Nagel : A Philosophical Philosopher

1227 Words5 Pages
Nagel is a profound philosopher, who defends a customary view of science a way to gain knowledge of the world. In the argument, Nagel makes it clear that there is good reason to believe that God doesn’t exist, however, he does make it clear that his views make fall along the lines of Buddhism. Nagel claims that he his questioning the theological proposition to believe in God. Nagel has given two points in proving that God does not exist. The first point goes along the lines that of that God exist, however, they don’t have a good reason to believe in God but they also have no good reason to not believe in God. Or we cannot truly understand the concept of God exist because according to Nagel its nonsense- although, we understand it as an expression of human ideals. Nagel states those who try to prove if an idea is meaningless and says its meaningless to say that God exists have too strict of a definition of meaningfulness, which even many scientific theories would not satisfy (87). We have seen two of three arguments that Nagel has presented. The three arguments are known as the cosmological, ontological and teleological. The cosmological argument could be presented with a question, what causes the world to come into existence? Majority of the time it is assumed that the world or universe couldn’t have created itself and/or the world couldn’t exist forever. The assumption following this is that god created the world, but then who created God? The answer is God is self-caused. However, then the question comes up as- if God is self-caused, why couldn’t the universe be self-caused? The second argument is known as the ontological argument. The argument states that God is perfect, but an object is more perfect if it exists than it not... ... middle of paper ... ... that does not teach us lessons, for example, a two year old dying from cancer or a hurricane destroying homes and lives; showing compassion can be praiseworthy. It may be argue, well supported by the evidence of post-Holocaust genocides, that mankind has not taken this lesson to heart. God’s goal is to create moral individuals and he allows evil to teach us moral lessons that we are supposed to learn from. Suffering and evil are not necessary conditions for moral development. We can learn morality without being subjected to evil. Likewise, purposely exposing one to evil in order to teach them a lesson seems outrageous. Another important problem with this theodicy is that it makes an image out of suffering. If morality depends on the existence of suffering, then if there was no suffering, then suffering would be solely around to have morality or teach a moral lesson.

More about Nagel : A Philosophical Philosopher

Open Document