o r t o b e m o a n his l o t . His f r i e n d can choose whether to show compassion towards the sufferer, o r t o b e c a l l o u s . T h e pain m a k e s possible t h e s e c h o i c e s ,

which

w o u l d n o t o t h e r w i s e e x i s t . T h e r e is n o g u a r a n t e e that

our

actions in r e s p o n s e t o t h e pain will b e g o o d o n e s , b u t t h e pain gives us t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p e r f o r m g o o d a c t i o n s . T h e g o o d o r b a d actions w h i c h w e p e r f o r m in t h e face o f natural evil t h e m selves p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f u r t h e r c h o i c e — o f g o o d

or

evil stances t o w a r d s t h e f o r m e r a c t i o n s . If I a m p a t i e n t w i t h m y suffering, y o u can c h o o s e w h e t h e r t o e n c o u r a g e o r laugh at m y p a t i e n c e ; if I b e m o a n m y l o t , y o u can t e a c h m e b y w o r d and e x a m p l e w h a t a g o o d thing p a t i e n c e is. I f you a r e s y m p a t h e t i c , I have t h e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o s h o w g r a t i t u d e f o r t h e s y m p a t h y ; o r t o b e so self-involved that I i g n o r e it. If y o u a r e c a l l o u s , I can c h o o s e w h e t h e r t o i g n o r e this o r t o r e s e n t it f o r life. A n d so o n . I do n o t t h i n k that t h e r e can b e m u c h d o u b t that natural evil, such as physical pain, m a k e s available t h e s e sorts o f c h o i c e . T h e actions w h i c h natural evil m a k e s p o s s i b l e a r e o n e s w h i c h a l l o w us t o p e r f o r m at o u r b e s t and i n t e r a c t w i t h o u r f e l l o w s at the d e e p e s t l e v e l . It m a y , h o w e v e r , b e s u g g e s t e d that a d e q u a t e

opportunity

for these great g o o d actions w o u l d b e provided by the o c c u r r e n c e o f m o r a l evil w i t h o u t any n e e d f o r suffering t o b e c a u s e d b y natural p r o c e s s e s . Y o u c a n s h o w c o u r a g e w h e n t h r e a t e n e d b y a g u n m a n , as w e l l as w h e n t h r e a t e n e d b y c a n c e r ; and s h o w s y m p a t h y t o t h o s e likely t o b e killed b y g u n m e n as w e l l as t o t h o s e likely t o die o f c a n c e r . B u t j u s t i m a g i n e all t h e suffering

[109]

Why God Allows Evil o f m i n d and b o d y caused b y d i s e a s e , e a r t h q u a k e , and a c c i d e n t unpreventable

by

humans

removed

at

a stroke

from

our

s o c i e t y . N o s i c k n e s s , n o b e r e a v e m e n t in c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e u n t i m e l y d e a t h o f t h e y o u n g . M a n y o f us w o u l d t h e n have such an easy life t h a t w e simply w o u l d n o t have m u c h o p p o r t u n i t y t o s h o w c o u r a g e o r , i n d e e d , m a n i f e s t m u c h in t h e w a y o f g r e a t g o o d n e s s at all. W e n e e d t h o s e insidious p r o c e s s e s o f d e c a y and dissolution w h i c h m o n e y and s t r e n g t h c a n n o t w a r d o f f f o r l o n g t o give us t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s , so easy o t h e r w i s e t o a v o i d , to become heroes. G o d has t h e right t o a l l o w natural evils t o o c c u r ( f o r t h e same

reason

as he

has t h e

right to

allow

moral

evils

to

o c c u r ) — u p t o a l i m i t . It w o u l d , o f c o u r s e , b e crazy f o r G o d t o m u l t i p l y evils m o r e

and m o r e

in o r d e r t o give

endless

o p p o r t u n i t y f o r h e r o i s m , b u t t o have some significant o p p o r t u nity f o r real h e r o i s m and c o n s e q u e n t c h a r a c t e r f o r m a t i o n is a b e n e f i t f o r t h e p e r s o n t o w h o m it is g i v e n . N a t u r a l evils give t o us t h e k n o w l e d g e t o m a k e a r a n g e o f c h o i c e s b e t w e e n g o o d and e v i l , and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p e r f o r m a c t i o n s o f especially valuable k i n d s . T h e r e i s , h o w e v e r , n o r e a s o n t o suppose that animals have f r e e w i l l . S o w h a t a b o u t t h e i r suffering? A n i m a l s had b e e n sufon

this

p l a n e t — j u s t h o w l o n g d e p e n d s o n w h i c h animals a r e

fering

for

a

long

time

before

humans

appeared

con-

scious b e i n g s . T h e first thing t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t h e r e is t h a t , w h i l e t h e h i g h e r a n i m a l s , at any r a t e t h e v e r t e b r a t e s , s u f f e r , it is m o s t u n l i k e l y that t h e y suffer n e a r l y as m u c h as h u m a n s d o . G i v e n that suffering d e p e n d s d i r e c t l y o n b r a i n e v e n t s (in t u r n caused b y e v e n t s in o t h e r parts o f t h e b o d y ) , t h e n , since t h e l o w e r animals do n o t suffer at all and h u m a n s suffer a l o t , anim a l s o f i n t e r m e d i a t e c o m p l e x i t y (it is r e a s o n a b l e t o s u p p o s e ) suffer o n l y a m o d e r a t e a m o u n t .

[110]

So, while one does need a

Why God Allows Evil t h e o d i c y t o a c c o u n t f o r w h y G o d allows animals t o s u f f e r , o n e d o e s n o t n e e d as p o w e r f u l a t h e o d i c y as o n e d o e s in r e s p e c t o f humans. O n e only needs reasons adequate to account for G o d a l l o w i n g an a m o u n t o f suffering m u c h less than that o f h u m a n s . T h a t said, t h e r e i s , I b e l i e v e , available f o r animals parts o f t h e t h e o d i c y w h i c h I h a v e o u t l i n e d a b o v e f o r h u m a n s . T h e g o o d o f a n i m a l s , like that o f h u m a n s , d o e s n o t c o n s i s t solely in thrills o f p l e a s u r e . F o r a n i m a l s , t o o , t h e r e a r e m o r e w o r t h w h i l e t h i n g s , and in p a r t i c u l a r i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n s , and a m o n g t h e m s e r i o u s significant i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n s . T h e life o f animals i n v o l v e s m a n y s e r i o u s significant i n t e n t i o n a l a c t i o n s . A n i m a l s l o o k f o r a m a t e , d e s p i t e b e i n g t i r e d and failing t o find o n e . T h e y t a k e g r e a t t r o u b l e t o build n e s t s and f e e d

their

y o u n g , t o d e c o y p r e d a t o r s and e x p l o r e . B u t all this i n e v i t a b l y involves pain ( g o i n g o n d e s p i t e b e i n g t i r e d ) and d a n g e r . An a n i m a l c a n n o t i n t e n t i o n a l l y avoid f o r e s t fires, o r t a k e t r o u b l e t o r e s c u e its o f f s p r i n g f r o m f o r e s t

fires,

unless t h e r e e x i s t s a

s e r i o u s d a n g e r o f g e t t i n g c a u g h t in a f o r e s t fire. T h e a c t i o n o f r e s c u i n g d e s p i t e d a n g e r s i m p l y c a n n o t b e d o n e unless t h e dang e r e x i s t s — a n d t h e d a n g e r will n o t e x i s t unless t h e r e is a significant

natural

probability

of being

caught

in t h e

A n i m a l s d o n o t c h o o s e f r e e l y t o d o such a c t i o n s , b u t

fire. the

a c t i o n s a r e n e v e r t h e l e s s w o r t h w h i l e . It is g r e a t that animals f e e d t h e i r y o u n g , n o t j u s t t h e m s e l v e s ; that animals

explore

w h e n t h e y k n o w it t o b e d a n g e r o u s ; that animals save e a c h o t h e r f r o m p r e d a t o r s , and so o n . T h e s e a r e t h e things that give t h e lives o f animals t h e i r v a l u e . B u t t h e y d o o f t e n

involve

s o m e suffering t o s o m e c r e a t u r e . T o r e t u r n t o t h e c e n t r a l case o f h u m a n s — t h e r e a d e r w i l l a g r e e w i t h m e t o t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h h e o r she values r e s p o n s ibility, f r e e c h o i c e , and b e i n g o f use v e r y m u c h m o r e

than

thrills o f p l e a s u r e o r a b s e n c e o f pain. T h e r e is n o o t h e r w a y

[111]

Why God Allows Evil t o g e t t h e evils o f this w o r l d i n t o t h e r i g h t p e r s p e c t i v e , e x c e p t to

reflect

at l e n g t h

on

innumerable

very

detailed

thought

e x p e r i m e n t s (in addition t o actual e x p e r i e n c e s o f l i f e ) in w h i c h w e p o s t u l a t e v e r y d i f f e r e n t s o r t s o f w o r l d s f r o m o u r o w n , and t h e n ask o u r s e l v e s w h e t h e r t h e p e r f e c t g o o d n e s s o f G o d w o u l d r e q u i r e h i m t o c r e a t e o n e o f t h e s e ( o r n o w o r l d at all) r a t h e r than our o w n .

w i t h a v e r y small

thought

e x p e r i m e n t , w h i c h m a y h e l p t o b e g i n this p r o c e s s .

But I conclude

Suppose

t h a t y o u e x i s t in a n o t h e r w o r l d b e f o r e y o u r b i r t h in this o n e , and a r e g i v e n a c h o i c e as t o t h e s o r t o f life y o u a r e t o have in this o n e . Y o u a r e t o l d that y o u a r e t o have o n l y a s h o r t l i f e , m a y b e o f o n l y a f e w m i n u t e s , a l t h o u g h it w i l l b e an adult life in t h e sense that y o u will have t h e r i c h n e s s o f s e n s a t i o n and b e l i e f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f adults. Y o u have a c h o i c e as t o t h e s o r t o f life y o u will h a v e . Y o u c a n have e i t h e r a f e w m i n u t e s very considerable pleasure,

o f the kind produced by

of

some

drug such as h e r o i n , w h i c h y o u will e x p e r i e n c e b y y o u r s e l f and w h i c h w i l l have n o e f f e c t s at all in t h e w o r l d ( f o r e x a m p l e , n o o n e else w i l l k n o w a b o u t i t ) ; o r y o u can have a f e w m i n u t e s o f c o n s i d e r a b l e pain, such as t h e pain o f c h i l d b i r t h , w h i c h will have ( u n k n o w n t o y o u at t h e t i m e o f pain) c o n siderable g o o d e f f e c t s o n o t h e r s o v e r a f e w y e a r s . Y o u are t o l d t h a t , i f y o u d o n o t m a k e t h e s e c o n d c h o i c e , t h o s e o t h e r s will never e x i s t — a n d so you are under n o m o r a l obligation make the second choice. But you seek to make the

to

choice

w h i c h will m a k e your o w n life t h e b e s t life f o r you t o have l e d . H o w will y o u c h o o s e ? T h e c h o i c e is, I h o p e , o b v i o u s .

You

should c h o o s e t h e s e c o n d a l t e r n a t i v e . F o r s o m e o n e w h o remains unconvinced by m y claims about t h e r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h s o f t h e g o o d and evils i n v o l v e d — h o l d i n g t h a t , g r e a t t h o u g h t h e g o o d s a r e , t h e y do n o t justify t h e evils w h i c h t h e y i n v o l v e — t h e r e is a f a l l - b a c k p o s i t i o n . M y argu-

[112]

Why God Allows Evil m e n t s may have convinced you o f the greatness o f the goods i n v o l v e d sufficiently f o r y o u t o a l l o w that a p e r f e c t l y

good

G o d w o u l d b e j u s t i f i e d in b r i n g i n g a b o u t t h e evils f o r t h e sake o f t h e g o o d w h i c h t h e y m a k e p o s s i b l e , i f and o n l y i f G o d also p r o v i d e d c o m p e n s a t i o n in t h e f o r m o f happiness a f t e r d e a t h t o t h e v i c t i m s w h o s e sufferings m a k e p o s s i b l e t h e g o o d s . S o m e o n e w h o s e t h e o d i c y r e q u i r e s b u t t r e s s i n g in this w a y w i l l n e e d an i n d e p e n d e n t r e a s o n f o r b e l i e v i n g that G o d d o e s

provide

such life a f t e r d e a t h i f h e is t o b e j u s t i f i e d in h o l d i n g his t h e o d i c y , and I shall m e n t i o n briefly in t h e n e x t c h a p t e r t h e s o r t o f r e a s o n that m i g h t b e . W h i l e b e l i e v i n g that G o d d o e s p r o vide at any r a t e f o r m a n y h u m a n s such life a f t e r d e a t h , I have e x p o u n d e d a t h e o d i c y w i t h o u t r e l y i n g o n this a s s u m p t i o n . B u t I can understand

someone

t h i n k i n g that t h e

assumption

is

n e e d e d , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n w e a r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e w o r s t evils. ( T h i s c o m p e n s a t o r y afterlife n e e d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e t h e e v e r lasting life o f H e a v e n . ) It r e m a i n s t h e c a s e , h o w e v e r , that evil is e v i l , and t h e r e is a substantial p r i c e t o pay f o r t h e g o o d s o f o u r w o r l d w h i c h it m a k e s p o s s i b l e . G o d w o u l d n o t b e less t h a n p e r f e c t l y g o o d i f h e c r e a t e d i n s t e a d a w o r l d w i t h o u t pain and suffering, and so w i t h o u t t h e p a r t i c u l a r g o o d s w h i c h t h o s e evils m a k e p o s s i b l e . C h r i s t i a n , I s l a m i c , and m u c h J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n c l a i m s that G o d has c r e a t e d w o r l d s o f b o t h k i n d s — o u r w o r l d , and t h e H e a v e n o f t h e b l e s s e d . T h e l a t t e r is a m a r v e l l o u s w o r l d w i t h a vast r a n g e o f p o s s i b l e d e e p g o o d s , b u t it lacks a f e w g o o d s w h i c h o u r w o r l d c o n t a i n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e g o o d o f b e i n g able t o r e j e c t t h e g o o d . A g e n e r o u s G o d m i g h t w e l l c h o o s e t o give s o m e o f us t h e c h o i c e o f r e j e c t i n g t h e g o o d in a w o r l d like o u r s b e f o r e giving t o t h o s e w h o e m b r a c e it a w o n d e r f u l w o r l d in w h i c h t h e f o r m e r possibility n o l o n g e r e x i s t s .

[113]

7 HOW THE EXISTENCE OF GOD EXPLAINS MIRACLES AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

Miracles I have a r g u e d so far that t h e claim that G o d c r e a t e d and sustains o u r u n i v e r s e is t h e h y p o t h e s i s that b e s t a c c o u n t s f o r its g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e — i t s v e r y e x i s t e n c e , its c o n f o r m i t y t o n a t ural l a w s , its b e i n g fine t u n e d t o e v o l v e animals and h u m a n s , and

these

latter

being

conscious

beings

with

sensations,

t h o u g h t s , b e l i e f s , d e s i r e s , and p u r p o s e s w h o can m a k e g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e s t o t h e m s e l v e s and t h e w o r l d in d e e p l y significant w a y s . I have a r g u e d t o o that t h e e x i s t e n c e o f evil o f t h e k i n d w e find o n e a r t h d o e s n o t c o u n t against that c l a i m . T h e evid e n c e c o n s i d e r e d so far, t h e r e f o r e , gives a significant d e g r e e o f p r o b a b i l i t y t o that c l a i m — t h a t t h e r e is a G o d . H o w e v e r , i f t h e r e is a G o d , w h o , b e i n g p e r f e c t l y g o o d , will l o v e his c r e a t u r e s , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t h i m t o i n t e r a c t w i t h us o c c a s i o n a l l y m o r e directly on a personal basis, rather than m e r e l y through

[114]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

the natural o r d e r o f the w o r l d which he constantly s u s t a i n s — t o a n s w e r o u r p r a y e r s and t o m e e t o u r n e e d s . H e w i l l n o t , h o w e v e r , i n t e r v e n e in t h e natural o r d e r at all o f t e n , f o r , i f h e d i d , w e w o u l d n o t b e able t o p r e d i c t t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f o u r a c t i o n s and so w e w o u l d l o s e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e w o r l d and o u r selves. If G o d answered m o s t prayers for a relative t o r e c o v e r from cancer, then cancer would no longer be a problem for h u m a n s t o s o l v e . H u m a n s w o u l d n o l o n g e r see c a n c e r as a p r o b l e m t o b e s o l v e d b y scientific r e s e a r c h — p r a y e r w o u l d b e the obvious m e t h o d o f curing cancer. G o d would then have d e p r i v e d us o f t h e serious c h o i c e o f w h e t h e r t o p u t m o n e y and e n e r g y i n t o finding a c u r e f o r c a n c e r o r n o t t o b o t h e r ; and o f w h e t h e r t o t a k e t r o u b l e t o avoid c a n c e r ( e . g . b y n o t s m o k i n g ) o r n o t t o b o t h e r . N a t u r a l laws d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t c e r t a i n e v e n t s w i l l cause g o o d e f f e c t s and o t h e r o n e s cause b a d e f f e c t s e n a b l e us t o d i s c o v e r w h i c h p r o d u c e w h i c h and t o use t h e m f o r o u r selves.

Natural

schools,

laws

are

like

or governments,

rules,

we

acquire

control

parents,

stating that t h e s e actions w i l l

p u n i s h e d and t h o s e o n e s r e w a r d e d . rules,

instituted by

over

the

Once

w e discover

consequences

of

be the our

a c t i o n s — w e can then choose w h e t h e r t o be r e w a r d e d o r t o risk b e i n g p u n i s h e d . B u t loving p a r e n t s w i l l rightly o c c a s i o n ally b r e a k t h e i r o w n r u l e s in a n s w e r t o special

pleading—it

m e a n s that t h e y a r e p e r s o n s in i n t e r a c t i o n , n o t j u s t s y s t e m s o f r u l e s . A n d f o r a similar r e a s o n o n e m i g h t e x p e c t G o d o c c a sionally t o b r e a k his o w n r u l e s , and i n t e r v e n e in h i s t o r y . O n e might e x p e c t G o d occasionally to answer prayer w h e n it is f o r a g o o d c a u s e — s u c h as t h e r e l i e f o f suffering

and

r e s t o r a t i o n t o h e a l t h o f m i n d o r b o d y , and f o r a w a r e n e s s o f h i m s e l f and o f i m p o r t a n t spiritual t r u t h s . A n d o n e m i g h t also e x p e c t him t o intervene occasionally without waiting for our p r a y e r — t o h e l p us t o m a k e t h e w o r l d b e t t e r in various w a y s

[115]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

w h e n w e have m i s u s e d o u r f r e e d o m . A divine

intervention

w i l l c o n s i s t e i t h e r in G o d acting in areas w h e r e n a t u r a l laws d o n o t d e t e r m i n e w h a t h a p p e n s ( p e r h a p s o u r m e n t a l life is n o t fully d e t e r m i n e d b y natural l a w s ) , o r in G o d t e m p o r a r i l y susp e n d i n g n a t u r a l l a w s . L e t us call i n t e r v e n t i o n s o f t h e l a t t e r kind

miracles

and

interventions

o f the

former

kind

non-

m i r a c u l o u s i n t e r v e n t i o n s . A m i r a c l e is a v i o l a t i o n o r suspension o f n a t u r a l l a w s , b r o u g h t a b o u t b y G o d . D o e s h u m a n hist o r y c o n t a i n e v e n t s o f a k i n d w h i c h G o d , i f he e x i s t s , w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o b r i n g a b o u t and y e t w h i c h d o n o t o c c u r as a r e s u l t o f t h e o p e r a t i o n o f natural laws? It c e r t a i n l y

contains

large n u m b e r s o f e v e n t s o f t h e kind w h i c h G o d w o u l d

be

e x p e c t e d t o b r i n g a b o u t , b u t a b o u t w h i c h w e have n o idea w h e t h e r t h e y o c c u r r e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e o p e r a t i o n o f natural laws o r n o t . I pray f o r m y f r i e n d t o g e t b e t t e r f r o m

cancer

and h e d o e s . S i n c e w e d o n o t n o r m a l l y k n o w in any detail t h e e x a c t state o f his b o d y w h e n h e had c a n c e r , n o r d o w e k n o w in any detail t h e natural l a w s w h i c h g o v e r n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c a n c e r , w e c a n n o t say w h e t h e r t h e r e c o v e r y o c c u r s as a r e s u l t o f natural laws o r n o t . T h e p i o u s b e l i e v e r b e l i e v e s that G o d i n t e r v e n e d , and t h e h a r d - h e a d e d atheist b e l i e v e s that o n l y natural laws w e r e at w o r k . H u m a n h i s t o r y also c o n t a i n s reports o f m a n y e v e n t s w h i c h , if t h e y o c c u r r e d as r e p o r t e d ,

clearly

w o u l d n o t have o c c u r r e d as a r e s u l t o f n a t u r a l l a w s , and w h i c h a r e also e v e n t s o f a k i n d that G o d m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d t o b r i n g about.

The

S e c o n d B o o k o f K i n g s r e c o r d s that a sick

and

d o u b t i n g K i n g H e z e k i a h s o u g h t a sign o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t f r o m G o d that h e , H e z e k i a h , w o u l d r e c o v e r and that G o d w o u l d save J e r u s a l e m f r o m t h e Assyrians. In r e s p o n s e t o t h e p r a y e r o f t h e p r o p h e t Isaiah that G o d w o u l d give H e z e k i a h a sign, t h e s h a d o w cast b y t h e sun r e p o r t e d l y w e n t ' b a c k w a r d s t e n s t e p s ' ( 2 K g s . 2 0 : 1 1 ) . T h e l a t t e r c a n o n l y have h a p p e n e d i f t h e laws

[116]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

o f m e c h a n i c s ( g o v e r n i n g t h e r o t a t i o n o f t h e e a r t h o n its a x i s , and so t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e sun f r o m J e r u s a l e m ) , o r t h e l a w s o f light ( g o v e r n i n g h o w light f r o m t h e sun f o r m s s h a d o w s in t h e r e g i o n o f H e z e k i a h ' s p a l a c e ) , had b e e n s u s p e n d e d . I suggest t h a t , in so far as w e have o t h e r r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e that t h e r e is a G o d , w e have r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e that G o d i n t e r v e n e s in h i s t o r y in s o m e such cases ( w e m a y n o t k n o w w h i c h ) and

so

that

some

of

the

events

happened

as

described,

although n o t n e c e s s i t a t e d t o d o so b y n a t u r a l l a w s . It w o u l d b e o d d t o suppose t h a t G o d , c o n c e r n e d f o r o u r t o t a l w e l l b e i n g , c o n f i n e d his i n t e r v e n t i o n s t o t h o s e areas (if a n y ) w h e r e natural l a w s leave it u n d e t e r m i n e d w h a t w i l l

happen—for

e x a m p l e , c o n f i n e d his i n t e r v e n t i o n s t o influencing t h e m e n t a l lives o f h u m a n b e i n g s . I f h e has r e a s o n t o i n t e r a c t w i t h u s , h e has r e a s o n v e r y o c c a s i o n a l l y t o i n t e r v e n e t o suspend t h o s e n a t ural laws b y w h i c h o u r life is c o n t r o l l e d ; and in p a r t i c u l a r , since the bodily processes which d e t e r m i n e

our health

are

fairly e v i d e n t l y s u b j e c t t o largely d e t e r m i n i s t i c natural l a w s , he

has

reason

very

occasionally

to

intervene

in

those.

C o n v e r s e l y , in so far as w e have o t h e r r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e that there

is n o

God,

we

have

reason

to

believe

that

natural

processes are the highest-level determinants o f what happens and so t h a t n o e v e n t s h a p p e n c o n t r a r y t o laws o f n a t u r e . In other words, background knowledge (our other reasons for general belief about h o w the world w o r k s — e . g . reasons for b e l i e v i n g that t h e r e is a G o d , o r that t h e r e is n o G o d ) is rightly a v e r y i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in assessing w h a t h a p p e n e d o n p a r t i c ular o c c a s i o n s ( m o r e so h e r e than in assessing t h e w o r t h

of

l a r g e scientific o r r e l i g i o u s t h e o r i e s — s e e C h a p t e r 2 ) . But, while background knowledge must b e a powerful fact o r in d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t is r e a s o n a b l e t o b e l i e v e a b o u t w h a t h a p p e n e d o n p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n s , it is n o t , o f c o u r s e , t h e o n l y

[117]

Miracles and Religious factor.

We

observers

have

seem

the

detailed

Experience

historical

evidence

t o r e c a l l having h a p p e n e d ,

what

of

what

witnesses

claim t o have o b s e r v e d , and any physical t r a c e s o f past e v e n t s ( d o c u m e n t s , a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e m a i n s , and so o n ) . T h a t b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e m u s t w e i g h heavily in

com-

parison w i t h t h e d e t a i l e d h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e in assessing p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m s a b o u t t h e past c a n b e s e e n f r o m

innumerable

n o n - r e l i g i o u s e x a m p l e s . If a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d scientific t h e o r y leads y o u t o e x p e c t that stars will s o m e t i m e s e x p l o d e ,

then

s o m e d e b r i s in t h e sky o f a k i n d w h i c h c o u l d have b e e n c a u s e d b y an e x p l o d i n g star b u t w h i c h ( t h o u g h i m p r o b a b l y ) j u s t m i g h t have s o m e o t h e r cause m a y b e r e a s o n a b l y i n t e r p r e t e d as d e b r i s l e f t b y an e x p l o d i n g star. B u t , i f a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h e o r y says that stars c a n n o t e x p l o d e , y o u w i l l n e e d v e r y s t r o n g e v i d e n c e that t h e d e b r i s c o u l d n o t have had a n o t h e r cause b e f o r e i n t e r p r e t i n g it as d e b r i s o f an e x p l o d i n g s t a r . H o w e v e r , in t h e case o f purported miraculous interventions, the background knowle d g e will b e o f t w o k i n d s . It will i n c l u d e t h e scientific k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t a r e t h e r e l e v a n t laws o f n a t u r e — f o r

example,

t h e laws o f light and t h e laws g o v e r n i n g t h e r o t a t i o n o f t h e e a r t h , w h i c h ( s i n c e laws o f n a t u r e o p e r a t e a l m o s t all t h e t i m e ) lead us t o e x p e c t that o n that p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n

Hezekiah's

s h a d o w did n o t m o v e b a c k w a r d s . B u t it will also i n c l u d e t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e that t h e r e is a G o d able and having

reason

s o m e t i m e s ( b u t n o t n e c e s s a r i l y o n any o n e p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n ) t o i n t e r v e n e t o suspend t h e o p e r a t i o n o f natural l a w s . In v i e w o f these

conflicting

bodies

of background

knowledge,

would need quite a bit o f particular historical evidence

we to

s h o w t h a t , o n any p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n , G o d i n t e r v e n e d in a m i r a c u l o u s w a y . T h e h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e c o u l d b e b a c k e d up b y a r g u m e n t that that p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o r t e d m i r a c l e was o n e w h i c h G o d had s t r o n g r e a s o n f o r b r i n g i n g a b o u t .

[118]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

T o b a l a n c e d e t a i l e d h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e against b a c k g r o u n d e v i d e n c e o f b o t h kinds t o establish w h a t h a p p e n e d o n any p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n is a difficult m a t t e r o n w h i c h w e a r e s e l d o m g o i n g t o b e able t o r e a c h a c l e a r v e r d i c t . B u t d e t a i l e d h i s t o r ical e v i d e n c e a b o u t w h a t h a p p e n e d c o u l d in p r i n c i p l e b e substantial.

To

religiously

take

a simple,

significant

imaginary,

example,

we

and

not

ourselves

especially

might

have

a p p a r e n t l y s e e n s o m e o n e l e v i t a t e (that i s , rise in t h e air, n o t as a r e s u l t o f strings o r m a g n e t s o r any o t h e r k n o w n f o r c e f o r which

we

have

checked).

Many

witnesses,

proved

totally

t r u s t w o r t h y o n o t h e r o c c a s i o n s w h e r e t h e y w o u l d have had n o r e a s o n t o l i e , m i g h t r e p o r t having o b s e r v e d

such a t h i n g .

T h e r e m i g h t e v e n b e t r a c e s in t h e f o r m o f physical

effects

w h i c h such an e v e n t w o u l d have c a u s e d — f o r e x a m p l e , m a r k s o n t h e ceiling w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n c a u s e d b y a levitating b o d y h i t t i n g it. B u t against all this t h e r e w i l l still b e t h e b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e o f w h a t a r e t h e l a w s o f n a t u r e , in this case t h e laws o f gravity; and all t h e e v i d e n c e in favour o f t h e s e b e i n g t h e l a w s o f n a t u r e will b e e v i d e n c e that t h e y o p e r a t e d at t h e t i m e in q u e s t i o n , and so that n o l e v i t a t i o n o c c u r r e d . N o t e that any d e t a i l e d historical e v i d e n c e that t h e levitation o c c u r r e d w i l l , as such, b e e v i d e n c e against t h e l a w s o f gravity b e i n g t h e laws o f n a t u r e — j u s t as e v i d e n c e that s o m e p i e c e o f m e t a l did n o t e x p a n d w h e n h e a t e d w o u l d b e e v i d e n c e t h a t it is n o t a l a w o f n a t u r e t h a t all m e t a l s e x p a n d w h e n h e a t e d . B u t if, m u c h t h o u g h w e m a y t r y , w e fail t o find f u r t h e r e x c e p t i o n s to our purported l a w — i f , for example, w e cannot produce a n o t h e r l e v i t a t i o n b y r e c r e a t i n g t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h t h e f o r m e r one purportedly o c c u r r e d — t h a t will b e grounds for b e l i e v i n g t h a t , i f t h e f o r m e r o c c u r r e d , it w a s n o t an e v e n t in accord with some hitherto undiscovered law o f nature, rather a violation o r suspension o f a law.

[119]

but

Miracles and Religious

Experience

In such c a s e s , w e w o u l d , I t h i n k , b e m o s t u n l i k e l y t o have e n o u g h d e t a i l e d historical e v i d e n c e that t h e e v e n t o c c u r r e d t o o u t w e i g h t h e scientific b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e that such e v e n t s c a n n o t o c c u r , unless w e also had substantial religious b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e s h o w i n g n o t m e r e l y that t h e r e is a G o d b u t that h e had v e r y g o o d r e a s o n o n this p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n t o w o r k this p a r t i c u l a r m i r a c l e . In t h e case o f a p u r p o r t e d levit a t i o n , I d o u b t that w e w o u l d e v e r have such e v i d e n c e . T h a t is n o t , o f c o u r s e , t o say that l e v i t a t i o n s d o n o t o c c u r , o n l y that w e a r e m o s t u n l i k e l y t o have e n o u g h r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e that o n e did o c c u r o n any p a r t i c u l a r o c c a s i o n . N o t e that in all such cases w h a t w e a r e d o i n g is t o s e e k t h e s i m p l e s t t h e o r y o f w h a t h a p p e n e d in t h e past w h i c h leads us t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e data ( w h a t I have h e r e called t h e d e t a i l e d historical e v i d e n c e ) , and w h i c h fits in b e s t w i t h o u r b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e , in t h e w a y d e s c r i b e d in C h a p t e r 2 . I a m , h o w e v e r , i n c l i n e d t o t h i n k that w e d o have e n o u g h historical e v i d e n c e o f e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g c o n t r a r y t o natural laws o f a kind w h i c h G o d w o u l d have r e a s o n t o b r i n g o u t t o s h o w that p r o b a b l y s o m e o f t h e m

(we do not k n o w which)

are

genuine miracles. T h e r e are many reports o f purported mirac l e s , a n c i e n t and m o d e r n ,

some of them

quite well

docu-

m e n t e d . (See for e x a m p l e , the cure o f the Glasgow man from c a n c e r d e s c r i b e d in D . H i c k e y and G . S m i t h , Miracle or

some

Miracles,

of the

cases

discussed

in

Rex

(1978),

Gardiner,

Healing

( 1 9 8 6 ) . For a m o r e sceptical account o f s o m e pur-

ported Lourdes miracles, see, for contrast, D . J . W e s t ,

Eleven

Lourdes Miracles ( 1 9 5 7 ) . ) O r , r a t h e r , w e have e n o u g h d e t a i l e d historical e v i d e n c e in s o m e such cases given that w e have a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f b a c k g r o u n d e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e claim that t h e r e is a G o d , able and willing t o i n t e r v e n e in h i s t o r y . B u t , o f c o u r s e , t h e r e a d e r m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e e v i d e n c e in such

[120]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

cases f o r h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f . T h e o c c u r r e n c e o f such d e t a i l e d h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e is i t s e l f f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d ( a l o n g w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e discussed in C h a p t e r s 4 a n d S ) , b e c a u s e o n e w o u l d e x p e c t t o have it i f t h e r e is a G o d b u t n o t o t h e r w i s e — f o r i f natural l a w s a r e t h e h i g h e s t - l e v e l d e t e r m i nants o f w h a t h a p p e n s , t h e r e is e v e r y r e a s o n t o e x p e c t that t h e y will n o t b e s u s p e n d e d . It is so o f t e n said in such cases that w e ' m a y b e m i s t a k e n ' . N e w scientific e v i d e n c e m a y s h o w that t h e e v e n t as r e p o r t e d was n o t contrary to natural l a w s — w e simply misunderstood w h a t w e r e t h e n a t u r a l l a w s . M a y b e w e have j u s t m i s u n d e r stood h o w

cancer

develops;

a patient

sometimes

'sponta-

n e o u s l y ' r e c o v e r s b y p u r e l y natural p r o c e s s e s . O r , i f m a n y p e o p l e c l a i m t o have o b s e r v e d s o m e o n e l e v i t a t e , m a y b e t h e y have all b e e n s u b j e c t t o h a l l u c i n a t i o n . M a y b e . B u t t h e r a t i o n a l e n q u i r e r in t h e s e m a t t e r s , as in all m a t t e r s , m u s t g o o n t h e e v i d e n c e available. I f t h a t e v i d e n c e s h o w s that t h e laws

of

nature

as

are

such

and

such,

that

if the

event

happened

d e s c r i b e d it was c o n t r a r y t o t h e m , that t h e n e w e v i d e n c e had n o tendency t o show that the supposed laws are n o t the true laws ( b e c a u s e in all o t h e r similar cases t h e y a r e f o l l o w e d ) , that t h e r e is v e r y s t r o n g h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e ( w i t n e s s e s , and s o o n ) that t h e e v e n t o c c u r r e d , t h e n it is r a t i o n a l t o b e l i e v e that a miracle o c c u r r e d . W e are rational t o believe, while allowing t h e possibility that e v i d e n c e m i g h t t u r n u p l a t e r t o s h o w that w e a r e m i s t a k e n . ' W e m a y b e m i s t a k e n ' is a knife w h i c h cuts b o t h w a y s — w e m a y b e m i s t a k e n in b e l i e v i n g that an e v e n t is n o t a divine i n t e r v e n t i o n w h e n really it i s , as w e l l as t h e o t h e r way r o u n d . H i s t o r i a n s o f t e n affirm t h a t , w h e n t h e y a r e particular

claims

traditions—for

about

example,

past

events

about

[121]

important

what

Jesus

investigating to

did

religious and

what

Miracles and Religious

Experience

h a p p e n e d t o h i m — t h e y d o so w i t h o u t m a k i n g any r e l i g i o u s o r a n t i - r e l i g i o u s a s s u m p t i o n s . In p r a c t i c e m o s t o f t h e m d o n o t live up t o such a f f i r m a t i o n s . E i t h e r t h e y heavily d i s c o u n t such biblical c l a i m s as that J e s u s c u r e d t h e b l i n d o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t such things d o n o t h a p p e n ; o r ( m o r e c o m m o n l y in past c e n turies) they automatically accept the testimony o f witnesses to w h a t J e s u s did, o n t h e g r o u n d s that biblical w i t n e s s e s a r e e s p e cially r e l i a b l e . B u t w h a t n e e d s t o b e a p p r e c i a t e d is that b a c k ground evidence

ought to influence the investigator—as

it

d o e s in all o t h e r areas o f e n q u i r y . N o t t o a l l o w it t o d o so is irrational. T h e existence o f detailed historical evidence for the occurr e n c e o f violations o f n a t u r a l laws o f a k i n d w h i c h G o d ,

if

t h e r e is a G o d , w o u l d have had r e a s o n t o b r i n g a b o u t is i t s e l f evidence for the existence o f G o d . Though not nearly enough o n its o w n , it m a k e s its c o n t r i b u t i o n ; and w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e ( e . g . o f t h e k i n d c o n s i d e r e d in C h a p t e r s 4 and S ) it c o u l d b e e n o u g h t o establish t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , i f t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e is n o t e n o u g h o n its o w n . C o n s i d e r , b y a n a l o g y , a d e t e c t i v e investigating a c r i m e and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s that J o n e s c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e . S o m e o f his c l u e s will b e e v i d e n c e f o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f s o m e e v e n t , an e v e n t w h i c h , i f it o c c u r r e d , w o u l d p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e in its t u r n f o r t h e h y p o t h e s i s

that

J o n e s c o m m i t t e d the c r i m e . T h e f o r m e r might, for e x a m p l e , b e t h e e v i d e n c e o f w i t n e s s e s w h o c l a i m t o have s e e n J o n e s n e a r t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e . E v e n i f J o n e s was n e a r t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e , that is in its t u r n o n its o w n fairly w e a k e v i d e n c e that h e c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e . M u c h m o r e e v i d e n c e is n e e d e d . B u t b e c a u s e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s is e v i d e n c e f o r J o n e s having b e e n n e a r t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e , and J o n e s having b e e n n e a r t h e s c e n e is s o m e e v i d e n c e that h e c o m m i t t e d i t , t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s is n e v e r t h e l e s s s o m e ( i n d i r e c t )

[122]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

e v i d e n c e f o r his having c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e . L i k e w i s e , evid e n c e o f w i t n e s s e s w h o c l a i m t o o b s e r v e a violation o f n a t u r a l laws is i n d i r e c t e v i d e n c e f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d , b e c a u s e t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f such v i o l a t i o n s w o u l d b e i t s e l f m o r e d i r e c t evidence for the existence o f G o d . If the total evidence b e c o m e s s t r o n g e n o u g h , t h e n it w i l l justify asserting that G o d e x i s t s , and h e n c e that t h e e v e n t in q u e s t i o n w a s n o t m e r e l y a violat i o n , b u t b r o u g h t a b o u t b y G o d and thus a m i r a c l e .

Revelation O n e r e a s o n w h i c h G o d m a y have f o r i n t e r v e n i n g in h i s t o r y is t o i n f o r m us o f t h i n g s , t o r e v e a l t r u t h s t o u s . O u r

unaided

r e a s o n m a y i n d e e d , as I a m arguing in this b o o k , b e a b l e t o r e a c h t h e c o n c l u s i o n that p r o b a b l y t h e r e is a G o d ; and it m a y also b e a b l e t o establish s o m e v e r y g e n e r a l m o r a l t r u t h s ( e . g . that it is g o o d t o f e e d t h e starving, w h o e v e r t h e y a r e ) . B u t h u m a n s a r e c r e a t u r e s o f l i m i t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e and n o t o r i o u s l y liable t o h i d e f r o m t h e m s e l v e s c o n c l u s i o n s w h i c h s e e m t o stare them

in t h e face w h e n

those

conclusions

are

unwelcome.

C o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t religious and m o r a l m a t t e r s a r e o n e s w h i c h w e a r e so o b v i o u s l y liable t o bias b e c a u s e , conclusions w e reach

on

whatever

(whether religious o r atheistic),

they

have c o n s e q u e n c e s a b o u t t h e s o r t o f life w h i c h is w o r t h livi n g ; and w e m a y b e r e l u c t a n t t o a c c e p t t h e m b e c a u s e t h e y clash w i t h o u r c u r r e n t l i f e - s t y l e . H u m a n s n e e d h e l p — h e l p t o s e e w h a t o u r o b l i g a t i o n s a r e and w h a t o u r u l t i m a t e g o o d c o n sists i n , and h e l p and e n c o u r a g e m e n t t o p u r s u e that g o o d . A n d a n y w a y a G o d w h o w a n t s t o i n t e r a c t w i t h us w i l l also w a n t t o s h o w us things a b o u t h i m s e l f simply in o r d e r that w e m a y k n o w h i m b e t t e r . T h e m a j o r W e s t e r n r e l i g i o n s all c l a i m t h a t

[123]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

G o d has i n t e r v e n e d in h i s t o r y in o r d e r t o r e v e a l t r u t h s

to

h u m a n s ; and t h e y n o r m a l l y add that h e has established a m e c h anism w h i c h t o s o m e d e g r e e o r in s o m e w a y w i l l e n s u r e t h e preservation o f these truths among humans. J e w s claim that G o d i n t e r v e n e d in h i s t o r y w i t h A b r a h a m and M o s e s , and t h a t he revealed truths preserved subsequently by the Jewish peop l e in t h e H e b r e w S c r i p t u r e s ( t h e C h r i s t i a n O l d T e s t a m e n t ) . Christians a c c e p t t h a t , b u t add that t h e m a i n divine i n t e r v e n t i o n w a s that o f J e s u s C h r i s t , w h o r e v e a l e d t o us things p r e served

by

the

Christian

Church

in

its

Bible

(the

New

T e s t a m e n t , and t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t u n d e r s t o o d in t h e light o f t h e N e w ) . Islam also r e c o g n i z e s t o s o m e d e g r e e J e w i s h and e v e n C h r i s t i a n c l a i m s , b u t p r o c l a i m s M u h a m m a d as t h e last p r o p h e t in w h o m r e v e l a t i o n r e a c h e d its c u l m i n a t i o n , a r e v e l a t i o n w h i c h w a s r e c o r d e d in t h e Q u r ' a n

and p r e s e r v e d

by

Islamic c o m m u n i t i e s . H o w a r e w e t o j u d g e b e t w e e n t h e s e c o m p e t i n g claims? In t w o w a y s . F i r s t , b y t h e plausibility o n o t h e r g r o u n d s o f w h a t they claim to b e the central revealed doctrines. A religion w h i c h a d v o c a t e s l a r g e - s c a l e pillage and r a p e f o r fun c a n n o t b e a t r u e r e l i g i o n . B u t , w h i l e w e m a y b e able t o pass decisive judgement

f o r o r against s o m e

claim to revelation

on

the

g r o u n d s t h a t it c o i n c i d e s w i t h o r clashes w i t h w h a t w e can s e e t o b e t r u e o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , w e c a n n o t d o so g e n e r a l l y . T h e c l a i m s o f p u r p o r t e d r e v e l a t i o n s a b o u t w h a t G o d is like and w h a t h e has d o n e will n o t n o r m a l l y b e such that w e can have very strong, independent, reason for believing them true o r false. T h e p o i n t o f r e v e l a t i o n is t o t e l l things t o o d e e p f o r o u r u n a i d e d r e a s o n t o d i s c o v e r . W h a t w e n e e d also is s o m e g u a r a n t e e o f a d i f f e r e n t k i n d that w h a t is c l a i m e d t o b e r e v e a l e d really c o m e s f r o m G o d . T o t a k e an a n a l o g y ,

non-scientists

c a n n o t t e s t f o r t h e m s e l v e s w h a t physicists t e l l t h e m a b o u t t h e

[124]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e a t o m . All t h e y can ask f o r is s o m e guarant e e that w h a t t h e y a r e t o l d c o m e s f r o m s o m e o n e in a p o s i t i o n t o k n o w . In t h e case o f a p u r p o r t e d r e v e l a t i o n f r o m G o d , that g u a r a n t e e m u s t t a k e t h e f o r m o f a v i o l a t i o n o f natural laws w h i c h c u l m i n a t e s and f o r w a r d s t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n o f t h e p u r p o r t e d r e v e l a t i o n . S u c h a violation c a n o n l y b e b r o u g h t a b o u t b y h i m w h o k e e p s n a t u r a l laws g o i n g , that is, p r e s e r v e s in o b j e c t s t h e i r p o w e r s and liabilities t o a c t — i n o t h e r w o r d s , G o d . T h e n the violation will b e a m i r a c l e . O n l y he w h o preserves t h e p o w e r s o f things c a n suspend t h e m ; and i f t h e i r suspension

culminates

and

forwards

the

proclamation

of

a

p u r p o r t e d r e v e l a t i o n , t h a t is G o d ' s signature o n t h e r e v e l a tion.

The Christian

Revelation

A l t h o u g h t h e a r g u m e n t s o f this b o o k b e f o r e and s u b s e q u e n t t o this s e c t i o n a r e d e s i g n e d t o c o n v i n c e t h e r e a d e r o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e G o d a c k n o w l e d g e d alike b y J e w s , M u s l i m s , and C h r i s t i a n s , and n o t t o m a k e any j u d g e m e n t b e t w e e n

their

c o m p e t i n g c l a i m s a b o u t h i m , I a m b o u n d t o add that in m y v i e w o n l y o n e o f t h e w o r l d ' s m a j o r r e l i g i o n s can m a k e any serious claim, on the grounds o f detailed historical evidence, t o b e f o u n d e d o n a m i r a c l e , and that is t h e Christian r e l i g i o n . Eastern

religions

(e.g.

Hinduism)

sometimes

claim

divine

i n t e r v e n t i o n s , b u t n o t o n e s in h i s t o r i c a l p e r i o d s f o r w h i c h t h e y c a n p r o d u c e m a n y w i t n e s s e s o r w r i t e r s w h o have t a l k e d t o t h e w i t n e s s e s . L i k e w i s e , a l t h o u g h J u d a i s m c l a i m s divine i n t e r v e n t i o n s c o n n e c t e d especially w i t h M o s e s and t h e E x o d u s

from

Egypt, our information about t h e m was written d o w n

long

after the events. (And anyway, even if these events occurred

[125]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

as d e s c r i b e d , it is d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r t h e y w o u l d h a v e miracles.

Natural

causes

may

easily

account

for

been

the

East

w i n d w h i c h c a u s e d t h e p a r t i n g o f t h e R e d Sea r e p o r t e d in Exodus

1 4 : 2 1 . ) A n d M u s l i m s d o n o t c l a i m that Islam w a s

founded

on

any

miracles,

apart

from

the

writing

of

the

Q u r ' a n ; a n d , h o w e v e r g r e a t a b o o k t h a t i s , it is in n o w a y a p p a r e n t that w r i t i n g a g r e a t b o o k n e e d s a special divine i n t e r vention. T h e Christian religion, by contrast,

was founded on

the

p u r p o r t e d m i r a c l e o f t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n o f J e s u s . If this e v e n t h a p p e n e d in anything like t h e w a y t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t b o o k s r e c o r d it as t h e c o m i n g t o life o f a m a n d e a d b y c r u c i f i x i o n t h i r t y - s i x h o u r s e a r l i e r , it c l e a r l y i n v o l v e d t h e s u s p e n s i o n

of

natural l a w s , and s o , i f t h e r e is a G o d , was b r o u g h t a b o u t b y h i m , and so was a m i r a c l e . M o s t o f t h e b o o k s o f t h e

New

T e s t a m e n t w e r e w r i t t e n during t h e l i f e t i m e o f m a n y o f t h o s e w h o w e r e i n v o l v e d in t h e life and d e a t h o f J e s u s . T h e s e b o o k s were

written

by

various

writers

who

claim

that

Mary

M a g d a l e n e , o t h e r w o m e n , and apostles saw t h e e m p t y t o m b ; and that t h e y and m a n y o t h e r s s a w , t a l k e d t o , and ate w i t h t h e risen J e s u s . T h e b o d y o f J e s u s was n e v e r p r o d u c e d . H e r e w e h a v e a s e r i o u s historical claim o f a g r e a t m i r a c l e f o r w h i c h t h e r e is a substantial e v i d e n c e . J u s t h o w s t r o n g that h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e is is a m a t t e r o n w h i c h i n n u m e r a b l e b o o k s have b e e n w r i t t e n o v e r t w o m i l l e n i a , and r e a d e r s m u s t f o l l o w up t h e s e issues f o r t h e m s e l v e s in s o m e o f t h e s e b o o k s . B u t in d o i n g so it is v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o k e e p in m i n d t h r e e p o i n t s w h i c h I have made on earlier pages. T h e first p o i n t is that it is a m a r k o f r a t i o n a l i t y t o t a k e b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e — o t h e r e v i d e n c e a b o u t w h e t h e r t h e r e is a G o d able and willing t o i n t e r v e n e in h i s t o r y — i n t o a c c o u n t . T h e s e c o n d is t h a t , given that G o d d o e s have r e a s o n

[126]

to

Miracles and Religious

Experience

i n t e r v e n e in h i s t o r y , p a r t l y in o r d e r t o r e v e a l t r u t h s himself,

evidence

for

the

truth

o f the

about

Resurrection

must

i n c l u d e t h e plausibility o r o t h e r w i s e o f any i t e m s c l e a r l y t a u g h t as c e n t r a l d o c t r i n e s b y J e s u s and b y t h e C h u r c h f o u n d e d o n t h e basis o f t h e p u r p o r t e d R e s u r r e c t i o n . O f c o u r s e , as I w r o t e e a r l i e r , w e w i l l n o t in g e n e r a l have c o n c l u s i v e

independent

r e a s o n s t o b e l i e v e such c e n t r a l d o c t r i n e s t o b e t r u e o r f a l s e — t h e p o i n t o f r e v e l a t i o n is t o t e l l us things that w e c a n n o t find o u t f o r o u r s e l v e s . B u t w e m a y have s o m e w e a k r e a s o n s , n o t a d e q u a t e b y t h e m s e l v e s , f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t , i f t h e r e is a G o d , a c e r t a i n d o c t r i n e a b o u t w h a t h e is like o r w h a t h e has d o n e o r h o w w e o u g h t t o b e h a v e is t r u e . If w e have such r e a s o n s , t o that e x t e n t t h e d o c t r i n e s a r e p l a u s i b l e . I b e l i e v e that w e d o have such r e a s o n s in t h e case o f c e n t r a l Christian d o c t r i n e s , such as t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e S e r m o n o f t h e M o u n t in its e x p o sition o f w h a t g o o d n e s s consists in, t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e T r i n i t y , and t h e d o c t r i n e s a b o u t J e s u s — t h a t h e w a s G o d

incarnate

( G o d w h o had b e c o m e also a h u m a n b e i n g ) , and that his life and d e a t h w e r e s o m e h o w an a t o n e m e n t f o r o u r sins. T o discuss t h e s e r e a s o n s p r o p e r l y w o u l d r e q u i r e a n o t h e r b o o k . B u t t h e s o r t o f r e a s o n I have in m i n d m a y b e i l l u s t r a t e d

very

briefly in t h e case o f t h e I n c a r n a t i o n . W e s a w in C h a p t e r

6

that G o d has r e a s o n t o a l l o w us t o e n d u r e hardship in various ways f o r t h e sake o f g r e a t e r g o o d s . A g o o d p a r e n t w h o has t o m a k e his child e n d u r e hardship f o r t h e sake o f s o m e g r e a t e r g o o d will o f t e n c h o o s e voluntarily t o e n d u r e such hardship along w i t h t h e child in o r d e r t o e x p r e s s solidarity w i t h h i m and t o s h o w h i m h o w t o live in difficult c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

For

e x a m p l e , i f t h e child n e e d s t o have a plain diet f o r t h e sake o f his h e a l t h , t h e p a r e n t m a y voluntarily share such a d i e t ( e v e n t h o u g h t h e p a r e n t d o e s n o t n e e d it f o r t h e sake o f his o w n h e a l t h ) . So w e have s o m e r e a s o n t o e x p e c t G o d , o u t o f l o v e

[127]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

f o r u s , t o b e c o m e i n c a r n a t e , t o share t h e hardship w h i c h h e has i m p o s e d o n us f o r a g r e a t e r g o o d . A n d t h e r e a r e o t h e r r e a sons t o o w h y , i f t h e r e is a G o d , o n e m i g h t e x p e c t h i m

to

b e c o m e i n c a r n a t e o n s o m e o c c a s i o n and live a hard h u m a n l i f e . T h e s e a r e r e a s o n s w h y a divine i n t e r v e n t i o n should t a k e t h e f o r m , n o t j u s t o f a m i r a c l e , b u t o f G o d h i m s e l f living a h u m a n l i f e . S o , i f a p u r p o r t e d r e v e l a t i o n t e a c h e s that h e did s o , t h a t is s o m e m i l d r e a s o n f o r b e l i e v i n g that r e v e l a t i o n t o b e t r u e . S i n c e t h e C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h t e a c h e s that d o c t r i n e , that is a small r e a s o n f o r b e l i e v i n g its d o c t r i n e s t o b e G o d - a u t h e n t i c a t e d a n d so that J e s u s r o s e f r o m t h e d e a d . C o n v e r s e l y ,

of

c o u r s e , i f t h e r e a d e r thinks that h e has r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e t h a t , i f t h e r e is a G o d , t h e s e d o c t r i n e s w o u l d n o t b e t r u e o f h i m , that is r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e that t h e y w e r e n o t r e v e a l e d b y G o d , and so that an e v e n t c l a i m e d t o a u t h e n t i c a t e t h e m did n o t t a k e place. Thirdly, the claims o f the Christian revelation m u s t b e c o m pared with those o f other religions.

If t h e r e is r e a s o n

(of

intrinsic plausibility, o r h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e f o r a f o u n d a t i o n m i r a c l e ) t o suppose t h a t G o d has r e v e a l e d c o n t r a r y things in t h e c o n t e x t o f a n o t h e r r e l i g i o n , that again is r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e that t h e C h r i s t i a n r e v e l a t i o n is n o t t r u e , and so that its f o u n d ing e v e n t did n o t o c c u r . K n o w l e d g e is a big w e b — o b s e r v a tions in o n e field o f e n q u i r y can affect w h a t it is r e a s o n a b l e t o b e l i e v e in fields w h i c h m i g h t at first sight s e e m v e r y d i f f e r e n t . M y o w n v i e w — t o r e p e a t — i s that n o n e o f t h e g r e a t r e l i g i o n s can m a k e any s e r i o u s claim on t h e basis o f p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i cal e v i d e n c e f o r t h e t r u t h o f t h e i r p u r p o r t e d r e v e l a t i o n s , apart f r o m t h e C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n . B u t , o f c o u r s e , if its p u r p o r t e d r e v e l a t i o n w a s i m p l a u s i b l e o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , w e w o u l d still have t o r e j e c t it and l o o k e l s e w h e r e . I c o n c l u d e t h a t , i f t h e r e a d e r a c c e p t s m y j u d g e m e n t that

[128]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

t h e r e is s e r i o u s h i s t o r i c a l e v i d e n c e f o r t h e f o u n d i n g m i r a c l e o f Christianity,

the

Resurrection,

and

accepts

that

(however

s l e n d e r ) t h e r e is s o m e plausibility in its t e a c h i n g , t h e n — s i n c e such a violation o f n a t u r a l laws is t o b e e x p e c t e d i f t h e r e is a G o d — t h e e v i d e n c e in f a v o u r o f that m i r a c l e also c o n s t i t u t e s further whether

evidence or

not

for you

his

existence.

This

conclusion

think that serious historical

holds

evidence

w o u l d b e e n o u g h t o establish t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e m i r a c l e , w i t h o u t substantial b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e . O n e item o f purported revelation c o m m o n to W e s t e r n relig i o n s ( t h o u g h n o t t a u g h t b y all b r a n c h e s o f J u d a i s m ) is t h e d o c t r i n e o f life a f t e r d e a t h . ( T h i s d o c t r i n e is t a u g h t also b y E a s t e r n r e l i g i o n s , b u t m a n y o f t h e m d o n o t t e a c h that

God

w i l l b e an i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e o f that l i f e . ) W e h u m a n s w i l l live again, and t h e k i n d o f life w e have w i l l d e p e n d o n h o w w e live in this w o r l d . If w e s e e k t o b e g o o d p e o p l e and t o k n o w G o d , t h e n w e will b e t h e k i n d o f p e o p l e naturally

fitted

for

t h e vision o f h i m in t h e w o r l d t o c o m e ; and G o d w i l l p r o v i d e that vision f o r u s . B u t i f w e c h o o s e n o t t o p u r s u e g o o d n e s s and G o d , t h e n also G o d w i l l r e s p e c t o u r c h o i c e and g i v e us a life w i t h o u t G o d . T h i s d o c t r i n e s e e m s t o m e intrinsically plaus i b l e — a p e r f e c t l y g o o d G o d m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d in t h e e n d t o r e s p e c t o u r c h o i c e as t o t h e s o r t o f p e r s o n w e c h o o s e t o b e and t h e s o r t o f life w e c h o o s e t o l e a d . A n d , although t h e r e is g r e a t g o o d in life o n E a r t h , it w o u l d b e o d d i f G o d did n o t plan s o m e t h i n g g r e a t e r and l o n g e r f o r t h o s e h u m a n s w h o w a n t it. H e n c e t h e fact that this d o c t r i n e is taught b y e a c h o f t h e g r e a t W e s t e r n r e l i g i o n s s e e m s t o b e e v i d e n c e in f a v o u r o f e a c h o f t h e m , a n d so o f t h e i r c o m m o n c o n t e n t .

[129]

Miracles and Religious

Religious

Experience

Experience

An o m n i p o t e n t and p e r f e c t l y g o o d c r e a t o r w i l l s e e k t o i n t e r a c t w i t h his c r e a t u r e s and in p a r t i c u l a r w i t h h u m a n p e r s o n s c a p a b l e o f k n o w i n g h i m . H e has r e a s o n , as w e have s e e n , t o i n t e r a c t in t h e p u b l i c w o r l d — o c c a s i o n a l l y m a k i n g a d i f f e r e n c e t o it in r e s p o n s e t o o u r p r a y e r s f o r p a r t i c u l a r n e e d s . H e has reason t o o to intervene to authenticate a revelation which w e b a d l y n e e d . H e has r e a s o n t o m a k e this a p u b l i c m a t t e r ,

to

give a r e v e l a t i o n t o a c o m m u n i t y , in o r d e r that it m a y c h o o s e t o w o r k o u t its c o n s e q u e n c e s (and i r o n o u t a p p a r e n t m i n o r inconsistencies)

through

public

discussion

and p r o p a g a t e

it

t h r o u g h c o m m u n a l e f f o r t . C o - o p e r a t i o n in p u r s u i t o f t h e g o o d is an additional g o o d . Y e t G o d also will l o v e e a c h o f us as individual c r e a t u r e s , and so has r e a s o n t o i n t e r v e n e ( p e r h a p s in a n o n - m i r a c u l o u s w a y , violating n o natural l a w s ) simply t o s h o w h i m s e l f t o p a r t i c u l a r individuals, and t o t e l l t h e m things individual t o t h e m s e l v e s ( e . g . t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e m a v o c a t i o n ) . O n e w o u l d e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s in t h e sense o f experiences apparently o f G o d — e x p e r i e n c e s

which

s e e m t o t h e s u b j e c t t o b e e x p e r i e n c e s o f G o d . ( T h e phrase ' r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e ' has b e e n u s e d t o d e s c r i b e a w i d e varie t y o f e x p e r i e n c e s . I a m c o n f i n i n g it f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s t o this s e n s e . ) W e m a y d e s c r i b e o u r e x p e r i e n c e s ( p e r c e p t i o n s ) o f things e i t h e r in t e r m s o f w h a t t h e y a r e o f ; o r — b e i n g c a r e f u l in case w e m a y b e m i s t a k e n — i n t e r m s o f w h a t t h e y s e e m o r appear (general w o r d s ) , look, sound, feel, taste, smell (words which specify t h e s e n s e i n v o l v e d ) t o b e o f . I m a y say t h a t I p e r c e i v e a d e s k , o r j u s t that I s e e m t o p e r c e i v e a d e s k , o r that it s e e m s ( o r s i n c e t h e sense i n v o l v e d is v i s i o n — t h a t it l o o k s ) t o m e that t h e r e is a d e s k h e r e . N o t e t w o v e r y d i f f e r e n t uses o f such

[130]

Miracles and Religious v e r b s as ' s e e m s ' ,

Experience

' a p p e a r s ' , and ' l o o k s ' . W h e n I l o o k at a

r o u n d c o i n f r o m an angle I m a y say that 'it l o o k s r o u n d ' o r I m a y say t h a t 'it l o o k s e l l i p t i c a l ' , b u t I m e a n v e r y

different

things b y t h e ' l o o k s ' in t h e t w o c a s e s . B y 'it l o o k s r o u n d ' in this c o n t e x t I m e a n t h a t — o n t h e basis o f t h e w a y it l o o k s — I a m i n c l i n e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t it is r o u n d . B y 'it l o o k s e l l i p t i c a l ' in this c o n t e x t I m e a n that it l o o k s t h e w a y elliptical things n o r m a l l y (that i s , w h e n v i e w e d f r o m a b o v e ) l o o k . T h e f o r m e r sense in philosophical t e r m i n o l o g y is t h e e p i s t e m i c s e n s e ; t h e latter sense the comparative sense. T h e

e p i s t e m i c sense

of

such v e r b s d e s c r i b e s h o w w e are i n c l i n e d t o b e l i e v e that things a r e ; t h e c o m p a r a t i v e s e n s e d e s c r i b e s t h e w a y things s e e m b y c o m p a r i n g t h e m w i t h t h e w a y things n o r m a l l y s e e m . ' I t l o o k s b l u e t o m e ' in t h e e p i s t e m i c sense m e a n s that I a m i n c l i n e d — o n t h e basis o f t h e w a y it l o o k s — t o b e l i e v e that it is b l u e ; 'it l o o k s b l u e t o m e ' in t h e c o m p a r a t i v e s e n s e m e a n s that it l o o k s t o m e t h e w a y b l u e things l o o k n o r m a l l y ( i . e . in n o r m a l l i g h t ) . A n a p p a r e n t e x p e r i e n c e ( a p p a r e n t in t h e e p i s t e m i c s e n s e ) is a r e a l e x p e r i e n c e (an a p p a r e n t p e r c e p t i o n is g e n u i n e ) i f it is caused b y that o f w h i c h it p u r p o r t s t o b e an e x p e r i e n c e . M y a p p a r e n t p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e d e s k is a r e a l p e r c e p t i o n i f t h e d e s k causes ( b y r e f l e c t i n g t h e m ) light rays t o land o n m y e y e s and t h e r e b y causes m e t o have t h e a p p a r e n t p e r c e p t i o n . N o w it is e v i d e n t t h a t , rightly o r w r o n g l y , it has s e e m e d (in t h e e p i s t e m i c s e n s e ) t o m i l l i o n s and m i l l i o n s o f h u m a n s that at any r a t e o n c e o r t w i c e in t h e i r lives t h e y h a v e b e e n a w a r e o f G o d and his g u i d a n c e . Surveys s h o w that that is so f o r m i l l i o n s and m i l l i o n s t o d a y , l e t a l o n e in past a g e s . ( F o r t h e pervasiveness o f religious e x p e r i e n c e , see David Hay, Experience

Religious

Today ( 1 9 9 0 ) , c h a p t e r s 5 , 6 , and A p p e n d i x . ) T h e y

m a y b e m i s t a k e n , b u t that is t h e w a y it has s e e m e d t o t h e m . N o w it is a b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f r a t i o n a l i t y , w h i c h I call t h e

[131]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

p r i n c i p l e o f c r e d u l i t y , that w e o u g h t t o b e l i e v e that things a r e as t h e y s e e m t o b e (in t h e e p i s t e m i c s e n s e ) unless and until w e have e v i d e n c e that w e a r e m i s t a k e n . (I did n o t discuss this p r i n c i p l e in C h a p t e r 2 , b e c a u s e I was dealing t h e r e o n l y w i t h t h e step f r o m a g r e e d p u b l i c l y o b s e r v e d e v e n t s t o o t h e r things b e y o n d o b s e r v a t i o n . H e r e I a m dealing w i t h h o w w e should assess o u r p r i v a t e e x p e r i e n c e s . ) If it s e e m s t o m e t h a t I a m seeing a table o r hearing m y friend's voice, I ought t o believe this u n t i l e v i d e n c e appears that I have b e e n d e c e i v e d . If y o u say t h e c o n t r a r y — n e v e r t r u s t a p p e a r a n c e s u n t i l it is p r o v e d that t h e y a r e r e l i a b l e — y o u will n e v e r have any b e l i e f s at all. F o r w h a t w o u l d s h o w that a p p e a r a n c e s a r e r e l i a b l e ,

except

m o r e a p p e a r a n c e s ? A n d , i f y o u c a n n o t t r u s t a p p e a r a n c e s as such, y o u c a n n o t t r u s t t h e s e n e w o n e s e i t h e r . J u s t as y o u m u s t t r u s t y o u r five o r d i n a r y s e n s e s , so it is equally r a t i o n a l t o t r u s t your religious sense. An o p p o n e n t m a y say t h a t y o u t r u s t y o u r o r d i n a r y senses ( e . g . y o u r sense o f sight) b e c a u s e t h e y a g r e e w i t h t h e senses o f o t h e r p e o p l e — w h a t y o u claim t o s e e , t h e y claim also t o s e e ; b u t y o u r r e l i g i o u s sense d o e s n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e senses o f o t h e r p e o p l e ( t h e y d o n o t always have r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s at all, o r o f t h e s a m e k i n d as y o u d o ) . H o w e v e r , it is i m p o r t a n t t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e r a t i o n a l p e r s o n applies t h e p r i n c i p l e

of

credulity before he knows what other people experience. Y o u rightly t r u s t y o u r senses e v e n i f t h e r e is n o o b s e r v e r t o c h e c k t h e m . A n d , i f t h e r e is a n o t h e r o b s e r v e r w h o r e p o r t s t h a t h e s e e m s t o see w h a t y o u s e e m t o s e e , y o u have t h e r e a f t e r t o r e m e m b e r that h e did so r e p o r t , and that m e a n s r e l y i n g o n y o u r o w n m e m o r y ( i . e . w h a t y o u seem t o r e c a l l having h e a r d h i m say) w i t h o u t p r e s e n t c o r r o b o r a t i o n .

Anyway,

religious

e x p e r i e n c e s o f t e n d o c o i n c i d e w i t h t h o s e o f so m a n y o t h e r s in t h e i r g e n e r a l a w a r e n e s s o f a p o w e r b e y o n d o u r s e l v e s guiding

[132]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

o u r lives ( t h o u g h n o t so m u c h in a m o r e detailed a w a r e n e s s o f t h e e x a c t n a t u r e o f G o d and o f his p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e s ) . If s o m e p e o p l e do n o t have t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s , that suggests that t h e y a r e b l i n d t o r e l i g i o u s realities

j u s t as s o m e o n e ' s inabil-

ity t o s e e c o l o u r s d o e s n o t s h o w that t h e m a n y o f us w h o claim t o s e e t h e m a r e m i s t a k e n , o n l y that h e is c o l o u r b l i n d . N o r , again, d o e s t h e fact that s o m e o f a g r o u p o f t r a v e l l e r s c a n n o t see s o m e o b j e c t w h i c h t h e y c a n n o t r e a c h m e a n t h a t , i f m a n y o f t h e g r o u p c l a i m t o b e able t o see it, t h e y a r e m i s t a k e n . T h e m o r e r a t i o n a l b e l i e f — i n t h e a b s e n c e o f f u r t h e r evid e n c e a b o u t t h e visual p o w e r s o f t h e d i f f e r e n t t r a v e l l e r s — i s that t h e f o r m e r do n o t have g o o d e n o u g h sight. If t h r e e w i t nesses in a l a w c o u r t c l a i m ( i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) t o have s e e n t h e s u s p e c t in s o m e s t r e e t at a c e r t a i n t i m e , and t h r e e w i t n e s s e s w h o w e r e in t h e s t r e e t at that t i m e claim n o t t o have s e e n h i m , t h e n — o t h e r things b e i n g e q u a l — t h e c o u r t w i l l

surely

n o r m a l l y t a k e t h e v i e w that t h e s u s p e c t was t h e r e , and that t h e l a t t e r t h r e e w i t n e s s e s simply did n o t n o t i c e h i m . It is basic t o h u m a n k n o w l e d g e o f t h e w o r l d that w e b e l i e v e things are as t h e y s e e m t o b e in t h e a b s e n c e o f p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y . S o m e o n e w h o s e e m s t o have an e x p e r i e n c e o f G o d should b e l i e v e that h e d o e s , unless e v i d e n c e can b e p r o d u c e d that h e is m i s t a k e n . A n d it is a n o t h e r basic p r i n c i p l e o f r a t i o n ality, w h i c h I call t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t e s t i m o n y , that t h o s e w h o d o n o t have an e x p e r i e n c e o f a c e r t a i n t y p e o u g h t t o b e l i e v e any o t h e r s w h e n t h e y say that t h e y d o — a g a i n , in t h e a b s e n c e o f e v i d e n c e o f d e c e i t o r d e l u s i o n . I f w e c o u l d n o t in g e n e r a l t r u s t w h a t o t h e r p e o p l e say a b o u t t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s

without

c h e c k i n g t h e m o u t in s o m e w a y , o u r k n o w l e d g e o f h i s t o r y o r g e o g r a p h y o r s c i e n c e w o u l d b e a l m o s t n o n - e x i s t e n t . In v i r t u e o f t h e p r i n c i p l e o f t e s t i m o n y , t h e r e b e c o m e available t o t h o s e o f us w h o d o n o t o u r s e l v e s have r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s

[133]

the

Miracles and Religious

Experience

r e p o r t s o f o t h e r s w h o d o , and t o w h i c h , t h e r e f o r e , w e can apply the p r i n c i p l e o f c r e d u l i t y . In the a b s e n c e o f c o u n t e r e v i d e n c e , w e o u g h t t o b e l i e v e that things a r e as t h e y s e e m t o b e t o o t h e r p e o p l e ; and w e d o , o f c o u r s e , n o r m a l l y so a s s u m e . W e t r u s t t h e r e p o r t s o f o t h e r s o n w h a t t h e y see unless w e have r e a s o n t o suppose t h a t t h e y a r e lying, o r d e c e i v i n g t h e m s e l v e s , o r simply m i s o b s e r v i n g . W e o u g h t t o d o t h e s a m e w i t h their reports o f religious e x p e r i e n c e . T h e p r i n c i p l e o f c r e d u l i t y states that w e o u g h t t o b e l i e v e that things a r e as t h e y s e e m t o b e unless and until w e have e v i d e n c e that w e a r e m i s t a k e n . T h e r e a r e t h r e e kinds o f such e v i d e n c e . F i r s t w e m a y have e v i d e n c e that t h e a p p a r e n t p e r c e p t i o n was m a d e u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s f o r w h i c h w e have p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e that p e r c e p t i o n s a r e u n r e l i a b l e . If I claim t o have r e a d a page o f a b o o k at a d i s t a n c e o f a h u n d r e d yards, y o u will rightly n o t b e l i e v e m e — b e c a u s e w e k n o w f r o m e x p e r i e n c e that h u m a n s w h o c l a i m t o b e able t o r e a d at that d i s t a n c e in f a c t c a n n o t c o r r e c t l y r e p o r t w h a t is w r i t t e n

(as w e

can

c h e c k w h a t was w r i t t e n b y r e a d i n g t h e page at a d i s t a n c e o f o n e f o o t , w h e r e t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l r e p o r t s o f so m a n y o f us agree with each o t h e r ) .

Likewise,

apparent perceptions

by

s u b j e c t s u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f such drugs as L S D a r e rightly d i s c o u n t e d , b e c a u s e w e have f o u n d t h e m t o b e u n r e l i a b l e ( b y t h e fact o f o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e b y m a n y o t h e r s , n o t u n d e r such i n f l u e n c e ) . M o s t r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s d o n o t fall foul o f this t e s t . T h e y a r e n o t m a d e u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f drugs o r in c o n d i t i o n s in w h i c h w e have any positive e v i d e n c e that that k i n d o f e x p e r i e n c e is u n r e l i a b l e . S e c o n d l y , w e m a y have e v i d e n c e in t h e p a r t i c u l a r case that things a r e n o t as t h e y s e e m t o b e . I m a y t h i n k I see a m a n c a r rying his h e a d u n d e r his a r m .

S i n c e all m y k n o w l e d g e

of

h u m a n capacities suggests that h u m a n s c a n n o t d o t h i s , I rightly

[134]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

t h i n k t h a t I a m s u b j e c t t o h a l l u c i n a t i o n . T h i s is t h e b a c k g r o u n d evidence

o f h o w t h e w o r l d w o r k s w h i c h w e have s e e n

at

w o r k , e a r l i e r in this c h a p t e r , in assessing claims a b o u t p a r t i c u lar p u b l i c e v e n t s .

Similarly, experiences apparently o f

o u g h t t o b e d i s c o u n t e d i f w e have s t r o n g positive

God

evidence

that t h e r e is n o G o d . I e m p h a s i z e ' s t r o n g ' . If w e c o u l d n o t t r u s t o u r senses w h e n t h e y s e e m e d t o s h o w us w h a t o t h e r w i s e o n a slight b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t y w e had r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e n o t t o b e s o , w e w o u l d always r e m a i n t h e p r i s o n e r s o f w h a t w e initially b e l i e v e d . If a slight b a l a n c e o f m y e v i d e n c e suggests that y o u a r e in L o n d o n t o d a y ( e . g . y o u t o l d m e y e s t e r d a y that y o u w o u l d p r o b a b l y g o t o L o n d o n t o d a y ) and t h e n I s e e m c l e a r l y t o see y o u in O x f o r d , I o u g h t t o b e l i e v e m y s e n s e s , t o b e l i e v e that y o u a r e in O x f o r d t o d a y ( a n d so b e l i e v e t h a t you c h a n g e d y o u r m i n d a b o u t going t o L o n d o n ) . It is o n l y i f I saw y o u g e t t i n g o n the train and t h e train leaving, and t h e n h e a r d y o u p h o n i n g m e f r o m W e s t m i n s t e r w i t h Big B e n striking in t h e b a c k g r o u n d , that I o u g h t t o d o u b t m y senses w h e n I s e e m t o see y o u in O x f o r d . L i k e w i s e w i t h r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s : i f w e have s t r o n g r e a s o n t o suppose that t h e r e is n o G o d ,

we

o u g h t t o disregard o u r r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s as h a l l u c i n a t o r y . B u t , in so far as t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e is a m b i g u o u s o r c o u n t s against b u t n o t s t r o n g l y against t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G o d ,

our

e x p e r i e n c e ( o u r o w n o r that o f m a n y o t h e r s ) o u g h t t o tip t h e b a l a n c e in favour o f G o d . Thirdly, there may b e evidence that the apparent experience was not c a u s e d — w h e t h e r directly or i n d i r e c t l y — b y the o b j e c t p u r p o r t e d l y e x p e r i e n c e d . If I t h i n k I see J o h n a l o n e in t h e a r c a d e at a c e r t a i n t i m e and t h e n it is s h o w n that his t w i n b r o t h e r w a s in t h e a r c a d e at that t i m e , that m a k e s it q u i t e likely t h a t it was light rays e m a n a t i n g f r o m t h e t w i n b r o t h e r w h i c h c a u s e d m e t o have t h e e x p e r i e n c e , and that J o h n w a s

[135]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

n o t i n v o l v e d in causing m e t o have t h e e x p e r i e n c e . S o , i f y o u c o u l d s h o w that s o m e religious e x p e r i e n c e did n o t h a v e G o d a m o n g its c a u s e s , that w o u l d s h o w t h a t it was n o t a g e n u i n e experience

of God.

However,

the only way to show

that

w o u l d b e t o s h o w that t h e r e is n o G o d ; f o r , i f t h e r e is a G o d , h e sustains all t h e causal m e c h a n i s m s w h i c h p r o d u c e all o u r e x p e r i e n c e s . Maybe s o m e religious experiences o c c u r

when

p e o p l e fast f o r a p e r i o d . B u t that d o e s n o t s h o w that G o d was n o t i n v o l v e d in causing t h o s e w h o a r e fasting t o have a r e l i gious e x p e r i e n c e ; f o r i f t h e r e is a G o d , it is h e w h o causes that discipline o f fasting t o b r i n g a b o u t t h e e x p e r i e n c e . T h e m e r e f a c t that s o m e p r o c e s s plays a causal r o l e in m y having an e x p e r i e n c e has n o t e n d e n c y t o s h o w e i t h e r that t h e e x p e r i e n c e is illusory o r that it is g e n u i n e . A drug i n t r o d u c e d i n t o m y e y e s m a y e i t h e r cause m e t o s e e w h a t is n o t t h e r e , o r t o o p e n m y e y e s t o w h a t is t h e r e . A n d , i f t h e r e is a G o d , t h e l a t t e r is t h e w a y that disciplines o f fasting o r w h a t e v e r w h i c h

bring

a b o u t religious e x p e r i e n c e s w o r k . S o in s u m m a r y in t h e case o f r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s , as in t h e case o f all o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e s , t h e o n u s is o n t h e s c e p t i c t o give r e a s o n f o r n o t b e l i e v i n g w h a t s e e m s t o b e t h e c a s e . T h e o n l y w a y t o d e f e a t t h e c l a i m s o f r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e will b e t o s h o w that t h e strong b a l a n c e o f e v i d e n c e is that t h e r e is n o G o d . In t h e a b s e n c e o f that s t r o n g b a l a n c e , religious e x p e r i e n c e p r o v i d e s significant f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e that t h e r e is a G o d . It m i g h t b e said that o n l y t h e r e l i g i o u s have r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s . T h a t is n o t always s o ; b u t it is t r u e t h a t it is a l m o s t invariably t h o s e w h o have had s o m e p r i o r a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h a religious t r a d i t i o n w h o have religious e x p e r i e n c e s — f o r

some

t h e e x p e r i e n c e is t h e m e a n s b y w h i c h t h e t r a d i t i o n b e c o m e s alive f o r t h e m again. B u t that is hardly an o b j e c t i o n : f o r anyt h i n g , unless w e k n o w w h a t a s o - a n d - s o i s , w e a r e u n l i k e l y t o

[136]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

h a v e an e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h s e e m s t o us t o b e an e x p e r i e n c e o f a so-and-so. O n l y s o m e o n e w h o k n e w what a telephone was could seem t o see a t e l e p h o n e . Y o u may learn what a telep h o n e is e i t h e r b y s o m e o n e s h o w i n g y o u o n e , and t h e n y o u c a n r e c o g n i z e t h e n e x t o n e y o u s e e ; o r b y s o m e o n e giving y o u a d e s c r i p t i o n o f o n e , and t h e n y o u w i l l b e in a p o s i t i o n t o r e c o g n i z e o n e w h e n y o u s e e o n e . W i t h a r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e (in o u r sense o f o n e w h i c h s e e m s t o t h e s u b j e c t t o b e an e x p e r i e n c e o f G o d ) , t h e w a y w e l e a r n w h a t an e x p e r i e n c e o f G o d w o u l d b e like is b y t h e religious t r a d i t i o n giving us an u n d e r standing o f w h a t G o d is l i k e . M y C h a p t e r 1 p r o v i d e s a f o r m a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f w h a t G o d is l i k e , b u t t h e t r a d i t i o n w i t h its s t o ries o f t h o s e w h o p u r p o r t e d l y have e n c o u n t e r e d G o d fills o u t such f o r m a l d e s c r i p t i o n in m o r e d e t a i l . T h e r e b y w e c o m e t o begin t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t an e x p e r i e n c e o f G o d w o u l d b e like i f w e had o n e ; and all w e n e e d is e n o u g h u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o r e c o g n i z e an e x p e r i e n c e w h e n w e have o n e — w e c o u l d n o t possibly

give

a full

description

o f such

an

experience

in

advance, or indeed after the e x p e r i e n c e . (For a famous story o f s o m e o n e w h o c o u l d n o t r e c o g n i z e an e x p e r i e n c e o f G o d f o r w h a t it w a s until h e w a s t o l d s o m e t h i n g a b o u t G o d , see t h e s t o r y o f t h e child S a m u e l in t h e T e m p l e (1 S a m . For collections o f descriptions o f s o m e m o d e r n experiences,

see

some

of

the

studies

3).) religious

produced

R e l i g i o u s E x p e r i e n c e R e s e a r c h U n i t , n o w called t h e Hardy Research

by

the

Alister

Centre (e.g. Timothy Beardsmore (ed.), A

Sense of Presence ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; ( n o t e that m a n y , b u t n o t all, t h e e x p e r i e n c e s d e s c r i b e d in this v o l u m e a r e religious e x p e r i e n c e s in m y sense). S o m e religious experiences are experiences which w e have b y having s o m e o t h e r s e n s o r y e x p e r i e n c e . J u s t as I b e c o m e aware o f s o m e o n e ' s presence by hearing a voice, o r b e c o m e a w a r e o f t h e d o o r o p e n i n g b y f e e l i n g t h e d r a u g h t , so

[137]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

some people b e c o m e apparently aware o f G o d by hearing a voice o r feeling a strange feeling, o r indeed just seeing the night s k y . B u t o c c a s i o n a l l y p e r c e p t i o n s d o n o t i n v o l v e any sensory e l e m e n t

at all (any p a t t e r n s in a visual

field,

noises,

s m e l l s , and so o n ) ; o n e j u s t b e c o m e s a w a r e that s o m e t h i n g is s o . T h e b l i n d m a y b e c o m e a w a r e o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e furn i t u r e , t h o u g h t h e y d o n o t have a f e e l i n g b y m e a n s o f w h i c h they b e c o m e aware o f it; or w e b e c o m e aware o f whether our hand b e h i n d o u r b a c k is facing u p w a r d s o r d o w n w a r d s , t h o u g h t h e r e is n o ' f e e l i n g ' w h i c h tells us w h i c h it i s — w e j u s t k n o w . A n a l o g o u s l y , s o m e r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e s a r e such t h a t it s e e m s t o t h e s u b j e c t that G o d is p r e s e n t a l t h o u g h t h e r e is n o sensat i o n b y w h i c h t h e e x p e r i e n c e is m e d i a t e d . In

ordinary

perception,

when,

as

normally,

sensations

(visual, a u d i t o r y , and so o n ) a r e i n v o l v e d , w e d o n o t i n f e r t o t h e o b j e c t w e s e e m t o see f r o m t h e sensations w h i c h a c c o m pany t h e a w a r e n e s s . I r e c o g n i z e m y d a u g h t e r j u s t like t h a t , n o t b y o b s e r v i n g s o m e p a t t e r n o f c o l o u r in m y visual field and r e a soning that it m u s t b e c a u s e d b y m y d a u g h t e r . I n d e e d , I m a y b e quite unable to describe the characteristic pattern o f colour in m y visual field w h e n I see h e r . So l i k e w i s e w i t h an e x p e r i e n c e o f G o d . O n e k n o w s m u c h m o r e c l e a r l y w h a t it is o f than w h a t a r e t h e sensations b y w h i c h it is a c c o m p a n i e d . I suggest that t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g t e s t i m o n y o f so m a n y m i l lions o f p e o p l e t o o c c a s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s o f G o d m u s t , in t h e a b s e n c e o f c o u n t e r - e v i d e n c e o f t h e k i n d analysed, b e t a k e n as tipping t h e b a l a n c e o f e v i d e n c e decisively in favour o f t h e e x i s tence of God.

However,

t h o s e w h o have such

experiences

a g r e e o n l y in r e s p e c t o f w h a t t h e y a r e a w a r e o f . S o m e o f t h e m claim

that t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e

gave t h e m

further

information

a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f G o d , o r that h e had t o l d t h e m t o d o c e r tain t h i n g s . A n d , j u s t as e v e n t h e c l a i m that t h e r e is a G o d

[138]

Miracles and Religious

Experience

d o e s n e e d t o have a c e r t a i n d e g r e e o f initial p r o b a b i l i t y ( o n t h e basis o f t h e e v i d e n c e analysed in e a r l i e r c h a p t e r s ) in o r d e r that r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e m a y b e t a k e n as g e n u i n e , so e v e n m o r e d o e s any c l a i m a b o u t w h a t h e is like o r w h a t h e has d o n e . S o m e o n e w h o c l a i m s that G o d has t o l d t h e m t o c o m mit

rape

must

be

mistaken,

because

we

know

on

other

g r o u n d s that r a p e is w r o n g and t h e r e f o r e G o d w o u l d n o t have c o m m a n d e d it. T h e c o n c l u s i o n o f this b o o k is that t h e e x i s t e n c e , o r d e r l i n e s s , and f i n e - t u n e d n e s s o f t h e w o r l d ; t h e e x i s t e n c e o f c o n s c i o u s h u m a n s w i t h i n it w i t h p r o v i d e n t i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r m o u l d i n g t h e m s e l v e s , e a c h o t h e r , and t h e w o r l d ; s o m e h i s t o r i c a l evidence

of

prayers,

miracles particularly

in

connection

in c o n n e c t i o n

with

human

with the

needs

foundation

and of

C h r i s t i a n i t y , t o p p e d u p finally b y t h e a p p a r e n t e x p e r i e n c e b y m i l l i o n s o f his p r e s e n c e , all m a k e it significantly m o r e p r o b able than n o t that t h e r e is a G o d .

[139]

EPILOGUE: SO WHAT?

I r e a c h t h e e n d o f this b o o k w i t h s o m e dissatisfaction. I a m w e l l a w a r e o f o b j e c t i o n s o t h e r t h a n t h e o n e s w h i c h I have discussed w h i c h can b e m a d e t o a l m o s t e v e r y s e n t e n c e w h i c h I have w r i t t e n . S o m e o f t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s have b e e n a r o u n d f o r v e r y m a n y c e n t u r i e s ; b u t f o r a m o d e r n b o o k d i r e c t e d in p a r t against t h e l a r g e r b o o k o f m i n e o n w h i c h this s h o r t b o o k is b a s e d , s e e J . L. M a c k i e ' s The Miracle also a w a r e o f c o u n t e r - o b j e c t i o n s

of Theism ( 1 9 8 2 ) . I a m

w h i c h c a n b e a d v a n c e d in

t u r n against e v e r y o b j e c t i o n t o m y v i e w s ; and also o f t h e n e e d f o r qualification and amplification o f m o s t o f t h e a s s e r t i o n s in this b o o k . Argument

and

counter-argument,

qualification

and

a m p l i f i c a t i o n , c a n g o o n f o r e v e r . B u t r e l i g i o n is n o t e x c e p t i o n a l in this r e s p e c t . W i t h r e s p e c t t o any s u b j e c t w h a t e v e r , t h e discussion can g o o n f o r e v e r . N e w e x p e r i m e n t s c a n always b e d o n e t o t e s t Q u a n t u m T h e o r y , n e w i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can b e proposed for old experiments, forever. And the same goes for i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f h i s t o r y o r t h e o r i e s o f p o l i t i c s . B u t life is s h o r t and w e have t o a c t o n t h e basis o f w h a t such e v i d e n c e as w e have had t i m e t o investigate s h o w s o n b a l a n c e t o b e p r o b a b l y t r u e . W e have t o v o t e in e l e c t i o n s w i t h o u t having had t i m e t o c o n s i d e r t h e m e r i t s o f t h e political p r o g r a m m e s

[140]

Epilogue:

So What?

o f e v e n t h e m a i n candidates w i t h r e s p e c t t o o n e o r t w o planks o f t h e i r p r o g r a m m e s . A n d w e have t o build b r i d g e s and send r o c k e t s i n t o space b e f o r e w e can l o o k at all t h e a r g u m e n t s f o r and against w h e t h e r o u r c o n s t r u c t i o n is s a f e — l e t a l o n e

be

a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n that it is. A n d in r e l i g i o n t o o w e have t o act ( w h i l e a l l o w i n g t h a t , l a t e r in l i f e , w e m a y l o o k again at t h e arguments). T h e c o n c l u s i o n o f this b o o k w a s t h a t , o n significant b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t y , t h e r e is a G o d . If y o u a c c e p t it, it f o l l o w s that y o u have c e r t a i n d u t i e s . G o d has given us life and all t h e g o o d things it c o n t a i n s ,

i n c l u d i n g a b o v e all t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s

to

m o u l d o u r c h a r a c t e r s and h e l p o t h e r s . G r e a t g r a t i t u d e t o G o d is a b u n d a n t l y a p p r o p r i a t e . W e

should e x p r e s s it in w o r s h i p

and in h e l p i n g t o f o r w a r d his p u r p o s e s — w h i c h i n v o l v e s , as a p r e l i m i n a r y s t e p , m a k i n g s o m e e f f o r t t o find o u t w h a t t h e y a r e . B u t duties a r e o f l i m i t e d e x t e n t (as w e saw in C h a p t e r 1 ) ; a m o d e r a t e a m o u n t o f w o r s h i p and o b e d i e n c e m i g h t satisfy t h e m . W e c o u l d l e a v e it at t h a t . Y e t , i f w e have any s e n s e and any i d e a l i s m , w e c a n n o t leave it at t h a t . G o d in his p e r f e c t g o o d n e s s w i l l w a n t t o m a k e t h e b e s t o f u s : m a k e saints o f us and use us t o m a k e saints o f o t h e r s ( n o t , o f c o u r s e , f o r his s a k e , b u t f o r o u r s and f o r t h e i r s ) , give us d e e p u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i m s e l f ( t h e a l l - g o o d s o u r c e o f all b e i n g ) , and h e l p us t o i n t e r a c t w i t h h i m . All that involves an u n l i m i t e d c o m m i t m e n t . B u t G o d r e s p e c t s u s ; h e w i l l n o t f o r c e t h e s e things o n

us—

w e can c h o o s e w h e t h e r t o s e e k t h e m o r n o t . If w e d o s e e k t h e m , t h e r e a r e o b v i o u s o b s t a c l e s in this w o r l d t o achieving t h e m ( s o m e o f w h i c h I discussed in C h a p t e r 6 ) . T h e o b s t a c l e s a r e n e c e s s a r y , partly in o r d e r t o e n s u r e that o u r c o m m i t m e n t is g e n u i n e . B u t G o d has e v e r y r e a s o n in d u e c o u r s e t o r e m o v e t h o s e o b s t a c l e s — t o a l l o w us t o b e c o m e t h e g o o d p e o p l e w e s e e k t o b e , t o give us t h e vision o f h i m s e l f — f o r e v e r .

[141]

INDEX

Abraham 124 accuracy 32 actions: basic 4 intentional 4 , 100-11 non-basic 4 , 12 Alister Hardy Centre 137 animal: souls 7 8 - 8 0 suffering 110—11 anthropic principle 66—7 Aquinas, St Thomas 7—8, 15, 55 Aristotle 99 background knowledge 2 7 - 3 0 , 4 1 , 117—19,

Dawkins, R. 1, 58, 63 depravity 101 desires 88, 99, 101 dualism, substance, defined 73 Duns Scotus 15 Einstein, A., see Relativity, Theory of epistemic sense of experience words 1 31 event, defined 20 evil 9 5 - 1 1 3 moral 97, 9 8 - 1 0 1 natural 97, 1 0 7 - 1 3 evolution by natural selection 58—60, 86—9 Exodus 125—6 explanation: of explanation 2 4 - 5

122, 1 3 4 - 5 Beardsmore, T. 137 beauty of world 54, 63 belief, defined 5 Bible 124 Big Bang 1 0 - 1 1 , 6 1 - 2 brain transplants 74—8 causation 2 1 - 2 character formation 99—100 Christ, see Jesus Christ Christianity 3, 124, 1 2 5 - 9 Church 124 comparative sense of experience words 131 consciousness, evolution of, see animal souls contradictions in theories 31, 64 credulity, principle of 131—9 criteria of justified explanation, four 25—37

inanimate, nature of 21—5 justification of 25—37 personal (intentional), nature of 21—3 ultimate 38-^-3 fine-tuning of Universe 61—2 free and responsible choice, defined 98 free will, human 6 - 7 , 8 - 9 , 12, 9 1 - 2 see also God, perfectly free free will defence 9 8 - 1 0 7 Galileo's law of fall 29, 33, 38 Gardiner, R. 120 God: bodiless 10 creator and sustainer of Universe 10—12 essential properties of 18—19, 46 eternal 9, 4 5 - 6 nature of 3 - 1 9 , 4 3 - 7 omnipotent 6, 7, 43, 45

Darwin, C. 58, 63 Darwinism, see natural selection

[142]

Index omnipresent 10 omniscient 6, 7—8, 4 3 , 45 perfectly free 7, 43, 45 perfectly good 12—18 rights over humans 104—7 simplicity of 43—7 source of moral obligation 15 Grand Unified Theory 50

many-worlds theory 67—8 Mars 2 6 - 3 0 Mary Magdalene 126 materialism 3 9 - 4 2 mental properties and events: defined 71—2 not measurable 83—4 miracles 1 1 6 - 2 3 , 1 2 5 - 9 monism, substance, defined 73 moral truth 13—15 Moses 124, 125 Muhammad 124

Hawking, S. 1, 63—6 Hay, D. 131 Heaven 113 Hezekiah 1 1 6 - 1 8 Hickey, D. 120 Hinduism 125 humanism 4 0 , 42

Neptune 35 New Testament 126 Newton's laws 2 3 - 5 , 5 3 - 5 , 4 9 - 5 0

humans, reason for God to create 51—3, 56, Ockham's razor 31 Old Testament 124 orderliness:

9 0 - 1 , 93 infinite properties, simplicity of 44—6 integration of sciences 84—6 intervention, divine 116, 130

of animal and human bodies 56—68 of natural world 49—55

see also miracles Isaiah 116 Islam 3, 124, 126 Jeremiah 54

Paley, W . 5 7 - 8 parents, rights of 104—7 Paul, St 102 person, defined 4

Jesus Christ 102, 122, 124 atonement by 127 Incarnation of 127—8 Resurrection of 126—9

physical properties and events, defined 71 powers of objects: basic, defined 4 defined 21—5

Kepler's laws of planetary motion 2 6 - 3 0 , 33 Kings, Second Book of 116 knowledge acquisition, value of 52—4, 107—8 laws of nature 22—5 explanation of, see orderliness utility of 115 violation (suspension) of, see miracles Leslie, J. 61 Leverrier, U. J. J. 35 levitation 119, 121 liabilities of objects: defined 21—5 explained, see orderliness life after death 97, 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 129 Lourdes 120

explained, see orderliness prayer 115 prediction 32—3 properties: defined 20 essential 1 8 - 1 9 purpose, defined 4—5 Quantum Theory 50, 9 2 - 3 , 140 Qur'an 124, 126 reduction of one science to another 84—6 Relativity, Theory of 2 4 - 5 , 31, 50 religious experience 130—9 responsibility for others 9 9 - 1 0 0 revelation 123—9 Samuel 137

Mackie, J. L. 140

secondary qualities 85

[143]

Index Sermon on the Mount 127 simplicity 26—31, 35—7 see also God, simplicity of Smith, G. 120 souls: animal, see animal souls human 70, 7 6 - 9 4 substance, defined 20 testimony, principle of 133—4 theism: defined 3 - 1 9 , 40

simplicity of, see God, simplicity of theodicy 9 5 - 6 theories, scientific 28—34 thermodynamics 84 time, cyclical 64—5 Trinity, the 127 unemployment 102—3 Uranus 35 use, good of being of 101—4 West, D. J. 120

[144]

'It is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all. Surely the most natural state of affairs is simply nothing: no universe, no God, nothing. But there is something. And so many things. Maybe chance could have thrown up the odd electron. But so many particles! Not everything will have an explanation. But the whole progress of science and all other intellectual enquiry demands that we postulate the smallest number of brute facts. If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so—even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being.' from Chapter 4

ISBN

0-19-823544-5

9"780198"235446

Richard Swinburne has been the Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford since 1985; before that for twelve years he was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Keele. He is the author of many eminent books on the philosophy of religion in general and the philosophy of Christianity in particular.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS