Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education

Argues that the ideas of naturalism dominate modern intellectual life while theism is often considered irrational, and discusses how these ideas affect current controversies in ethics and public policy

Johnson (Darwin on Trial) fires a major salvo in the culture wars with this sweeping critique of the reigning materialist philosophy. According to this UC Berkeley law professor, "naturalism"?the belief that all of reality can ultimately be explained in purely physical terms and that God is merely a projection of human desires?dominates our universities, public schools, sciences and professions. Yet most Americans, he maintains, are?like him?theists, Christian or otherwise, and believe in a supernatural God who created humanity for a purpose. Not always convincingly, he links naturalist assumptions to the pro-choice position on abortion, to Marxism, to popular culture's self-indulgent hedonism, to the ethical relativism of philosopher Richard Rorty and to judicial decisions to ban from schools the teaching of religious viewpoints. Doing battle with evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking and other scientists, Johnson calls for a scientifically informed theology to study the interaction of God and the supernatural with the whole of creation. $30,000 ad/promo; Conservative Book Club main selection; author tour.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Johnson (Darwin on Trial, LJ 4/1/91) takes on naturalism, the belief that the material universe is "all there is." Since this is the basic position of all sciences, it has largely become the accepted philosophy of our whole culture. Johnson asserts that naturalism is an unproved metaphysical assumption, presupposed rather than proved by science. As such, it is essentially a religious position. He feels, therefore, that theism should be allowed a respected place in the debate about the nature of reality, since the conclusion will have far-reaching social consequences. A meaningless naturalistic universe differs profoundly from a purposeful, created universe in its implications for law, education, and almost everything else. Johnson does not preach; he reasons effectively and writes clearly. His argument is well worth taking seriously. A well-written book on a difficult subject; recommended for academic and public libraries.?C. Robert Nixon, MLS, Lafayette, Ind.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Legal scholar Johnson is a most congenial member of a reputedly dour, censorious band--the staunch Christian critics of Darwinian evolutionary theory. That theory in its contemporary version Johnson sees as utterly excluding any divine creative act, not only from consideration as a truth claim, but also from toleration by the scientific, legal, and educational establishments. Here he rehearses and updates the argument against neo-Darwinian theory that he made in Darwin on Trial (1991) and then critiques the methodological naturalism that characterizes modern science and its influence. He sees naturalism--the contention that random natural processes account for things as they are--as having overstepped its bounds, giving rise to relativism in morals and an absolutism in science, law, and academe and denying religiously informed thought a voice in intellectual discourse from the elementary school on up. There are plenty of critics of "Godless science," but few are more intelligent (or better writers) than Johnson, none more generous and gentlemanly in acknowledging their opponents' strengths. Ray Olson