Is Nature Enough? : meaning and truth in the age of science

by John F. Haught

Paperback, 2006

Status

Available

Publication

Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Description

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.… (more)

User reviews

LibraryThing member erwinkennythomas
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
Show More
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.
Show Less

Language

Barcode

1838
Page: 0.4312 seconds