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. ( )