Most Helpful Customer Reviews
45 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Christianity and evolution together at last., January 28, 2003
This review is from: Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution (Paperback)
Theologian John F. Haught gives brief answers to 101 questions about the relationship between the Christian God and evolution, in which he explores an unusual middle path between creationist opposition to science and materialistic interpretations of the evolutionary process. Haught's stance is that evolution, understood in even the most robust Darwinian sense, is exactly the process we would expect the Christian God to institute in order to create life. Die-hard creationists will not like this book at all, and materialists (like me) will find Haught's reasons for rejecting a materialistic interpretation of evolution completely unconvincing (though he is certainly right to point out that the data does not interpret itself), but those who believe in both God and evolution will find many new and stimulating lines of thought in this book. All in all, although I disagreed with Haught's stance, I appreciated watching such a deep thinker work through such a novel position.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A book for Inquiring Catholics, NOT for Dawkinsian Atheists!, May 20, 2008
This review is from: Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution (Paperback)
Apparently reviewer Haines doesn't know much about this series or its INTENDED audience. This is NOT a book of Christian Apologetics written to convince Atheistic Materialists of the existence of God (Haught's "Is Nature Enough?" is written more for that purpose, at least for showing the INADEQUACY of the "Scientism" of a Dawkins or a Dennett), so it shouldn't be judged as such.
THIS book is published as part of the "Responses to 101 Questions" series from Paulist Press, a well-known Catholic publishing house. As such, it is written for INTERESTED, INQUIRING, LAY CATHOLICS (though Protestants should like it too), and so, for example, "proving the existence of God" is irreverent to the nature or goal of the book. Reviewer Haines is apparently UNAWARE of the series, and so, for some completely wacky reason becomes obsessed with Haught "writing his own 'softball' questions." The book was written for practicing Christians who are not scientists and who are wondering about things like, "Will Studying Darwin turn my son or daughter into an atheist?" "Is Darwinian Evolution compatible with Christian faith?" "What's wrong with 'Creationism' and Intelligent Design theory, and why is 'Whiteheadian Theistic Evolution' a BETTER option?" "How can contemporary Christians understand divine action in a world full of (what appears to be) random events and horrible animal suffering?" And so on. To this end, I personally found ALL the questions to be just the sort that the INTENDED audience would want answered. (And in this context, by the way, "citing Church Fathers as authorities" is a PERFECTLY acceptable move, not "a bad start," as Haines suggests.)
Haines (and, for that matter, most of the so-called "new atheists")also seems COMPLETELY oblivious to the goals of MOST 20th and 21st century theology, namely to keep theology CURRENT by reflecting,adapting, and revising TRADITIONAL theology in light of insights from our CONTEMPORARY understanding of the world, as revealed by the biological, physical and social sciences. This is NOT, as Haines suggests, Haught "trying desperately to find God 'somewhere'," but simply a realization of the "historicist" nature of theology (Ancient and Classical theology was based on Ancient and Classical worldviews; Contemporary theology is based on CONTEMPORARY worldviews.) For Haught, Arthur Peacocke, David Griffin, John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour, Gordon Kaufman, Karl Peters, and others, this means developing a "Theology of Evolution," or an "Evolutionary Theology." Why keeping one's theology CURRENT should be thought of as an "act of desperation" is beyond me! Why practicing Catholics should think the vision of an ANTI-Religious, Atheistic Materialist biologist like Dawkins is BETTER than the "integrated" vision of a Science-loving Catholic Theologian like Haught is also beyond me!
Haines like to toss around the "S" word ("Supernaturalism"), but if reviewers like him ever BOTHERED to read any contemporary philosophy of religion (such as David Ray Griffin's "Re-enchantment Without Supernaturalism" -- note the title!), he would know that Haught's theology can IN NO WAY be considered "supernatural." In current Science and Theology dialogue circles, the term refers NOT to "ontology" (what "exists") but to "causation." A "supernatural" cause is one that "arbitrarily intervenes" in the world's "natural" causal processes. Since most forms of Theistic Evolution argue that God works THROUGH evolutionary processes, NOT over-against them, it's hard to consider these theologies causally "supernatural."
(The "ontological" question may be of "central" importance to Haines and Dawkins, but the ontological question RARELY comes up in these discussions, since, frankly, there is NO established science that studies WHETHER something exists "beyond" the universe, MUCH LESS what that "something" might be. Even the HIGHLY SPECULATIVE and much debated "Multiverse" or "Bubble Universe" theories cannot provide scientific "evidence" that there's nothing "outside of" or no higher-order reality that "envelopes" the universe/mulitverse. At THAT level, Theological explanation is EVERY BIT AS VALID as scientific speculation, and more so, since science really doesn't deal with ULTIMATE explanations in any community agreed-upon way). Thus, only those who are UNINFORMED about the CURRENT status of the discussion/debate would think that "believing in the existence of God" automatically makes one a "supernaturalist."
Finally, Haines (like other reviewers of Haught's other books) makes the mistake of suggesting that Haught "doesn't really know his science." He seems to be unaware that Haught is generally considered to be one of the "godfathers" of the Science and Religion dialogue for twenty-plus years, and has received ringing endorsements from world-class physicists like Paul Davies and George Ellis (who co-wrote one of the standard texts on the "Structure of Space-Time" with Stephen Hawking) and notable evolutionary theorists like Michael Ruse. I assume THOSE folks are better at accessing Haught's credentials than reviewers like Hanines is!
If one is going to write an intelligent review of a book, it might help to do a little homework first (like figuring out a book's INTENDED audience), and not just make a lot of assumptions based on one's pre-established agenda.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
26 of 73 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
The futility of fantasy, December 23, 2004
This review is from: Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution (Paperback)
There's no sadder sight than a man attempting to drive a square peg into a round hole. In this case, the hole is realism and the peg, the supernatural. Haught, who should know better, attempts to impart an outline of evolution by natural selection through self-dialog. His method is to place himself as a practicing Christian on the one side, and responding as a Christian historian of science on the other. He is thus able to ask himself a series of almost pertinent questions [he never really poses the most important one] and respond in an apparently knowing manner. The supernatural peg, however, cannot be driven into the aperture of reality. With all his good intentions and carefully crafted words, Haught fails address the real problem.
The questions are reasonable enough, and often heard. This assumed authenticity gives a patina of value to the book. His opening salvo sets the tone, asking why evolution is "such a religiously troubling idea". Haught's response is to simply negate that assertion with Augustine - change over time is possible. Citing "Church Fathers" as authorities isn't a promising start. He continues by examining "Darwin's Revolutionary Idea" [he doesn't concede Dennett's phrase until later in the book] as challenging traditional views. Traditional, in Haught's view, doesn't mean "absolute". That, of course, permits science, which Haught tries to admire through the book, to push his deity further away from human context. In effect, this book, starting with Darwin instead of Copernicus, traces the displacement of "the Creator" from up close and personal to increasingly remote and detached. Each question Haught poses is designed to drag the Desert Deity [just the one, please note] back into Nature's processes in some guise or another. Even if it's no more than a "sense" or "presence", the deity must be acknowledged at some level. It's hard to imagine a more contrived appeal to special pleading.
Haught wants to be considered an "authority" on natural selection by providing answers to his imaginary questioners. He cites Gould, E. O. Wilson and, of course, de Chardin. Even William Hamilton's shade is enlisted, to burnish Haught's certification. Richard Dawkins and his "philosophical supporter", Daniel C. Dennett are grudgingly acknowledged a role in expounding on "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" - where we finally arrive on page 77 - but are dismissed as "atheists". Dawkins, of course, becomes the bete noire of Haught's presentation. Not only is Dawkins more insightful on how evolution works, he asks the question Haught ignores - where is the evidence for the deity? Since Haught maintains evidence is irrelevant, we are left with him still pounding away at his supernatural peg.
In his struggle to convey his science credentials, Haught manages to answer most of his own questions wrongly. In his struggle to confound his adversaries, he manages to misquote - or selectively quote - each of them. His use of "buzzwords" as "scare flags" is constant, but intensifies when he perceives he's on weaker ground than usual. As the book [and the questions] progress, Haught becomes ever more frantic to assert his case. The deity is there, somewhere - it must be! All we have to do is figure out where. This is no roadmap either to understanding deities or natural selection. To cap the string of inadequacies, Haught offers a "Selected Reading" list. The hint is in the adjective.
[stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
|
