C.E.M. Joad, Philosopher
There are certain impulses in human nature… which are not satisfied by a life of self-seeking. There is the impulse to serve a creed or a cause, the impulse to do good to other people, the impulse to help those who are in trouble… What account are we to give of these? Can THEY be justified by any worldly standard?.. to observe such a standard is patent folly if this is the only world, since no justification can be found for them here… we hasten to provide the required justification by indicating that there is another world which makes sense of our altruistic impulses and explains and justifies our occasional preference for duty over expediency… the stimulus to invest our existence with a purpose and to make sense of the impulses which lack justification in this life by providing for them justification in another."
How, then, on determinist lines explain the epistemological relation of thought and its objects. The content of a thought may be, indeed, on the determinist assumption… chemically determined … But how can it be determined by… that which is thought about?.. if it is what is commonly called an abstract thought, it is extremely difficult to see how it COULD be determined by such events. For how could an historical generalization be the result of a physical stimulus?"
“I have sought, in the first place, to establish the common-place proposition that there is no conflict between science and religion… secondly … the scientific account of the world is a selective account… It is in no sense an account of the whole… Thirdly… I have cited certain outstanding examples of the failure of the sciences to give an even plausible account of certain areas of human experience. The upshot of these considerations is to support the view advanced by religion that man is a member of two different orders or realms of being, that it is only of one of these that science takes account, and of that one only in so far as it can be satisfactorily isolated from the other and treated as if it were the whole.”