Mind and cosmos is one long argument about why we need some sort of teleological principle to explain our reality. He definitely comes across as an ID proponen

Mind and cosmos is one long argument about why we need some sort of teleological principle to explain our reality. He definitely comes across as an ID proponent in that book. Maybe I missed something... For reference, here is an article Nagel wrote explaining the core of his book. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-cosmos/ https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of... "This means that the scientific outlook, if it aspires to a more complete understanding of nature, must expand to include theories capable of explaining the appearance in the universe of mental phenomena and the subjective points of view in which they occur – theories of a different type from any we have seen so far." That is totally ID in a nutshell. One may then go on to make theological inferences, or not, as Nagel does. In which case, perhaps he thinks the current paradigm of science as methodological naturalism is lacking. This is the same perspective that ID promotes. If correct, then Nagel and ID are on the side of science. At any rate, I propose the relationship between ID and religion is not quite as you believe it to be. Happy to discuss the topic further if you are interested.