Not really. However in his article he discusses Alvin Plantinga’s Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science Religion, and Naturalism. His take is candid and he admits that Plantinga’s “comprehensive stand is a valuable contribution to this debate.” A humble admission from an academic of his ranking.
Nagel ends the article with:
I say this as someone who cannot imagine believing what he believes. But even those who cannot accept the theist alternative should admit that Plantinga’s criticisms of naturalism are directed at the deepest problem with that view—how it can account for the appearance, through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry, of conscious beings like ourselves, capable of discovering those laws and understanding the universe that they govern. Defenders of naturalism have not ignored this problem, but I believe that so far, even with the aid of evolutionary theory, they have not proposed a credible solution. Perhaps theism and materialist naturalism are not the only alternatives.
Ah ha thee “false dilemma” argument. I’m completely sure that Nagel understands that proving a false dilemma requires that one demonstrate there is a third option. Read the article its worth the read.