[Cicero]

I can't agree with some of the speculation here, but some of the basic points are perfectly reasonable. Philosophical realism is very different from philosophical materialism. Materialism simply cannot account for all of the phenomena. Most obviously, it contradicts our own strong sense that we can think and can make free choices. But a purely materialist explanation of the universe has to say that such beliefs are illusory. We only think that we are thinking or that we have anything like a "self."

Simplistic nineteenth-century materialism already was breaking down under the findings of atomic science and physics in general. The old atomistic or billiard ball model no longer has any credibility.

Thomas Nagel, one of the country's most respected philosophers, has recently admitted that it's extremely difficult to find an basis for having rational discussion or rational philosophical discourse without bringing in religion--which he refuses to do. As Christians would say, without the Logos, there's no reason why the universe should be rational or why our logic should correspond to it in any way.

[betty boop]

As Christians would say, without the Logos, there's no reason why the universe should be rational or why our logic should correspond to it in any way.

That would seem to be the entire point, Cicero. At least to my way of thinking which -- God knows -- ain't "perfect."

So what do you suppose is Thomas Nagel's problem? WHY the self-censorship?