Is Nature Enough?: Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science

by John F. Haught

Is nature all there is? John Haught examines this question and in doing so addresses a fundamental issue in the dialogue of science with religion. The belief that nature is all there is and that no overall purpose exists in the universe is known broadly as 'naturalism'. Naturalism, in this context, denies the existence of any realities distinct from the natural world and human culture. Since the rise of science in the modern world has had so much influence on naturalism's intellectual acceptance, the author focuses on 'scientific' naturalism and the way in which its defenders are now attempting to put a distance between contemporary thought and humanity's religious traditions. Haught seeks to provide a reasonable, scientifically informed alternative to naturalism. His approach will provide the basis for lively discussion among students, scholars, scientists, theologians and intellectually curious people in general.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Science, School

232 pages, Paperback

First published May 22, 2006

About the author

John F. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian, specializing with systematic theology. He has special interests in science, cosmology, ecology, and reconciling evolution and religion.

Haught graduated from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore,, and he received a PhD in Theology from The Catholic University of America in 1970.

Haught received the 2002 Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion, the 2004 Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and, in 2009, the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of Leuven.

He is Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. There, he established the Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion and was the chair of Georgetown's theology department between 1990 and 1995.

Reviews

[Erwin Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

John F. Haught’s Is Nature Enough? is an attack on the beliefs that nature is all there is. This is the belief of “naturalism.” But the writer arguments were aimed mainly at the scientific world where some were atheists. Haught failed to address the broad sweep of naturalistic beliefs that ranged from atheism to God’s immanence in nature (pantheists) to that of transcendentalists. The book would have been more meaningful if he had covered all bases instead of concentrating on scientific and evolutionary naturalism.
Another aspect of this text that was lacking was the writer’s argument about truth in what he defined as “critical intelligence,” being the key in interpreting life and nature. But it appeared that what Haught was really talking about was an individual’s belief system. One could easily ask the question, “Is there truth in subjective thought?” It seems there could only be an individual’s belief. Much of the author’s discussion was spent on rebuking the empirical and scientific research which he saw as lacking if people were to know the truth. Yet, the same argument could be made about theology and subjectivity. Haught had faith in a theological approach to answer more controversial beliefs like life after death, and salvation. He felt that religion had the answers, but not scientific naturalism.
Undoubtedly the concepts of conscience, good, and bad deeds could never be answered with any certainty by theology or science. This is just the way life is. Not all questions believers have to be able to answer. It should be mentioned that both science and theology still know little in this abundance of puzzling arena about life and the naturalistic world. Some things are the way they are. People have to be wise to accept that that’s the way of life. Knowing the true answers of some of the more critical questions about life would continue to be beyond the grasp of theology and science.

[Roger Neyman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Haught lays out the case for seeing meaning and story as fundamental to formulating a successful framework which embraces both modern science and theological thinking. He clearly shows up the shortcomings of lines of thought that see these two wings on which the human spirit can soar as incompatible.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book's topic is certainly timely, in light of the ongoing challenge presented to the religious world by the "new atheists" and others, on one hand, and the religious naturalists on the other.

Haught points out that whenever someone who espouses a strongly empiricist, scientific naturalist point of view nonetheless implicitly accepts several fundamental precepts, among them: (a) the desirability of pursuing truth, at almost all costs; (b) the importance of honesty and integrity in the research of truth; and (c) a reverence for the natural world and the truth that we have been privileged to discover. Even setting aside all "theology" and other conventional religious views, these values themselves are coincident with the values that many deeply religious persons pursue.

My principal objection to this book is that it seems long-winded and repetitive. It is almost as if John Haught, a distinguished scholar of science and religion, after a series of very well-received books, has run out of new and original thoughts. So in this book one reads the same ideas, repeated and elaborated on over and over. It could have been significantly condensed without eliminating any much substance. I wish he would have.

[james spellman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is nature enough

Interesting viewpoints on the philosophy of understanding reality. Not compelling however. Neither naturalism nor theology has the answer,so, we are really no closer to grasping or being grasped by truth.