Philosophy of Ernest Nagel from a First Person Essay

One burning and enduring trouble in philosophy to which we pay given considerable examination is the interrogatory of the valet de chambres of deitythe superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. by and by rendition the classic controversys of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against graven images existence that have been put into text. All of them argon well- estimation and well-articulated arguments, further they have their holes. The question of Gods true existence, therefore, is calm down non definitively answered and put to rest the intensity of this delve probably never go forth mitigate. Many theologians and academics honestly admit that no matter what any philosopher whitethorn assert regarding this topic, whether or non a sure psyche be lieves in Gods existence is a question of faith and naught more.I am natur in all(a)y inclined, then, even after reading the hulk philosophers of religion, to ponder this pressing issue. After all, what one person may heap up out of serious consideration of this problem could totally alter his or her lifespan. Even though I have been raised in the apostolic Christian faith and have attended church regularly, I have never really taken the time to scrutinize the real existence of a being I have been worshipping for my whole childhood. Reading the famed selections in this course has alerted my attention to the topic, and this major philosophical problem continues to shun my understanding.One would think that, because I have been raised a Christian and have been exposed to the doctrine and theory of Christianity, I would quickly listing toward the arguments for God and be more easily persuaded by them, hoping to find a defense for spending show uply every Sunday morning in the chancel at church. Actually, I am not automatically persuaded toward the theistic position thanks to an atheist argument the philosopher whom we have examined this semester who complicates this issue for me is Ernest Nagel, an atheist professor who wrote an outstanding defense of atheism. I found that his defense do atheism appear a much more attractive instruction to think than any theistic religion. I was not impressed, though, with his contentions againstthe ontological rock of St. Anselm, and thus I refrain for direct from venturing to the atheist commission. Because of Nagel, I straight off have ambivalence towards believing in God, even though reading his work did not change my broader belief.One object of heated debate between convinced believers in God and convinced atheists is the caper of smart or Theodicy Problem, which asks how sliminess and suffering can exist in the cosmea if an all-powerful and all-good God is overseeing what happens in his founding. Th ere are a some arguments that theists have constructed defending Gods existence in transgress of this obvious conflict between doctrine and reality. Some of them, even though they have become classic arguments, are ridiculous for example, Nagel confronts the argument stating that the things called evil are evil only because they are viewed in isolation they are not evil when viewed in proper perspective and in telling to the rest of creation (605). This argument can be easily sunk by a man of reason, and Nagel does so mainly by prop that it is irrelevant to argue that were we something other than what we are, our evaluations of what is good and bad would be unlike (606).Calling the argument unsupported speculation, (606) Nagel easily downturns this faulty response to the Theodicy Problem. What I found most admirable about this section of Nagels philosophical Concepts of Atheism was his own solution to the problemsimply that it cannot be dogged I do not believe it is possible to reconcile the alleged(a) omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God with the unvarnished positions of human existence (606). Since Nagel has demonstrated that the Theodicy Problem cannot be taken down, it remains a solid argument for atheists and a very good disproof of the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God. I have not seen a response to this problem so effectively stated, honest, and convincing. Nagels arguments concerning the Theodicy Problem show that atheists think in a much more honest and practical fashion than do theists.The way Nagel uses the words unvarnished facts of human existence (606) leads to other attractive element to atheism and to his workNagel appeals to the earthbound life, and only the earthly life, in describing how atheists think. Instead of reaching out to another(prenominal) world or deity that doesnot even certainly exist, atheists much take as their holy man the intellectual regularitys employed in the synchronous empirical sciences (607). Because atheists use empirical order obtained through science, i.e. use evidence that certainly exists and can be sensed, all of the thinking they do is base solely on what clearly and distinctly exists in reality. To atheists, says Nagel, controlled sensory reflectivity is the court of final appeal in issues concerning matters of fact (608). Not all of theist thinking is based on something that is proved to exist, since God has not been absolutely proved to be, so the essential base of the theist thought is composed of supposition and theory.Atheists simply ground their logic in what is certainly known, and no assumptions found their reasoning. Even in matters of human morals, atheists think a lot The conceptions of the human good atheists have advocated are conceptions which are commensurate with the existent capacities of mortal men, so that it is the satisfaction of the complex needs of the human shaft which is the final standard for evaluating the validity of a moral ide al or moral prescription (608). Nagel too excellently applies practicality to atheism in the way he describes the stress upon a good life that must be consummated in this world (608). Nagel dismisses the need of some unrealizable other-worldly ideal (608) so well that atheism appears supremely attractive among all the other religious modes of thought. Since Nagel implements practicality so well and perpetuates the question of the Theodicy Problem in philosophical Concepts of Atheism, I found not only Nagels text, but also the atheist way very reasonable (literally) and intellectually striking.While Nagel marvelously makes atheism appear much more attractive as a way of thinking than a theist religion because of its practicality and direct method of reason, I do not think he deals with St. Anselms argument for Gods existence well enough. Nagel refutes Anselms Ontological rivalry by saying, the word existence does not signify any designate (601). I starkly disagree with this posit ion. I think, as does Ren Descartes, that existence in reality is a descriptor. When we, for example, reflect upon the life of one who has died, we experience that person as he or she exists in our understanding and in our liking by remembering him or her althoughthis individual is no longer living in reality, he or she still exists, but on another plane of being. I am aware that this is, indeed, a highly arguable topic, but I am quite convinced that existence is an attribute, and thus I find that Anselms assertions withstand Nagels assaults. Even though the fact that atheists are practical, down-to-earth thinkers attracts me, I am still not convinced that God does not exist. For the time being, then, I will view as my theistic beliefs and remain a churchgoer, even though I now have ambivalence toward theism.I am not convinced that God does not exist because of some other reflections, shared especially by many within the scientific community. My current beliefs regarding Gods ex istence, those that I find more convincing than even the Ontological Argument, follow an deductive chain of reasoning the argument I support most is the near impossibility that everything in creation came about by accident. The chances for molecules and cells, the very construct blocks of the incredibly intricate natural creation, to come together entirely by themselves are so extremely slim that it is hard to believe that the world and all that lives in it are products of chance.The fact that the planet Earth is in exactly the right spot in space to support life, the fact that there are just the right amounts of chemicals and substances to sustain biological life on Earth, and the fact that there is only one species with the intellectual firepower to batter physical inferiorities and become the ruling class of organisms on the planet all contribute to the suspicion that there may be a certain genius that planned out this harmonious structure of life. This is a involved argument for atheists to refute, but then again, it still could have been chanceit still could have been that one in a billion trillion times that happened. With that in mind, a great secondary argument is Anselms Ontological Argument, a piece of reasoning I think both Nagel and Gaunilo breach to overcome. If it ever is overcome, I may begin to take steps crossways the bridge to the atheist way. serve CitedCahn, Steven M., Patricia Kutcher, George Sher, and Peter J. Markie, eds. Reason at Work Introductory Readings in Philosophy. 3rd Ed. Florence, KYThomson Learning, Inc., 1996.