This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I was once asked who my favorite philosopher was, and to the surprise of, I am sure, some people, I said Thomas Nagel. I think he accepts my main arguments, but working from the secular side, he doesn't draw the theistic implications that I am inclined to accept. I also consider him to be an excellent test case when it comes to defining naturalism. Does your definition of naturalism include Nagel as a naturalist, or not? If you say he is a naturalist, then it seems to me that all you need for naturalism is to deny theism. If not, then you have a version of the "no skyhook" rule.
Post a Comment