What do you think?
The New Cosmic Story: Inside Our Awakening Universe
A foremost thinker on science and religion argues that an adequate understanding of cosmic history requires attention to the emergence of interiority, including religious aspiration
Over the past two centuries scientific advances have made it clear that the universe is a story still unfolding. In this thought-provoking book, John F. Haught considers the deeper implications of this discovery. He contends that many others who have written books on life and the universe—including Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins—have overlooked a crucial aspect of cosmic the drama of life’s awakening to interiority and religious awareness. Science may illuminate the outside story of the universe, but a full telling of the cosmic story cannot ignore the inside development that interiority represents.
Haught addresses two primary what does the arrival of religion tell us about the universe, and what does our understanding of the cosmos as an unfinished drama tell us about religion? The history of religion may be ambiguous and sometimes even barbarous, he asserts, but its role in the story of cosmic emergence and awakening must be taken into account.
Over the past two centuries scientific advances have made it clear that the universe is a story still unfolding. In this thought-provoking book, John F. Haught considers the deeper implications of this discovery. He contends that many others who have written books on life and the universe—including Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins—have overlooked a crucial aspect of cosmic the drama of life’s awakening to interiority and religious awareness. Science may illuminate the outside story of the universe, but a full telling of the cosmic story cannot ignore the inside development that interiority represents.
Haught addresses two primary what does the arrival of religion tell us about the universe, and what does our understanding of the cosmos as an unfinished drama tell us about religion? The history of religion may be ambiguous and sometimes even barbarous, he asserts, but its role in the story of cosmic emergence and awakening must be taken into account.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published October 24, 2017
About the author
John F. Haught
54 books37 followersJohn F. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian, specializing with systematic theology. He has special interests in science, cosmology, ecology, and reconciling evolution and religion.
Haught graduated from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore,, and he received a PhD in Theology from The Catholic University of America in 1970.
Haught received the 2002 Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion, the 2004 Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and, in 2009, the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of Leuven.
He is Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. There, he established the Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion and was the chair of Georgetown's theology department between 1990 and 1995.
Haught graduated from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore,, and he received a PhD in Theology from The Catholic University of America in 1970.
Haught received the 2002 Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion, the 2004 Sophia Award for Theological Excellence, and, in 2009, the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa by the University of Leuven.
He is Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. There, he established the Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion and was the chair of Georgetown's theology department between 1990 and 1995.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
November 3, 2017
Where to begin...
Clearly this was a heartfelt book for the author to write. After a life devoted to exploration of these topics, it felt like a plea for the culmination of his ideas.
On a positive note, I agree with the author generally about the value of anticipation; of a forward focus to our lives that looks to build and achieve more than we have now achieved.
How I managed to stick with this book is one of the great mysteries. The author has one idea: anticipation. He constrasts this with his archaeonomic, (scientific reductionism) and analogic (religion) ways of understanding reality. The problem is, you can sum the one idea up in the first 10 pages of the book. For the rest of the book, he repeats those first ten pages over and over and over again. Slightly changing the focus but repeating the axioms of his theory.
His big idea is that the Universe is, after all, teleological. That there's something bigger than us to which we strive: the dawning of rightness. He claims, since we all value "truth" as he puts it (I don't tend to use that word much anymore, preferring knowledge instead), then it must be that this idea is implanted in us as we strive toward truth (which he subsequently labels beauty, etc.).
I simply reject out of hand this idea. One need not presuppose a metaphysics outside our subjective understanding to explain and appreciate our drive for knowledge. For one example, the pursuit of "truth" can simply be described through the evolutionary process of seeking that which works, which provides utility.
In a way, this is a sort of reframing of the ontological argument of god; the idea that we strive for something must therefore prove the existence of that thing. Nope.
He and I share a beef with reductionism. I agree with the author here; zealous attempts to say that atoms are all there is ridiculous. But, he overplays his hand...creating a straw man of science. He essentially says that science rejects subjectivity out of hand. That science cares not about our inner lives. That science can have nothing to say about our inner lives. Really? Has the author only read a small handful of physicists and the new atheists? Science is rich with exploration of our subjective being. And I've gained many insights through the study of science that has helped me better understand and therefore better control my own subjectivity. That the author fails to adequately address the very real way in which scientific knowledge is progressing in this realm seems disingenuous. I began to think he's writing this book as an apologetic for religious believers who have shielded themselves from current scientific inquiry, and therefore, he could get away with such a distortion. It's a fundamental problem with the book.
Finally, he claims to be rescuing religion from science, but then denigrates religion (albeit very briefly in each instance; he'll go on for 10 pages lambasting science and then spend a paragraph lambasting religion). But in the end, what he tells us is that religion, by assuming an already existing paradise and complete meaning have neglected his anticipatory, unfolding of the universe story. He waves this away by casually suggesting that at some future point, religion will come to recognize this and will find unity. Hmmm...
He says over and over that science says the universe is pointless. Again...no it doesn't. Physicists aren't in the business of answering questions of meaning. So to focus on their reductionism and then extrapolate this out to the entire field of science...well, again...is disingenuous.
I fundamentally reject his idea that absent a Universal meaning to our lives, we cannot ground our lives in real meaning. Rather, I see the universe as a blank canvas, and we have the opportunity to paint color onto it. I see us, subjective beings, as the leading edge of the Universe of subjectivity. Having lived more than half my life in a tradition that dictated to me what meaning is, I'll take my new understanding, thank you very much.
In the end, he really trips over his own ideas. He wants there to be ultimate meaning, so he's built a theory to buttress that idea. But he provides nothing compelling to back it up. The idea that I want to increase my knowledge, that I look for truth, that I think there are right and wrong...does not mean that I think these things are universal.
He tries to lock science into dogmatism; the new cosmic story he's purporting to tell is only really less than a century old. I have never met a scientist who believes that we have discovered all there is to say about the story of the Universe. Here, again, the author is disingenuous. He's creating a straw man of science completely unrecognizable to me.
Finally...the author provides no path forward to how to get to his preferred view of the Universe. He provides no guidance to the religious. He presents no way to bring humanity into the fold of his faith. I always find this troubling when authors say..."hey! somebody ought to figure out a way to implement my ideas!"
Well...to that end, I am doing exactly that. I've built a new, modern creation story and am building a tribe to implement it. You can explore it at storyofexistence.com Who knows, maybe I can convert the author to leave behind his Roman Catholic Universalist ideas and join in the movement. ;-)
Clearly this was a heartfelt book for the author to write. After a life devoted to exploration of these topics, it felt like a plea for the culmination of his ideas.
On a positive note, I agree with the author generally about the value of anticipation; of a forward focus to our lives that looks to build and achieve more than we have now achieved.
How I managed to stick with this book is one of the great mysteries. The author has one idea: anticipation. He constrasts this with his archaeonomic, (scientific reductionism) and analogic (religion) ways of understanding reality. The problem is, you can sum the one idea up in the first 10 pages of the book. For the rest of the book, he repeats those first ten pages over and over and over again. Slightly changing the focus but repeating the axioms of his theory.
His big idea is that the Universe is, after all, teleological. That there's something bigger than us to which we strive: the dawning of rightness. He claims, since we all value "truth" as he puts it (I don't tend to use that word much anymore, preferring knowledge instead), then it must be that this idea is implanted in us as we strive toward truth (which he subsequently labels beauty, etc.).
I simply reject out of hand this idea. One need not presuppose a metaphysics outside our subjective understanding to explain and appreciate our drive for knowledge. For one example, the pursuit of "truth" can simply be described through the evolutionary process of seeking that which works, which provides utility.
In a way, this is a sort of reframing of the ontological argument of god; the idea that we strive for something must therefore prove the existence of that thing. Nope.
He and I share a beef with reductionism. I agree with the author here; zealous attempts to say that atoms are all there is ridiculous. But, he overplays his hand...creating a straw man of science. He essentially says that science rejects subjectivity out of hand. That science cares not about our inner lives. That science can have nothing to say about our inner lives. Really? Has the author only read a small handful of physicists and the new atheists? Science is rich with exploration of our subjective being. And I've gained many insights through the study of science that has helped me better understand and therefore better control my own subjectivity. That the author fails to adequately address the very real way in which scientific knowledge is progressing in this realm seems disingenuous. I began to think he's writing this book as an apologetic for religious believers who have shielded themselves from current scientific inquiry, and therefore, he could get away with such a distortion. It's a fundamental problem with the book.
Finally, he claims to be rescuing religion from science, but then denigrates religion (albeit very briefly in each instance; he'll go on for 10 pages lambasting science and then spend a paragraph lambasting religion). But in the end, what he tells us is that religion, by assuming an already existing paradise and complete meaning have neglected his anticipatory, unfolding of the universe story. He waves this away by casually suggesting that at some future point, religion will come to recognize this and will find unity. Hmmm...
He says over and over that science says the universe is pointless. Again...no it doesn't. Physicists aren't in the business of answering questions of meaning. So to focus on their reductionism and then extrapolate this out to the entire field of science...well, again...is disingenuous.
I fundamentally reject his idea that absent a Universal meaning to our lives, we cannot ground our lives in real meaning. Rather, I see the universe as a blank canvas, and we have the opportunity to paint color onto it. I see us, subjective beings, as the leading edge of the Universe of subjectivity. Having lived more than half my life in a tradition that dictated to me what meaning is, I'll take my new understanding, thank you very much.
In the end, he really trips over his own ideas. He wants there to be ultimate meaning, so he's built a theory to buttress that idea. But he provides nothing compelling to back it up. The idea that I want to increase my knowledge, that I look for truth, that I think there are right and wrong...does not mean that I think these things are universal.
He tries to lock science into dogmatism; the new cosmic story he's purporting to tell is only really less than a century old. I have never met a scientist who believes that we have discovered all there is to say about the story of the Universe. Here, again, the author is disingenuous. He's creating a straw man of science completely unrecognizable to me.
Finally...the author provides no path forward to how to get to his preferred view of the Universe. He provides no guidance to the religious. He presents no way to bring humanity into the fold of his faith. I always find this troubling when authors say..."hey! somebody ought to figure out a way to implement my ideas!"
Well...to that end, I am doing exactly that. I've built a new, modern creation story and am building a tribe to implement it. You can explore it at storyofexistence.com Who knows, maybe I can convert the author to leave behind his Roman Catholic Universalist ideas and join in the movement. ;-)
August 8, 2020
This book presents an alternative to the typical story presented in Big History, as presented by Yuval Noah Harari in Sapiens. It lays out three approaches to science and religion. The archaeonomic approach is taken by materialism, scientism (the belief that science is the only path to truth), and Big History. It is rooted in the smallest particles that combined to form matter as we know it, and leads to cosmic pessimism. The analogical approach is the typical religious approach and identifies a spiritual world beyond empirical evidence. The anticipatory approach, favored by Haught, accepts science and Big History as far as they go, but sees a hopeful future filled with life, mind, and religion, culminating our multibillion-year evolutionary journey. He sees the religious impulse rising from the human sense of rightness that leads to God-consciousness in some, the single-minded pursuit of truth in others who subscribe to an archaeonomic approach. I puzzle whether rightness is this metaphysical idea or simply the conformity of statement to what really is.
I admire the lonely effort of John Haught, Ilia Delio, and a few other authors, to take science and evolution seriously, but not so completely as to shut out religion and ultimately mind and life. They are forging a path that recognizes the full implications of evolution for religion and sees the competitive sisterhood between science and religion, currently too often expressed as the denial of the legitimacy of one by the other.
I admire the lonely effort of John Haught, Ilia Delio, and a few other authors, to take science and evolution seriously, but not so completely as to shut out religion and ultimately mind and life. They are forging a path that recognizes the full implications of evolution for religion and sees the competitive sisterhood between science and religion, currently too often expressed as the denial of the legitimacy of one by the other.
December 30, 2017
Interesting
I find a great openness in Haught's book. Certainty closes your mind in the archaeonomic (you have to read the book to understand the term) spiral from which you imprison yourself in the unawareness of what's coming to be. Anticipation is the mode opening your heart and mind to expect more and look forward toward hope and happiness. Step by step. Every day.
I find a great openness in Haught's book. Certainty closes your mind in the archaeonomic (you have to read the book to understand the term) spiral from which you imprison yourself in the unawareness of what's coming to be. Anticipation is the mode opening your heart and mind to expect more and look forward toward hope and happiness. Step by step. Every day.
April 3, 2019
Thought provoking and a very useful book to read for a clear description of three different ways people see the connection between the physical universe and the spiritual reality (or lack of). How this basic perspective affects the way each group thinks about things such as - rightness, wrongness, transcendence, purpose, prayerfulness ... are the topics for each chapter.
March 10, 2018
What a weird book! The author claims to be a Roman Catholic, but I don't see how he can reconcile Christianity with the cosmic worldview he is advocating in this book. For all intents and purposes, he is creating a whole new religion that rejects both of the main terrestrial belief systems: the New Atheism and religious fundamentalism (and really, almost any of the major religious traditions in the world). There is no need or room for a savior in his religion; there is barely room for an entity that we might call God; and any meaning/satisfaction/comfort/direction one experiences through their current religious tradition is lost as we all just sit around and bask in the anticipation of 'more-being' that will inevitably arrive in a few billion years as the universe continues to mature and reach perfect 'rightness'.
I read this with some colleagues who study the history of religion and religious traditions, and none of us could even figure out who the intended audience is for this tripe, except maybe a handful of Berkely scholars who feel that they are too smart/sophisticated for any of the traditional earth religions but feel that they don't want to absolutely reject some kind of cosmic supernaturality (i.e. something inside them tells them that they shouldn't just become atheists like all their friends).
The real problem with the book is that he continually informs us that everyone else is wrong (especially scientific atheists, religious fundamentalists, and big history scholars), or not doing it right, but he never offers any actual evidence from science or religion to support his ideas--we're just supposed to read his words and say, "ah, now I see!" The book is not even very interesting since all it really does is repeat this same point of view, over and over and over, and not necessarily in different words--he reminds me of a student who has a knack for saying almost nothing substantive while still filling the exam bluebook.
In conclusion, for a guy who is supposedly an expert on 'religion', I think he has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of religion--what it is and does for its millions of adherents. This book is not going to convince anyone (well, except for maybe some of that handful of Berkeley scholars I mentioned above) to change their views. The New Atheists will continue with their archaeonomy, and religious adherents will continue with their analogy, and this book will probably be forgotten in the dustbins in less than a year. My major regret is that I actually spent money on this book.
I read this with some colleagues who study the history of religion and religious traditions, and none of us could even figure out who the intended audience is for this tripe, except maybe a handful of Berkely scholars who feel that they are too smart/sophisticated for any of the traditional earth religions but feel that they don't want to absolutely reject some kind of cosmic supernaturality (i.e. something inside them tells them that they shouldn't just become atheists like all their friends).
The real problem with the book is that he continually informs us that everyone else is wrong (especially scientific atheists, religious fundamentalists, and big history scholars), or not doing it right, but he never offers any actual evidence from science or religion to support his ideas--we're just supposed to read his words and say, "ah, now I see!" The book is not even very interesting since all it really does is repeat this same point of view, over and over and over, and not necessarily in different words--he reminds me of a student who has a knack for saying almost nothing substantive while still filling the exam bluebook.
In conclusion, for a guy who is supposedly an expert on 'religion', I think he has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of religion--what it is and does for its millions of adherents. This book is not going to convince anyone (well, except for maybe some of that handful of Berkeley scholars I mentioned above) to change their views. The New Atheists will continue with their archaeonomy, and religious adherents will continue with their analogy, and this book will probably be forgotten in the dustbins in less than a year. My major regret is that I actually spent money on this book.
May 19, 2022
Helpful in clarifying three main paradigms of reality and why the “anticipatory” one is a more open view. However, it quickly seems redundant in the re-framing of the paradigms under each heading drawn from a list of human aspects of subjectivity. The book does not try to give an exhaustive treatment of the subject matter and so uses generalizations and over-simplifies. I agree with others that it is unrealistic to suggest that the majority of scientists feel a dogmatic loyalty to “archeaonomic”, or “scientific materialism” which debunks the dawning of subjectivity and religion, or the significance of such today. I agree that too many just accept this view without question and that letting this be the norm for academia is absurd. But it is over-simplifying reality to lump people into succinctly defined categories on the basis of certain spokesmen of those categories. Still, it is a quick read and I’m glad to get his overview, along with his notes and bibliographic info for further reading. And it alerts us to the dangers of building a closed system of thought.
March 7, 2026
When cosmologist Dr. Elena Morales uncovers a startling pattern in the universe’s evolution, she enlists theologian Nathan Hale to decode its implications for human purpose. As they navigate a world teeming with scientific skepticism and philosophical secrecy, a shadowy faction intent on suppressing their discoveries stalks every breakthrough. Betrayals ripple through their closest colleagues, and cryptic anomalies hidden in cosmic data force high-stakes decisions that could redefine existence itself. Haught fuses cosmic history with spiritual inquiry, blending awe-inspiring science and profound reflection into a fast-moving, mind-expanding journey. While lacking traditional action heroes, the tension emerges from intellectual stakes and existential mystery rather than car chases or literal escape.
A thoughtful, provocative read that challenges the mind while keeping curiosity alive, The New Cosmic Story earns a solid 7/10 for readers craving cerebral thrill.
A thoughtful, provocative read that challenges the mind while keeping curiosity alive, The New Cosmic Story earns a solid 7/10 for readers craving cerebral thrill.
January 12, 2023
I loved this book! I didn’t need much convincing on adopting an anticipatory view—that intuitively makes sense to me. I really appreciated hearing it contrasted with scientific and religious viewpoints. It helped me better understand the shortcomings of each and how the anticipatory view bridges the gap.
December 5, 2024
Took a few ideas away from this book but, all around just very repetitive. If we know what the main ways of thinking are (archeonomic, analogy, and anticipatory) then we can guess how they would approach each topic (Prayerfulness, Obligation, Transcendence, etc.). Just felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again. It wasn't until my class discussions that we could expand on what he was talking about.
April 14, 2018
Not for me. Not interested in religion as presented here. My feelings about the book are it was well thought out and well written, and it will appeal to a select group of people. Just not me. Sorry.
I received a Kindle Arc in exchange for a fair review from Netgalley.
I received a Kindle Arc in exchange for a fair review from Netgalley.
April 3, 2020
I think some people have approached this book looking for either an account meant to justify and explain their faith using science or people with little understanding of the new science but science 'believers' who can't conceptualize anything other than a strict materialist metaphysics.
John Haught isn't out on a limb on his own. He's following in the footsteps of Alfred North Whitehead (acclaimed mathematician, logician, physics and philosopher), Charles Hartshorne (philosopher), andPierre Teillhard de Chardin (renowned biologist, priest, theologian, paleontologist and philosopher) to name a few of the most recent influences. He also is taking seriously all that science is telling us that anyone can learn in a basic text of what he calls the outside story or the 13.8 billion years of matter, evolution and life (along with all of the new science of quantum mechanics). He is engaging all of that with a process metaphysics that grew alongside of the new sciences. He makes a strong case for approaching reality as we best know it now mediated through a process metaphysics (that is desperately needed more in the modern world and in the church).
If you can accept reality as more than simply materialist, seeking a holistic answer to how there can be mind and life in lifeless matter then you are in for a treat because there is little currently available attempting what John Haught is attempting here.
John Haught isn't out on a limb on his own. He's following in the footsteps of Alfred North Whitehead (acclaimed mathematician, logician, physics and philosopher), Charles Hartshorne (philosopher), andPierre Teillhard de Chardin (renowned biologist, priest, theologian, paleontologist and philosopher) to name a few of the most recent influences. He also is taking seriously all that science is telling us that anyone can learn in a basic text of what he calls the outside story or the 13.8 billion years of matter, evolution and life (along with all of the new science of quantum mechanics). He is engaging all of that with a process metaphysics that grew alongside of the new sciences. He makes a strong case for approaching reality as we best know it now mediated through a process metaphysics (that is desperately needed more in the modern world and in the church).
If you can accept reality as more than simply materialist, seeking a holistic answer to how there can be mind and life in lifeless matter then you are in for a treat because there is little currently available attempting what John Haught is attempting here.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews