Haught is the author of many books on religion and science and is one of the most important theologians in that conversation. His latest book is rather different in approach from his previous books. It does not focus on specifically Christian religion, though his Christian faith is deeply evident throughout the book. Instead, Haught aims at a more complex goal: he wants to analyze religion's place in the cosmic story. He argues that “we cannot expect to understand well what is going on in cosmic history apart from a careful examination of what goes on in the interior striving of life that reaches the summit of its intensity in humanity's spiritual adventures” (2). His purpose is to ask, “what religion, broadly speaking, means for our understanding of the universe, and what the new story of the universe means for our understanding of religion” (17).

Haught organizes the book around twelve characteristics he sees as common to all (or most) religions, especially those emerging from the axial age: dawning, awakening, transformation, interiority, indestructibility, transcendence, symbolism, purpose, obligation, wrongness, happiness, and prayerfulness. He treats each of these in a chapter. Throughout the book Haught contrasts three attitudes or viewpoints, which he calls the “archaeonomic,” “analogical,” and “anticipatory” approaches to understanding the universe. The archaeonomic approach looks to the past and holds that its laws and initial elements determine whatever happens in the universe. This approach, favored by scientific materialists, regards religion as at best an adaptive set of beliefs that ultimately are not true. The “new atheists” exhibit this view. The analogical approach, in contrast, respects the human encounter with what Haught calls “rightness,” which has many names in the religions: God, Nirvana, Brahman, and so forth. But the analogical approach largely ignores what science has revealed about the evolving universe and tends to think of rightness as already complete apart from the universe. The anticipatory approach is fully accepting of what science reveals of an evolving universe and sees “rightness,” the elusive horizon of unrestricted being, goodness, truth, and beauty, as the ground of hope, up ahead of an unfinished universe, coming to meet us and calling us to commitment to doing whatever we can to assist its coming.

In criticism of the archaeonomic approach, Haught argues that the anticipatory reading of the universe sees the laws of nature not as inviolable, but more like grammatical rules. Grammatical rules provide order but do not limit the number of possible stories that can be told. In a similar way, the laws of nature provide an underlying order not absolutely determining the course of events but permitting innumerable possibilities of development. Seeing the universe this way opens us to recognizing that the universe is an unfinished story, a narrative of amazing novelty. If one takes this seriously, Haught argues, one must see “rightness” in its fullness as something we anticipate and hope for, something “not-yet” toward which the universe is moving and evolving, not something already fully perfect and existing beyond the world, as the analogical approach believes. This opens us to hope, a trust, an attentive, patient waiting for the coming of rightness.

Some might argue that religious experience and much of religious reflection are more subtle than Haught's two categories of analogy and anticipation would seem to allow and that to force religion into these two categories is artificial. Others might find Haught's anticipatory approach too radical a revision of the meaning and aims of religion. And some Christian theologians may find Haught's rather Irenaean understanding of “wrongness” (natural and moral evil) as problematic (see chapter 10). But for this reviewer, Haught's analysis and argument is quite thought provoking, brilliantly developed, and persuasive.

This wonderful book richly rewards a slow, meditative reading. It strikes me as similar to Ravel's Bolero, in that every chapter repeats the same themes, but with enough novelty to keep the message interesting and engaging. It is a profound critique of scientific materialism and a vigorous and persuasive argument for taking science seriously in one's religious outlook.