John F. Haught

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.… (more)

This was a hard book to read for several reasons. First of all, the concepts discussed are not introductory. Second, I didn't feel the author kept his reason for writing the book in as plain view as he could have; there were many times when I had to reread the back of the book to remind myself what the author's intent in writing this book was because it seemed like his beliefs flip-flopped between evolution and religion (creation). Third, I think this is the first book I've read where the physical set-up of it gave me a headache. I don't know if it was the color of the paper (less contrast with the black print), the font and font size chosen, or the (seemingly) narrower margins than most other books, but whatever it was, I could usually only read a section or two at a time before having to put the book down due to a headache forming.… (more)

I've read most of the books that Haught critiques and decided to read his rebuttal in the interest of fairness. I came away wondering if Haught had read any of them himself. The objections he raises to atheism are tired and easily-dismissed, and all of them are addressed in the books he's responding to.

When discussing his own views, Haught defines his terms in ways that are obviously self-serving. "Mainline theology" is a particular view of god that happens to match his view, and is supported by the writings of theologians that he happens to agree with. The god that atheists don't believe in is a creationist caricature, and the god he believes in is much more profound and abstract (and equally, if not more, unfalsifiable.) He never gives any concrete reasons why his conception of God is more accurate than the creationist one. At the same time, he claims that he's discussing a generic deity and not Christianity specifically. This isn't true (almost every theological scholar he mentions is Christian) but it allows him to talk about God in very abstract terms and avoid addressing the miraculous claims in the Bible.


In the second half of the book, Haught goes off on a really strange line of reasoning. He claims that God *cannot* be thought about in scientific terms... and then spends several more pages explaining why God *shouldn't* be thought of in this way, with specific examples that seem to refute his earlier claim that thinking about God in scientific terms is impossible. He also reveals reveals his poor understanding of science. At one point he comments that if religious belief really is a trait that evolved in humans, "there would be little reason to complain about it – as if evolution has never resulted in traits that were less than perfect (see: the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the blind spot in the human eye, vestigial organs, etc.)

I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. Atheists would only be bored with Haught's rehashing of arguments that they've probably seen dozens of times before, and theists should read something that honestly represents the arguments it's claiming to refute.… (more)

NCLA Review - John F. Haught, is a Roman Catholic theologian who has published several works on the interface between theology and science. He describes himself as an “evolutionary creationist” and sees science and religion as two different and noncompeting levels of explanation for the genesis of the universe. Haught is particularly troubled by the claims of such well-known current exponents of evolutionary theory such as Richard Dawkins, who insist that a belief in evolution is incompatible with a belief in God. Haught sets out to reconcile these viewpoints and does so thoughtfully in well-written prose. It is refreshing to read something on this topic that isn’t a polemic either from the fundamentalist Christian side or from the atheistic side. Recommended for congregations where there is an interest in this topic. Rating: 3 —RMF… (more)