tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post7924459383581098090..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Nagel on EvolutionJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-78948876094737677662009-09-09T15:29:42.376+01:002009-09-09T15:29:42.376+01:00I meant to add, but forgot, that Nagel's The L...I meant to add, but forgot, that Nagel's <i>The Last Word</i> shows just how close he comes to the AFR -- it's basically a naturalistic version of the AFR by an atheist who can see why theists would like the AFR but can't move the additional step to theism. It's very well done, and, like much of Nagel's work, very readable.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-15972562574382785212009-09-09T15:24:17.273+01:002009-09-09T15:24:17.273+01:00Nagel is actually not anti-naturalist at all; he&#...Nagel is actually not anti-naturalist at all; he's what's called a nonreductive naturalist. I imagine he would agree that science is intrinsically naturalistic; he just doesn't think it's intrinsically reductivist -- that is, we have no way of reducing higher-level descriptions of the universe (e.g., in terms of minds, ethics, language) to lower-level descriptions of the universe (e.g., in terms of quantum phenomena), and, indeed, we have reason to think it can't actually be done. But he still thinks that all these things are natural properties, that while they are different and irreducible descriptions <i>what</i> they are describing is the same physical universe, and that in principle science can study them all (just not by reducing them to a single kind of description).Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-4600281145836298682009-09-09T13:44:15.612+01:002009-09-09T13:44:15.612+01:00Well, that is an interesting comment by Nagel. You...Well, that is an interesting comment by Nagel. You know, when I first saw it I noticed the same thing that Dr. Reppert did:<br /><br /><i>What if a Christian were to say that he or she was afraid of atheism using similar terms. Wouldn't the atheists be all over that Christian, claiming once again that this is an admission that Christians only believe what they believe as a result of wishful thinking?</i> <a rel="nofollow">http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/09/old-maverick-philosopher-post-on.html#comments</a><br /><br />Though I agree with Nagel in 'that proponents of evolution are over-reaching in their application of it.' I mean there is no doubt that evolution does happen, but there are still some unanswered questions and gaps in our knowledge.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18319161892002614759noreply@blogger.com