Customer Reviews

When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy: The Making of a Religious Naturalist

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(38)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Chet Raymo's newest book, When God Is Gone, Everything is Holy, follows in the tradition of reflective nature writers like Lewis Thomas and, more recently, Ursula Goodenough. Although repetitious in places, perhaps because at least some of the book reproduces previously published essays, the style is for the most part gracefully fluid and even in places poetic. Such skill is only to be expected from an author who quotes and clearly loves poets: Hopkins, Williams, Wordsworth, Whitman, Kazantzakis.

Raymo defends what he calls religious naturalism, and sometimes calls himself a Catholic agnostic. He long ago dropped the personal theism in which he was raised, but his life-long immersion in science has convinced him that nature is far greater than the human mind will ever encompass, and that the incredible beauty and complexity and mystery of the cosmos properly elicits from us responses of wonderment, reverence, gratitude, and celebration. The 100 trillion neuronal connections in the human brain; the genetically determined flight of a humming bird; the infinite spaces of a starry night that can exhilarate and terrify: these kind of phenomena, explored by science, rather than dusty and arcane tales of miracles, are the stuff of Raymo's religion.

Throughout the book runs a constant encouragement for us to cultivate simple awareness of the realness of things, an awareness of what poet Hopkins called the "inscape." In one of his most enigmatic and yet revelatory poems--one quoted by Raymo--William Carlos Williams reminds us of the basic truth that "so much depends" on our being able to really "see" the simple things of life like red wheel barrows glazed with rain water. An alert attentiveness is a good habit for the empirical scientist to cultivate, but it's also a human habit that re-connects us to the world. And as Raymo reminds us, "religion" means "re-connection."

A gentle, wise series of reflections. Recommended, especially as a cleansing alternative to the screechy atheist-theist wrangle currently going on.

Some of the material in the 13 chapters of When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy was adapted from essays that originally appeared in Notre Dame Magazine, and the 1st chapter is adapted from an essay that originally appeared in Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality (misspelled in Raymo's book as "Spritus"). When God Is Gone is a short book at 148 pages, but it is packed with pithy insights into what it means to apprehend the world in a way that reveals mystery and sacredness without supernaturalism.

While many readers of When God Is Gone will no doubt reject Raymo's rejection of supernaturalism, they may appreciate that Raymo's tone, unlike that of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, is neither condescending nor "militantly atheistic" (as Raymo describes Dawkins).

Is it possible to be religious (or spiritual) without believing in a personal creator God? Is it possible to be a "Catholic agnostic"? Is it possible to believe that no such things as immaterial souls exist and that "[w]e are, for better or worse, thinking meat" without losing the very humanity that enables one to experience life as sacred? And as Raymo asks, "If petitionary prayer is ineffectual, is there any sense in which an agnostic might pray?" I think Raymo shows that a worldview informed by science is perfectly compatible with a worldview that is imbued with a robust sense of holiness.

In his endorsement of When God Is Gone, professional skeptic Michael Shermer calls Raymo's book "remarkably thoughtful and balanced," and indeed it is. Raymo remarks that Dawkins and Harris "go at religion like B-movie slashers armed with Ockham's razor, and by the time they are finished there is not much left but the gory shreds of miracles and superstitions. ... Something is amiss with their militant, slash and burn atheism." Raymo manages to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Along the way, Raymo touches on the philosophical problems of free will vs. determinism and the mind-body problem, and he favorably cites Meera Nanda and her scholarly book Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India, the late Francis Crick, Catholic priest Thomas Berry, biologist Ursula Goodenough (author of the excellent Sacred Depths of Nature), E.O. Wilson (author of Consilience), the late philosopher Willard V.O. Quine, and Nikos Kazantzakis (author of Zorba the Greek and The Last Temptation of Christ). In the chapter on Ockham's razor (the principle that "entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity," or as Raymo says, we should not "look to miracles or the paranormal when a natural explanation will suffice"), Raymo unfavorably mentions Larry Dossey, (author of Healing Prayer), paranormal researcher Rupert Sheldrake, and Deepak Chopra, whose names he includes on a short list of "New Age gurus and peddlers of the paranormal."

In the aforementioned chapter, Raymo comments on each of the twelve reasons Dossey offers to explain why scientists reject what Dossey et al consider evidence for the healing power of prayer (and in this context Raymo specifically addresses "remote prayer-based healing" without denying that prayerful states of mind can have healing effects on the body). What Raymo says about Dossey's dozen reasons of why scientists are skeptical also applies generally, Raymo says, "to other New Age pseudosciences and to the claims of supernaturalistic religion." Dossey's list is reminiscent of comments I've heard by people who subscribe to beliefs in paranormal phenomena and who seem to think that science as it is commonly practiced today is basically scientism, scientism being a term of abuse that refers to the belief that science can answer all the questions that matter. I imagine that some of Raymo's comments on the items in Dossey's list will come in handy when I have such discussions in the future. (E.g., Dossey's 12th reason why scientists may not accept what Dossey at al consider evidence of remote prayer-based healing is that "Careers and financial investments are at stake." Raymo acknowledges that this is the case, but asks the reader to "bear in mind that it also applies to the Larry Dosseys and Deepak Chopras, and other purveyors of books and lectures advocating alternative healing therapies.")

Raymo's agnosticism reminds me of the agnosticism of Stephen Batchelor (author of Buddhism Without Beliefs). Both use the term "agnosticism" in the sense defined by originator of the term, Thomas Henry Huxley, to refer to a method rather than a creed, and to awareness of one's own ignorance. "In matters of the intellect," Raymo quotes Huxley, "do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated nor demonstrable."

When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy is a fine contribution to the ongoing discussion on the relation between science and religion. My only complaint is that the book lacks an index.

The first couple of chapters were slow-going for me, especially when he was discussing the works of artists, authors, and poets. I'm sure Gerard Manley Hopkins was talented and highly regarded but I just wasn't getting into it. The book later improves as he begins to describe how one can be an unbeliever yet deeply "religious". He beautifully expresses the awe, reverence, and humility he feels "in the face of a mystery that transcends empirical knowing...." (p 104). Unfortunately, he does this repetitively, quoting the same authors and using the same examples chapter after chapter. But he does drive home what it means to be a "religious naturalist" and its rich pedigree. In the end, I was left with a better understanding of religious naturalism, but what I missed was "why". Sure, now I can see that someone *could* be religious but not believe in god, but to what end? By Raymos' own account, although he stopped believing in god he still *felt* religious. It's as though he replaced one object of worship with something else (well, *everything* else). He rationalizes his position by stating that humans have an evolutionary need to "celebrate the unfathomable mystery of creation". But why cling to *any* part of our "tribal inheritance". Because we feel as though we need to? Whether our desire to be religious stems from early childhood indoctrination, evolution, or both, I say let's forsake the entirety of the "worship culture" of our forbears. Why? Because I think that there is an inherent danger in finding *anything* holy or sacred. History has shown that what people see as sacred they also see as immutable. This is antithetical to science. Science, its conclusions as well as the very method itself, is tentative and constantly open to refinement, alteration, even abandonment (should the data call for it). Things "holy" are not. Furthermore, using the language of praise distorts and confuses the study and appreciation of nature. Why appropriate this "god-language" when other terms are clearer? In religious naturalism, deep contemplation or "paying attention" becomes "prayer". But does it clarify or confuse? One can be deeply moved by the grandeur of the natural world but applying terms like "religious", "holy", and "prayer" to these emotions will only conflate them with the more traditional supernaturalism these terms normally refer to. In a time when religion is hijacking the language of science to gain credibility (see "intelligent design"), we should not only steer clear of ambiguous language to describe our naturalist position but, if anything, should redouble our efforts to distance ourselves from that language and use clear, unambiguous terminology. There is no reason to re-name the very valid emotions of awe and wonder with terms like "holy reverence" etc, and there may indeed be harm in it.

As a religious naturalist who grew up in a Southern Baptist church I often ponder how such a great change in one's worldview could come about. In his wonderful little book, When God Is Gone Everything Is Holy, The Making of a Religious Naturalist, Chet Raymo reflects on a similar change in his life, from a very religious Roman Catholic reared in the South to a religious naturalist who calls himself a "Catholic agnostic". His journey is remarkably similar to my own, even to the same names of those in our pantheons from which we have garnered much: poets Gerard Manley Hopkins and Mary Oliver, early Christian thinkers Pelagius and Meister Eckhart, scientists Charles Darwin and Ursula Goodenough. Common also is the urgency to make our experiences of the material world, of nature, consonant with our spiritual understandings.

Raymo traces his development as a religious naturalist in beautiful words that only an experienced and talented writer can muster. His sense of mystery found in the cosmos and his love of science allow him to confirm that it is okay to say, "I don't know." Yet this sense of mystery is what makes living worthwhile:

"The prayer of the heart is not garrulous. It listens in silence, expectant. If, as so many of the mystics said, the creation is the primary revelation, then it is when we listen to what is that we hear the voice of God."

This book is a must read by all who "hear the voice of God" in nature and are awed by what it tells.

Raymo deftly explores the metaphor of Isis Veiled as an expression of the modesty of truth, scientific humility, and the joy of attention, wonder, awe and celebration. Of course, "Isis Veiled" is a response to the kind of immodest "new age" belief found in the classic Isis Unveiled by H.P Blavatsky, and Raymo does devote a good number of pages to the mystified ideas so popular now in the alternative spiritualities of guides like Deepak Chopra and many others.

Yet, Raymo does explore and celebrate an alternative tradition to the conventional wisdom of Catholicism (and all belief systems) with a very engaging personal story detailing his evolution from early adulthood to the present, his eighth decade.

This book is a welcome respite from the strident (and quite stale) debate between religious and scientific fundamentalists, and Raymo succeeds quite well in identifying the personal sources of wisdom in both science and the religious "genes" we carry within ourselves.

Science is a gift, Raymo notes, one which celebrates the departure of God as the ubiquitous advent of grace.

NOTE: This book was published in cooperation with The Green Press Initiative, and I welcome that. GPI is an effort to encourage publishing which is sustainable, reducing negative impact on the biosphere.

The middle of the road rating on this book is not a reflection on the author, who is obviously an incredibly smart and thoughtful man and a very interesting writer, but on the fact that I am very obviously not the target audience for this book and am honestly not sure how this book would rate when compared to others written in a smiliar vein.

That said, this is the heaviest 150 page book I've ever opened. By page 24 my list of people and words to double check on included Gerard Manly Hopkins, Columbanas, John Scotus Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Mechthild of Magdeburg, Julian of Norwich, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Heraclitus, pantheism, panentheism, scotean sacramental Incarnation and Jansenism and I was overwhelmed by the depth to which Raymo has considered his religious and scientific beliefs. If you know any of these, or are that type of contemplative thinker, this might be the book for you.

In all fairness, although the book opened quite intimidatingly, by chapter four I was getting at least the gist of the author's point. Each chapter builds on those before it giving the book a cohesiveness however they also stand alone in a broad sense as each one brings to the front an aspect of the science vs. religion controversy that adds to the difficulties we have as humans, and biological creatures, in marrying the two. Raymo's point, overall, seems to be that he is willing to give both credence and to take the best of both to create a whole new world order of religious naturalism.

I have to say that to some extent, I think I am on board.

Just for arguments sake, I'd again like to share with you a bit of the writing style. This sentence occurs fairly late in the book (after I thought I'd figured out how to get through without a dictionary and Wikipedia by my side). It doesn't matter what the documents are but for clarity's sake Raymo is referring to Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists (yeah, I never heard of 'em either).

"The oppressive influence of these documents, together with the stultifying doctrine of papal infallibility promulgated in 1870, rendered serious discussion of the intrinsic conflict of science and Catholic faith-based cosmology mute throughout the twentieth century."

If you get this on the first read, this is DEFINITELY the book for you.

Also to Raymo's credit (and so that I don't sound like an utter and totally un-introspective idiot) When God is Gone Everything is Holy has had me thinking quite a bit and as a jumping off point for me, it will pave the way for further research into the ideas he has presented.

If you are at all interested in modern thinking about the dichotomies of our daily literal lives and our inner spiritual ones, give this book a look - just don't expect it to be light reading.

This astonishing book was at first a difficult read due to the authors style. Raymo's conversational style and sharp mind jump from idea to idea and classic work or author as well, so it took me a couple of chapters to adjust to his rhythm, but adjust I did. Also, the first few chapters are his foundation for the book, so they are filled with references and quotes as he lays out the history of Catholic belief and his journey through that faith.

However, with that aside, Raymo takes readers from the farthest reaches of the universe, past the spiral galaxy to the most intimate reaches of nature where we are cousins to a worm the size of this letter i. He sets forth a strong case, which may be frightening to some readers, for there being no soul, no self that goes on after death of the body, while at the same time making the reader comfortable with this knowledge because of the bounty, beauty, mystery, and awe of nature.

Raymo's writing reflects what is echoed in other new spiritual theologies, that we can be spiritual without being religious. We can have an agreement between science and religion. We can stop killing each other and our earth and start appreciating this complex work that "connect us all the way down". We can accept that god may be in our DNA, but is also in our culture. We can set aside the centuries old dogmas while retaining the comfortable rituals, and find grace everywhere.

Yes, an astonishing read for anyone...and you don't have to be Catholic - I'm not - to understand or see the broader connections.

It is unfortunate that Raymo's work, with its frank agnostic perspective, well may be the sort which some varieties of Christians will protest - possibly before reading it at all. The richness of wisdom and insight, and scope of references to science, philosophy, and literature, is a treasure.

As Raymo mentions from the beginning, the point of religion is to "celebrate the unfathomable mystery of creation." Surprisingly, this agnostic shows interpretative insight into such Christian concepts as the Incarnation which exceeds that of many orthodox theologians. This is not done as a "rant," or with condescension, as is true in all too many popular books written by those who went from orthodox Christianity to agnosticism. It should strike a special chord (definitely major - perhaps augmented) with those who are drawn to worship in some sense, but are confused or disheartened by negative religious ideas, such as the hell-fire Raymo mentions, or are disheartened by rigidity and narrowness in beliefs and practises.

Raymo's theme of knowledge and mystery makes for a very full concept of a sacramental universe. Many Christian saints (though Raymo's respect for all world religions is referenced) would agree that God cannot be known in essence, and that the limitations of our vision can create a god in our own image. Raymo is quite correct that there are cases (though this hardly is a universal disposition) where religious imagery can be idolatrous.

Besides his clear scientific abilities, Raymo demonstrates an outstanding aptitude for literary analysis - for example, in his treatment of metaphors in the works of Gerard Manley Hopkins. The scope of philosophical analysis, all well grounded in references to outstanding scholars, is excellent.

Though I am a theist and very Catholic in theology, I found this work to be rich and enlightening. It is relatively brief, and uses no terminology which anyone should find difficult to grasp, but the degree of wisdom and insight is outstanding.

Raymo is a good Catholic boy and physicist approaching the end of his life, a journey that has brought him toward an atheism that he prefers to call "Catholic agnostic." He is first and foremost a scientist, with a scientific worldview, but a scientist with an aesthetic view of the ineffability of nature.

In this book, he tries to put these pieces together. The book consists of a number of essays. For the most part, they would work as stand-alone essays, and I suspect many of them have appeared in other formats, including his science column in the Boston Globe. There is some progression of topics in the book as a whole, but it's more common for the essays not to build much on one another.

If you've seen my other reviews, you won't be surprised that the combination of theology and nature attracted me to the book. As a result, I was disappointed. Raymo thinks he exhibits an appreciation of nature, but I was not convinced of that. I was convinced that he believes in science, and that he thinks that a love of science is a love of nature. I'm not at all convinced of that. Indeed, I think Raymo's stepping away from nature in the service of science is linked to his stepping away from religion. Since I read him as moving away from both religion and nature toward science, a move that doesn't particularly interest me, the book never really grabbed me.

Though he labels himself a "Catholic agnostic," he doesn't reject the atheist label. Unfortunately, he does a poor job setting out what he means by this mix of labels, and how exactly they fit together with the holiness of nature promised in the title. To the extent that Raymo provides an alternative, as promised in the title, he relies on the 13th century friar Meister Eckhart - - divinity is unfathomable, and inseparable from nature, among other principles. Raymo defines it poorly but it seems both pantheist and existentialist. If you're looking for a more coherent atheist Christian, you'd be better off with the works of John Shelby Spong.

Many other reviewers have already provided the basic point of Raymo's book: he's a scientist-agnostic who still feels a sense of religious wonder when he looks at nature and the universe. As a writer, Raymo is excellent; as a sage of the profound, he is hit-and-miss. Is "Catholic agnosticism" possible? His answer is lukewarm: "If you ask me if a scientific agnostic can be a Roman Catholic, I would have to answer no-at least not as the Church presently defines itself...but there is a parallel tradition...that emphasizes God's immanence and creation-based spirituality." (p.5) And this ancient lineage has long been a source of controversy that Raymo does not so much attempt to resolve as to merely live within. So be it.

However, one of the most pleasant surprises in this book is its ability to enable access to the spiritual and religious sensibilities of those who may lean agnostic or even atheist but are turned off by the militant anti-religiousness of the recent battalion of 'New Atheist' books by Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. In this respect 'When God is Gone, Everything is Holy' has something significant to offer.