Nature is Enough: Religious Naturalism and the Meaning of Life

I do wish that I had not spent my time on this book. I wish that I had known that Loyal Rue is a philosophy professor and that the reason for the book was to answer, with philosophical argument, a theist named John Haught. I wish I had known that the entire book would be a case in philosophical argumentation--which I really do dislike. I had the hope that the book would help bring me closer to nature in new, meaningful ways. Instead, it forced me to consider that nature might actually *not* be enough. Which is depressing, yes?I don't have time to cover my disappointments here, so I'll just touch on one. I'm an atheist and a devoted "naturalist." But I'm also a biologist. He says, "...the working definition of function in biology is explicitly teleological: a function is what a trait...is *supposed to do*. (Italics are the author's). " And, "...the teleological language remains: functional traits are there because in the past they served the *goal* of reproductive fitness. Natural selection provides powerful tools for explaining specific modifications in living systems, but it doesn't offer a complete explanation for the origin of life. Evolutionary theory *assumes* the teleological nature of living systems."Evolutionary theory does no such thing. Living things are here today because their ancestors managed to reproduce. There is no "goal" of fitness. Neither is a heart "supposed" to function as a heart--it just does. There is no "teleological nature of living systems." We have the ability to feel discomfort and comfort, acquired through evolution. We flee discomfort and seek comfort. Not because there is some "goal" or "tele" but because that's how we evolved. Hunger hurts and eating feels good, so you know we're going to eat when we're hungry. We don't walk in lava. Not because we have a "tele" to survive, reproduce and so on, but because all the people who have walked in lava because they were too stupid, couldn't feel heat, had poor reflexes or lacked appropriate caution and/or fear have died.His claim that naturalism will fill our social needs is unsatisfying as well. In today's world it is just not realistic.Most of his thoughts about nature and "God" are ones I have already had. The difference is that by reading this book I was treated to the thought processes of a philosopher. Which frankly I didn't have time for.

Very good book. Very deep insight and it's resfreshing to know I am not the only one who feels like this and/or trying to dig deeper. Just a little tough if you are a novist at philosophy.

Heavy on philosophy and in-depth parsing of subtle differences in ideas.

The book was really detailed in explaining an atheist viewpoint. A must read for naturalist and all persons seeking to extend their knowledge on religion.

Amazing and well crafted! Rue's grasp of the discourse about reality over the past 2500 years is beautiful and compelling.

I LUV Loyal Rue...and so too will any devoutly reverent godless naturalists and secular humanists who find (or seek to find) nature to be emotionally moving/fulfilling.

ethics derived from evolution, done thoughtfuly

Very illuminating book; methodologically clear and conceptually interesting!

This book is a gem. The religious or spiritual naturalist position has never been more clearly explained. Rue convincingly dispatches many of the typical objections to both the religious and naturalist aspects of the religious naturalist worldview. Taking the complete story of the emergence of life and consciousness exposed by relatively recent scientific enquiry as a basis the author weaves a coherent religious perspective. This book has the potential to make a significant contribution toward a better understanding of ourselves and our world. Because of this it also has the potential to foster a more compassionate attitude towards each other and a more respectful approach to the world we live in.