It is refreshing to read a modern thinker who
admits that he doesn't have all the answers.
Thomas Nagel is one such thinker.
Though he is a confessed Atheist, he does not come across as a
know-it-all like Richard Dawkins and the "new Atheists."
Nagel is University Professor in the
Department of Philosophy and School of Law at New York University. He is the author of a number of books, only
one of which I had previously read, before picking up his latest, a slender
volume entitled, Mind and Cosmos, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian
Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford, 2012). Although the book is only 130 pages, it took
me a while to read as it was not (for me) easy reading.
The title of the book tells us quite a bit
about where Nagel is headed. Though
Nagel accepts the findings of evolutionary science, he contends that
naturalistic evolution in itself is inadequate to account for mind - consciousness,
cognition and value. He is seeking some
alternative which will unify our understanding.
Nagel feels that the forces at work in nature
are ultimately teleological, by which he seems to mean that the laws of nature
have purpose built into them and are directed toward an end. He is skeptical about what he refers to as "the
reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life"
(page 6).
However, he also makes it clear that his
"skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any
definite alternative" (page 7). He
discusses the alternatives of what he describes as Theism. While he rejects a materialistic explanation
for the origin of mind, he also rejects theism as doing the opposite, making
"physical law a consequences of mind." He dislikes the desire "to understand
ourselves from the outside" whether this desire expresses itself through
theism or "evolutionary naturalism."
His arguments here seem a bit less confident and possibly inspired more
by what he referred to in a previous volume as his "fear of religion
itself." Then he even says, "I
want atheism to be true... It isn't just
that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my
belief. It's that I hope there is no
God! I don't want there to be a God, I
don't want the universe to be like that" (The Last Word, 1997, page
130). He appears to have not yet gotten
over that fear.
Nagel breaks a taboo held by those who hold
to the evolutionary views he questions.
He actually considers the thinking and writings of those who hold to
intelligent design as worthy of consideration.
Not that he feels that their arguments for a Designer are valid, but
that he feels their arguments against "the orthodox scientific
consensus" need to be taken seriously.
A quick Google search will find a number of
articles on this book -- so many that I feel that any attempts by me at a
review would be woefully inadequate.
Though I have read very few, I must confess that I was amused by the
attacks on Nagel -- not just amused; I actually felt a bit of sadistic pleasure
at the displeasure of the writers.
Though much of what he said is in agreement with current scientific
thinking, he apparently is regarded as a heretic and iconoclast by many. Dogmatism is not limited to religious
thinkers!
When my search led me to articles written by
creationists, I supposed Nagel would also be anathematized by those of that
persuasion, especially those of the 6-day variety. I was pleasantly surprised. They seemed content with his rejection of a
materialistic/evolutionist explanation.
As one who is a believer in a
Designer/Creator God, I found the book fascinating, even though I am
disappointed that he rejected the conclusion that to me was obvious. His conclusion that there is more to life
than can be explained by materialistic evolution is enough to make this book a
satisfying read.
4 comments:
At least he is honest in his dealing/struggling with very difficult and complex issues--I respect that even if he rejects God. I find it refreshingly honest that he dismisses God because he doesn't want it to be true rather than a reasoned argument.
Thanks for the review.
You said: Not all will accept this, nor will all understand it, it is a seed planted, or watered by Him, for His purpose.
He isn't ostracized because of dogmatism, but because scientists are expected to provide evidence. There is nothing wrong with wondering. After all, every scientific discovery happened because someone asked a question.
You said: His conclusion that there is more to life than can be explained by materialistic evolution is enough to make this book a satisfying read.
There well might be. However, to assume your particular idea about God is the answer is clearly a God of the gaps argument.
Ken said: At least he is honest in his dealing/struggling with very difficult and complex issues--I respect that even if he rejects God
I really do get tired of trying to explain that it's not always a rejection of God. That's such a tired myth.
Bill said: Though he is a confessed Atheist, he does not come across as a know-it-all like Richard Dawkins and the "new Atheists."
Hmmm, I'm not a fan of Dawkins but I've never seen someone more know-it-all-like than a preacher who gets up and tells everyone he has the answers, even though he possesses no evidence.
Mike, you appear to be quoting someone else in you first paragraph; I don't recall saying anything like that.
You may be interested in this quote from Nagel in the book reviewed: "It would be an advance if the secular theoretical establishment, and the contemporary enlightened culture which it dominates, could wean itself of the materialism and Darwinism of the gaps - to adapt one of its own pejorative tags."
Heh. Sorry. You're right about the first quote. That's from another article I read written by a friend.
I meant to paste this: Though much of what he said is in agreement with current scientific thinking, he apparently is regarded as a heretic and iconoclast by many.
You might also be interested in this news story: http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/atheist-group-wants-prof-questioning-evolution-censored/
I personally don't see anything wrong with scientists questioning anything. That's their job.
However, they should have evidence if they want to proclaim it as truth. So far, evolution is backed by mounds of proof.
Post a Comment