Nagel: (1) A creationist explanation of the existence of life is the biological analogue of dualism in the philosophy of mind. It pushes teleology outside the natural order, into the intentions of the creator — working with completely directionless materials whose properties nevertheless underlie both the mental and the physical.... (2) My preference for an immanent, natural explanation is congruent with my atheism. (3)But even a theist who believes God is ultimately responsible for the appearance of conscious life could maintain that this happens as part of the natural order that is created by God, but that it doesn’t require further divine intervention.
Spirited: The meaning of the three positions briefly outlined by Nagel:
1. Jesus Christ, the “angel” who spoke with Moses at Sinai, is the Creator. Foremost of His miracles is creation out of nothing – six acts or days of creation rather than the billions of years of evolutionary alchemical process out of matter:
“The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.” (Philosopher and New Testament scholar William Lane Craig quoted in “If God created the universe, then who created God?’ by Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International)
With Irenaeus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was well established. He also argued that the world (matter) was not coeternal with God:
“But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what [things] have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning... He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord; but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator.” (”Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination Of Gerhard May’s Proposal,” Paul Copan, Trinity Journal 17.1; Spring 1996)
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 affirms creation ex nihilo:
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God ... the Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal; who from the very beginning of time by His omnipotent power created out of nothing [de nihilo condidit] both the spiritual beings and the corporeal.” (ibid, Copan)
On creation ex nihilo, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) asserts:
“It pleased God ... in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein” (IV.I; ibid)
2. Nagel’s preference: immanent, natural explanation
Underlying Nagel’s immanent naturalistic stance is metaphysical nihilism-— not ancient Greek atomism but rather the quasi-Buddhist stance, the ‘everything and nothingness’ position adopted by Teilhard.
In its contemporary forms metaphysical nihilism is called evolutionary materialism by physicalist Darwinists and spiritual science by Theosophists, occult New Agers, and other forms of Eastern mysticism. While the former embraces a variation of Darwinism the latter prefers immanent spiritual conceptions such as Teilhard’s idea which leapfrogs off of Darwin’s theory.
The apostate French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) taught that an impersonal God-force emerges from spontaneously generated matter. According to him, this evolution of God from the world or universe results in evolution becoming “conscious of itself” and ultimately, in the transformation of all matter into “Christ consciousness” or “pure spirit.” This is the meaning of immanent. Teilhard called this final stage the “Omega Point” or “the cosmic Christ.”
3. Nagel’s third position is evolutionary theism. Here matter is co-eternal with a God who is not only limited but responsible for death, since life had to incarnate and die within millions of different life forms over vast periods of time. This God is not a God of salvation but a Gnostic deity of death, suffering, and unspeakable cruelty.
Indeed. As Nagel writes, "A naturalistic teleology would mean that organizational and developmental principles of this kind are an irreducible part of the natural order, and not the result of intentional or purposive influence by anyone."
But this begs the question. I can agree that organizational and developmental principles are an irreducible part of the natural order. But where did this natural order come from? Did it spring forth "fully formed from the brow of Zeus," as Athena, goddess of reason, did in the Greek myth?
Zeus was an intracosmic god, not a transcendent one. He, like man, is a created being, though unlike man, he is immortal.
I'd say that Nagel is avoiding the real problem of origin. If he insists that the ordering principles of the universe stem from an "immanent" source, this is tantamount to saying that the universe is sui generis: It made itself, including all the ordering principles that govern it. Yet if it had a beginning, it had to be a beginning from "nothing." Pretty good trick! But to me, this is senseless — it tells me nothing about the origin and (emergent or evolutionary) destination of the universe. It is an unanalyzed, "just so" story.
The atheist position requires him to deny transcendence. Which definitely limits his options as a thinker. (Which is why I said in an earlier post that "Nagel is an honest man — as honest as a man who rejects God out-of-hand can be.")
Moreover, he rejects, it seems, any form of dualism, advancing instead a hypothesis of non-material, yet still "natural" monism.
And yet, I do believe the following is Truth:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: — Romans 1:20One statement of his that I found particularly troubling was his attribution to all "theists" (he never says "Christians," but this is likely who he is talking about) of the belief that "God is responsible for everything." In a key sense this is true: God made the world and everything in it for His purpose, and gave it its order so that His purpose ultimately will be achieved. Alpha to Omega; First to Final Cause.
But if God is responsible for everything, then He can be blamed for all the evil in the world. My late father "blamed God" for World War II to his dying day. Perhaps Nagel "blames God" for the Holocaust. Hence the reasoning might go: since God is the "father of evil," then He cannot be trusted. So just reject Him. The necessity of naturalistic answers then comes to the fore with full force.
But this overlooks the fact (to me it is a fact) that God created man in His image, as possessing reason and free will. The point of entry for evil in this world is to be found in man himself, and only in man — specifically in the man who exercises his free will to deny God and His Logos. God gives man choice, and freedom to act on his choice. If he chooses that which is evil, ought we to blame God for this?
I think not. For if man had no freedom of choice and action, this would mean that God has completely determined every and all aspects of His Creation, including man. And then we really do have a "clockwork universe." To me, this is senseless: because the world that I exist in and observe is simply not that way.
Dear spirited irish, sister in Christ, thank you ever so much for your illuminating essay/post. Outstanding.