But this monist antimaterialism fails because it denies the subtle anatomy.Therefore the most convenable Weltenschaung is the panentheism, the onthological dualism.

There is not a definitive scientific answear to the question whether the elementary particle have a diameter or are punctiform (zero diameter). If they are not punctiform, the question about what is there inside the elementary particle is a question which makes sense, and there will be only 2 possibilities : 1)there is nothing inside the electron/foton/neutryno/etc ;2) there is something. The first possibility fails because the elementary particles have (material) properties and all properties of a thing (including the capability of changing some properties) are caused not uncaused and are caused from inside by the components of the respective thing.If the elementary particles have no structure (components), their properties would be uncaused . If something exists inside the elementary particles, that is they have a structure, their components must be immaterial because they are elementary partcile, which means they are not composed from other material particles.The algoritm would be like that:inside the electron/foton something does exist but in the same time the electron has no material components.Therefore the elementary particles have a subtle structure, have some immaterial components which cause the material properties of the elemetary particles.This subtle compnents, that could be similar to the strings from the string theory, have no material properties, have not inertia but they cause the inertia of the particle , the speed ,spin and all other material properties.
But this silogism would be valid only if the elementary particles have indeed a nonzero diammeter.However, a particle with zero diameter seems absurd to me because:1) The point , which is an infinitely small place (zero) does not exist in reality ;2) the elementary particles would be smaller than the Planck length.

This seems to be seriously questionable. Because we can come to true or false beliefs, no one can ever say a belief is true, does not seem to follow from these premises. Now, the article's point seems to be that the Catholic view is preferable. Does the writer really maintain that the Catholic formula will always lead to truth? Claiming that seems even more questionable.

For the record, Einstein believed in God,

Which God ?

Darwin’s reply, penned on 24 November 1880 – exactly 21 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species – was blunt:

Dear Sir,
I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.
Yours faithfully
Ch. Darwin

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/15/charles-darwin-letter-auction-religion-bible-creationism#comment-59586739

Materialism, in an alarming number of its manifestations, is not the pursuit of the belief that everything around us can be reduced to matter and energy, in their myriad forms. Rather, it is the manipulation of the truth under the facade of materialism as Mr. Lewandowski defines it. It is the camouflaged attack against values, and the true implications of this perversity can only be seen in its effects. However, the mechanism of manipulation can be very easily observed. If Materialism is really concerned with the pursuit of truth, why all the manipulations?

Materialism is the de facto religion of all too many otherwise rational people. Materialism has evolved (pardon requested) into something with every negative thing that organized religion can suffer from, and little, if anything, in the way of positive religious aspects. The Big Bang is Genesis without a God. But TBB violates known physics at its inception, and for a few hundred thousand years after inception. TBB is actually being challenged by the scientific community from whence it sprung, right now. [Shall we burn these heretics?] But we are supposed to accept its shortcomings on FAITH. Dark matter - the dog ate our homework. Dark energy - well, it sprang (if that's a word) from the Cosmological Constant, which Einstein rued. It is a derivation, in part, of dark energy. The whole thing is just a big mess, but you need to accept, on FAITH, that we will work it out in the end. Please pass the Funding, I'm hungry again. If you are a scientist and you rock this boat, your employment and career is severely threatened. Even Steven Hawking confessed to bludgeoning a fellow academician into submission and then finding out Hawking was wrong. While I don't have a lot of respect for Hawking's heavy plagiarization of "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", he does show a disarming honesty on occasion.

Side Rant: Einstein NEVER posited that gravitons exist (matter bends the fabric of space, dummy) and yet EGO LIGO VIRGO test for their existence. Why can't we just measure the effects of the sun and moon - hey, maybe ask a fisherman - instead of reaching out billions and billions of Sagan miles for gravitons? And why build earth-based laboratories, subject to unpredictable interferences (pun intended). I wonder how many people know that Caltech celebrated a LACK of detection of expected events? What gonads! We make fun of people who predict the end of the world when it doesn't happen. Why am I picking on LIGO? Because it was faith-based, and it all the rage to pick on faith-based enterprises, n'est-ce pas? But mostly because no part of it was concerned with useful, accountable, practical application of [ideal] Materialism/Science. It was a brilliant financial sham. Or perhaps it was just ego, brazenly indicated by one of the project acronyms. Yeah, I'm jealous. I wish I could get other people to fund my hobbies and then give them nothing in return.

String Theory was dismissed because it lacked political clout. Intelligent Design was condemned as pseudo science by those whose very fundamentals do not employ science in any kind of pure form. Biologists whom have devoted their entire careers to making fruit-flies mutate have thrown in the towel, but you would never hear that from the Evolvers. But here's my favorite: the Universe created itself, anti-matter and anti-energy winking in and out of existence like fireflies on a warm summer evening. Only...Who started the universes and anti-universes? Well, no one, actually. There is no chicken and egg question to answer, because we don't feel up to the math. And occasionally, we hear a quiet little scientist admit that we can never know what is actually happening because it is hidden away in dark this dark that or other, inaccessible, dimensions. How convenient. Keep the faith, baby!

Philosophical Materialism begat Financial Materialism, and we are living, day by day, with the grotesque display of Science masquerading as the discovery of truth. Our food is unhealthy, our societies crumble before multi-national corporate goals, our planet is dying. I don't actually believe we have caused global warming or whatever it's called this week. But our rain forests are decimated and our seas are over fished. While Americans pretend not to understand that our consumer goods are produced by slave labor, we do understand that the factories are gone. This is Materialism.

Darwin never directly stated that men are just animals, because he was afraid of the implications and the blame he would have to shoulder. [Incidentally, he did not come up with Evolutionary Theory - it was his grandfather - really!!!] But we live in his shadow. We no longer have the child-labor so common in his dear England. Instead, the wealthiest of nations kill their unborn and euthanize their elderly - one can only wonder if THIS is the true price of materialism - to kill when it is not even required to survive.

Yes, I am a Luddite. And no, all science is not bad science. Pythagoras worked out acoustic theory without an oscilloscope and buildings don't fall over because of him. Without unselfish pioneers we wouldn't have the internet and I couldn't subject innocent people to my opinion. And my computer can play articulations of a viola recorded by Austrian virtuosi while I fumble at a keyboard which communicates in base 16 language with my binary workhorse.

For the record, Einstein believed in God, and any negative inferences you may conclude about him from my remarks are a shortcoming in my communication skills.

"someone will one day have to deal with his critique."

Not really. Scientists will just keep going the direction they're going an Nagel will fade away.

Let's try it.

https://strangenotions.com/irreconcilable-differences-the-divorce-of-materialism-and-truth/#comment-1980787811

Yes, that's the one. And thank you for the info.

Why can we attest that logic is an absolute truth instead of just an evident truth?

We can't. It seems to us that logic is absolutely true, but that is only because it is apparently true. Some future, much more advanced civilization may demonstrate that we are doing logic all wrong, or looking at the nature of truth all wrong. We cannot know ahead of time that this won't happen, so we cannot know that ANYTHING is absolute truth. There is so much absolute truth inside the human mind. We always lose at least a part of the truth when we simply reality to put it in terms we can understand. If you respect Paul, believe him, not me, 1 Corinthians 13:

8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly,[b] but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Christianity made a HUGE mistake when it began to believe it was peddling absolute truth. This idea is the sin of pride, nothing more, nothing less. Only God has absolute truth, it was never for man.