Who’s afraid of Thomas Nagel?
Darwinists, that’s who. Why? Because he wrote Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False and dares to use his intellect to think for himself. He does not subjugate common sense to Darwinian propaganda. He has the audacity to allow common sense to override the mandates of the Darwinist defenders. Consider some of his statements:
But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented , the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense.
I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life. It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.
Nagel makes it very clear that his objections to Darwinism are based only on the facts and *not* some hidden religious belief.
My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.
Note well that Nagel is *not* a theist in disguise and so can’t be tarred with that brush:
However, I do not find theism any more credible than materialism as a comprehensive world view. My interest is in the territory between them .
Clearly, Nagel sees what is happening. Evolutionary naturalism is purely belief based squarely upon rejection of theism, and yet it requires also the rejection of common sense.
The inadequacies of the naturalistic and reductionist world picture seem to me to be real.
After all, everything we believe, even the most far-reaching cosmological theories, has to be based ultimately on common sense, and on what is plainly undeniable. The priority given to evolutionary naturalism in the face of its implausible conclusions about other subjects is due, I think, to the secular consensus that this is the only form of external understanding of ourselves that provides an alternative to theism— which is to be rejected as a mere projection of our internal self-conception onto the universe, without evidence.
For some thought provoking reading, try these:
A different way of thinking—Thomas Nagel considers the mind – Reviewing the reviewers: how the atheists are trying to downplay and deconstruct fellow atheist Thomas Nagel’s latest book, Mind and Cosmos