Catholics share many beliefs with other cultures, religions, and philosophies. They are the parts of the faith that can be known through the rational investigation of nature, so they are in principle available to everyone. St. Thomas refers to these as “preambles to faith,” since they provide a bridge to the deeper elements of Catholic tradition. One way to engage non-Catholic culture is to look for those “preambles to faith” in art, science, or philosophy, and then to suggest ways in which Catholic faith can advance rational inquiry in these disciplines.
Recently, I’ve been studying the work of two atheist thinkers whose writings recapitulate many of the preambles to faith. The first is psychologist Martin Seligman, former president of the APA and one of the most eminent researchers in his field. Seligman’s career evolved from a focus on disease (especially “learned helplessness”) towards an emphasis on well-being, or positive psychology. This shift forced Seligman to take up questions traditionally reserved for philosophy and religion. What is happiness? What is a meaningful life? What role does ethics play in human flourishing? Can moral norms be grounded in objective nature, or only in culture?
Seligman is a committed atheist, a naturalist, and an ethical relativist. He insists that there are no objective, moral obligations. However, his research demonstrates that there are objective moral conditions that lead to human flourishing. Virtues like wisdom, compassion, temperance, courage, and spirituality are strongly correlated to happiness. Shockingly, Seligman also argues that marriage is not a cultural creation but was “invented” by natural selection. According to Seligman, the stable, chaste, loving union of father and mother is one of the strongest predictors of successful children. (See his book, Authentic Happiness.)
Seligman acknowledges that religious people are, on balance, happier than non-religious people. He explains this by their greater capacity for hope in difficult situations. Furthermore, he makes a bid for orthodoxy, arguing that those holding traditional religious beliefs are happier than those with more naturalized or secularized religions. However, the religious option is not available to Seligman. He finds it impossible to believe in God.
In the final chapter of his book, Seligman considers whether he might accept a more naturalized deity. He finds comfort in the work of philosopher Robert Wright, who argues that biological and cultural evolution is not purely random but proceeds in an ordered way towards greater complexity and inclusivity. Seligman turns mystic at the end, hoping for some reconciliation with a God who might emerge from this process of cosmic evolution.
Seligman intrigues me because he affirms many of the moral and spiritual commitments of Catholicism. However, I am disappointed by his shallow dismissal of religious faith. Seligman admits that he does not read theology and it shows. The God he rejects is overly anthropomorphic and deistic. By asking, “Who created God?” Seligman demonstrates his lack of serious engagement with philosophical theology.
The same cannot be said for Thomas Nagel. Nagel is a leading atheist philosopher and one who is viscerally opposed to religious faith. Like Seligman, however, he is deeply interested in the question of transcendent meaning. His book Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament asks whether a committed atheist can hope for some sense of cosmic reconciliation. Can secular philosophy serve the role traditionally assigned to religion?
Nagel acknowledges that many people do not have a religious temperament. They are seemingly uninterested in transcendent purpose. Others find meaning in humanistic enterprises or in the existentialist embrace of the moment. However, these don’t scratch the itch he’s concerned with. What Nagel wants to know is this: Is there some non-accidental reason the universe is the way it is and not some other way? Can rational creatures find authentic meaning and purpose by assimilating themselves to a transcendent order?
Nagel’s most recent book Mind and Cosmos is an attempt to answer that last question. He delves deeply into evolution and philosophy of mind. What troubles him is the inability of materialism to account for mental phenomena. Nagel shows that materialist theories of mind fail to grapple adequately with consciousness, intentionality, rationality, and objective value. Like Seligman, Nagel won’t accept theistic answers to these questions. However, even more than Seligman, Nagel’s philosophy moves fitfully towards an ordered cosmos that transcends the purely material.
Both thinkers have interesting insights into moral and spiritual questions, but each runs up against obstacles because of their atheism. Seligman’s list of preferred virtues closely tracks Catholic moral theology. However, Seligman cannot answer the “why” of moral obligation. He can tell you what leads to happiness. He cannot tell you why you should choose happiness. When confronted with moral evil, therefore, Seligman cannot say, “This is wrong.” Even worse, Seligman’s emergent deity is no comfort to those who suffer evil. Catholic faith affirms Seligman’s virtues, but also addresses his deficits. We choose goodness, and we ought to, because it proceeds ultimately from the God who is Good.
Nagel is the more profound philosopher, but also hindered by his atheism. He sees clearly that mind and objective value require a transcendent order. But what is that order? The simplest doctrine, the one with greatest explanatory power, is the one Catholics affirm. Order and goodness proceed from the God who is, self-existent, utterly simple, the transcendent act of Being Itself.