We have thought about thinking (Barrett), heard from a fellow (Harris) who thinks all religion (all) is a crock (he would say it better, but I think that's a good one-word summary), and now comes a Georgetown professor, and a Catholic at that: John Haught. Barrett and Harris both have got us thinking about just what this religious impulse in humankind is, and how our brains seem to deal with it. Harris raised many valid objections to the atrocities of religion, and made us liberals wonder about our role in the ongoing horrors committed in God's name. But what he proposes to replace religion -- where pure reason is the arbiter of ethics, and transcendental/spiritual experience can be had, if we only knew enough, by following a manual -- to me seemed inadequate, and unsatisfying. Not all of you agree with me, of course! But let's keep him in mind as we continue the journey.
Haught, in his book Is Nature Enough? takes aim at “scientific naturalism” which he defines as the belief (there’s that favorite word of ours!) that nature is all there is, and that science alone can make sense of it. By “nature” he means matter – what can be seen, touched, measured, experienced by the physical senses. The scientific naturalist denies that any realities exist distinct from the natural world.
Harris, if I understand him, called these folks “physicalists.” You will remember that Harris didn’t agree with them either.
Haught will argue that there is no good reason to believe that nature is all there is. Throughout the book he will seek to show logical inconsistencies on the part of people who limit reality to the physical world, and he will call them to explain human experience strictly within the natural world. Scientific naturalism, he will say, cannot be justified experientially, logically, or scientifically.
The two large questions he wants to raise are: Is nature all there is? And, if nature IS all there is, is there any point to the universe?
Chapter I. Is Nature Enough?
Carl Sagan is one of these scientific naturalists who say that the universe is the only reality, and therefore belief in God a fictitious distraction. Richared Dawkins is mentioned as well. Sagan and Dawkins argue that the world as we experience it came about through natural evolution, and a lot of time - “deep cosmic time.”
In Haught’s view, there are varying shades, flavors, (my word) of Scientific Naturalism:
Hard - there is empirical reality only, with no room for ambiguity, spirit. It’s matter, stupid, and that's all.
Soft - a less rigid understanding, but still nature is all that is real.
Religious Naturalism: These folk use some religious language like "sacred" and "mystery" in reference to nature as deserving reverence, but in the end nature is all for them too.
Haught lists what he understands to be the major tenets of naturalism in the subsection "Is Naturalism Spiritually Adequate? These are important to grasp, as these are what Haught is going to argue to be unreasonable.
Further, there are "Sunny" naturalists who find meaning simply in being part of nature - discovering, beauty, evolutionary advancement. And then there are the "Sober" ones who are not so pleasant – Albert Camus is the candidate here. Haught thinks that these, as depressing as they are, are the most honest of the naturalists.
Haught then advances his view of what he calls “layered reality,” intermediary explanations that are not complete, but are nevertheless true, using an illustration, or analogy of a wood fire. "Reasonable theology" - “progressive” is the term I have been using - allows for layered reality, while Fundamentalism be it religious or scientific does not.
2. Religion
Here Haught gives us a definition of religion, saying that it's not so much knowing as being known, not grasping but being grasped. Surrender, worship, prayer, frustration – this is the religious experience. This should raise some interesting questions for us as we through this year struggle to define just what OUR religion, our faith is all about. Religion as Haught uses our word is "a conscious appreciation of and response to the mystery that grounds, embraces and transcends both nature and ourselves.”
An important concept of Haught’s mentioned in this section is the word “anticipation.” This is related to the religious word, “hope.” He will argue that “anticipation” is an important clue to what is “beyond nature.” Naturalists, he will argue, need to be able to explain on purely scientific terms where and how that sense of anticipation rises in us. And they need to explain as well how we have a sense of morality. Naturalists, he says, demand “evidence” but they will accept only “scientific” evidence. They don’t demand that God be made visible, but that at least there be some “visible and unambiguous tracks of divine reality in the natural world.”
“Critical intelligence” cannot be fully accounted for by nature alone. The “mind” (Barrett’s discussion come to mind here) for the naturalist to be consistent must be accounted for by our mind, by thought, by reason. And this, says Haught, is the challenge that the naturalists have not met. “Critical intelligence” is the first of nine “natural phenomena” Haught will challenge the naturalist to explain on purely scientific terms. He thinks they can’t do it. And so, he thinks, these are acceptable pieces of “evidence” for the reality of the spiritual realm, and ultimately, of God.
Chapter two concludes with Haught giving us the outline of his religious beliefs – a God who is not above, but in; distinct from nature, but deeply involved with it; a God who makes and keeps promises, who calls us into a new and unprecedented future.
3. Intelligence
In some ways we return here to our original topic of how our brains/minds work as Haught talks about “three distinct acts of cognition: experience, understanding, judgment.” Humans, he says, instinctively, naturally, compulsively think in three steps: be attentive (experience the world), be intelligent (understand the world), and be critical (make a judgment about the world). Notice, inquire, judge. The fourth – be responsible by making a decision – comes up under his discussion of morality.
We necessarily go through these steps, seeking what is real, what is true. The steps can be corrupted, side-tracked into accepting as “true” something that is not. But the impulse to find what is real, what is true in its most pure form, he says, is what makes us human.
“Truth” is “the object or goal of the pure desire to know.” And knowing the truth requires courage – on the part of non-believers and believers alike. Courage to come to a truth that contradicts previous conclusions. Truth is not what we prefer, or hope to be true; nor is it what serves a purpose.
Then Haught talks about five “fields of meaning” – types of knowing that critical intelligence may/must traverse in its search for the truth: Affectivity (feeling, emotion), Intersubjectivity (personal relationships), narrativity (story telling, myth, sacred tradition), beauty (aesthetic) and lastly, theory. The first four are “primal” means of accessing the truth – these have been the primary religious paths), and the fourth, theory, has been the path of the scientific method.
Haught’s main argument against scientific naturalism is that it elevates theory over, and in fact denies any validity of, the first four, primal paths. By doing so it arbitrarily rules out a vast realm of true knowing, valid experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment