Quhy not?
Sir: Neither Professor Goodhart (Letters, 13 August) nor perhaps even Richard Dawkins (`An atheist's vision of life', 6 August) seems to appreciate that the ques- tion Why? has two quite separate mean- ings, which I believe were already distin- guished by Thomas Aquinas. In some lan- guages two different words are actually used, though unfortunately for our cultural heritage not in Hebrew, Latin, Greek or English. We might use Quhy? for one (for what purpose?) and Why? for the other (from what cause?).
Quhy did the chain come off my bike? Because it was part of God's eternal plan. Why did the chain come off my bike? Because one of the links broke.
Quhy was I born? Because my dad and mum had three girls already and wanted a son: or, of course, it was God's eternal plan. Why was I born? Because they fancied each other one night.
Science can often but not always answer Why? questions. Modern quantum physics maintains that there is sometimes no answer: events such as radioactive decay can be assigned a probability, but not a cause. This is perhaps the case with the Big Bang itself. (Einstein didn't like this, and neither do I: it blocks off further inquiry.) Science can't answer Quhy? questions unless you count psychology, but then you might as well count theology as well — and would maintain, as I think Richard Dawkins would, that there is often no answer here either. To ask Quhy? presumes that someone, unspecified, had a purpose in bringing this event about. This presump- tion is easily made by religious people, but they have difficulty in producing really con- vincing evidence for it.
Francis G. Miles
Windrush, Rabley Heath, Welwyn, Herts
Previous page
