Thomas Nagel's Atheism

Thomas Nagel defends his atheism by arguing that a universe in which god exists is one that he would not find agreeable. In this paper I will argue that Nagel is right in his observation, a universe in which god is a constant presence limits free will and restricts the complexity of moral philosophy. God, in the case of this essay, is the creator of all things comprehensible to human understanding, therefore this supernatural being is all knowing, just and can do no wrong. The problem with this common religious understanding of god is the limitations that it places upon the free will of all natural beings. Free will, as Mill would describe it, is the ability to choose and actively participate in the formation of one’s own capabilities and …show more content…
Famous Persian poet and philosopher Umar khayam described determinism, in the context of theology, as the predetermined way in which god has created the order of the world with his infinite wisdom. The concept of determinism, though comforting in the way in which it eliminates repressibility or blame from human conscience, is a threat to how we come to understand our place on the earth. Determinism makes the assumption that humans have no real control over the happenings of their life. Therefore, future events or the eventual outcome of a person’s life would not be altered by the choices they make. A person is robbed of dignity, and her life is robbed of meaning and significance, if she is merely a puppet in the creator’s predetermined plan. This makes the existence of all living things, although necessary, virtually meaningless in the grand scheme of things. These conditions formulate an undesirable understanding of the inner workings of the universe. In my opinion this is what Nagel is referring to when he claims that he would not want there to be a God. Because in a world predetermined by the wisdom of the creator there is no meaning attached to human life and there is no dignity attached to each person. Dignity also has to do with a person’s ability to dictate right from …show more content…
He not only believes that there is no god, but he also believes that there should not be a god. I agree with him because this understanding gives more complexity and dignity to the thought process of each human being. Each person is intelligent, and each person is in charge of her life. Each human being has the ability to reason through complicated private or public issues and does not need god to limit her free will or understanding of ethical issues. But just because humans can exist with more complexity if God is taken out of the equation, that does not mean that the world, in its current state, does not need a God like figure to believe in. If we look at God not as the creator or a perfect higher being but as a practical tool to deal with suffering, then we can find a place on earth for him. As Ludwig Feuerbach would argue, humans need a compassionate God in order to deal with the amount of suffering they are subjected to. Naigal, of course, might not agree with my conclusion because most atheist philosophers would not see god as a rational way to approach pain and agony. But if both the godless universe and the godly universe are overrun with suffering. Furthermore if we consider the godless world to be constantly overwhelmed by ethical inquiry, as established before, then the best scenario would be to live in an atheist world but to believe in an imaginary god. This phenomena can only be described