AgnosticWeb.com
Log in
Register
Search:
Back to the entry by dhw
Post reply
Reply to the message by
dhw
Name:
E-mail:
(optional, won't be displayed directly)
Leave this field empty:
Homepage:
(optional)
Leave this field empty:
Location:
(optional)
Remember me (cookie)
Category:
Introduction
The atheist delusion
Agnosticism
Evolution
The limitations of science
Origins
The nature of a 'Creator'
Where is it now?
Endings
Identity
Animals
Humans
Religion
Art
Politics
What should be taught in schools?
A mad world
General
Subject:
Formatting help
skip to input
format text bold
[b]bold text[/b]
format text italic
[i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink
[link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color
[color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size
[size=small]small text[/size]
[size=large]large text[/size]
insert list
[list][*]list item[/list]
insert image
[img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]
:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(
Message:
> GEORGE: [i]This review of Thomas Nagel's book by his former teacher may be of interest:[/i] http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.ca/2013/09/what-have-i-been-reading.html-Great to have you with us again, George. Not so much a review of the book as a complaint about philosophers who don't do their science homework. As a non-scientist, I can only point out that since there is no consensus among scientists concerning the source and nature of consciousness, I don't think it's unfair for a philosopher to do his own speculating. This would apply especially if the philosopher were convinced that consciousness is the key to a non-materialistic world, since science can only deal with the material world. -The review concludes: "[i]I mean, you cannot write a whole book modestly, tentatively, but nonetheless definitively trashing Neo-Darwinism, and then not even take a few pages to spell out exactly what your hesitantly offered alternative is[/i]."-Well, yes, you can. That is precisely the situation of the agnostic ... we can only say why we do not believe in the various alternatives. However, Nagel does not admit to being an agnostic. He says he is an atheist. I have found a very revealing quote, which may explain why: [i]In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. 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. [/i] [b]The Last Word[/b], Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 130-131.-Perfectly understandable ... just as it is perfectly understandable that people should want there to be an all-powerful and loving God, and tailor their beliefs and findings to fit their wishes. As we keep noting, you can justify any theory by selecting from the information available. At least he's honest about the subjective wishes underlying his reasoning. But I still think he's an agnostic at heart!
OK - Submit
Preview