Religious naturalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The interconnectivity of nature is a key postulate in religious naturalism.

Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus is on the religious attributes of the universe/nature, the understanding of it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual and moral). These provide for the development of an eco-morality.[1] Although it has an ancient heritage in many philosophical cultures, this modern movement is currently not well defined.[2] Theistic or nontheistic religious naturalism is a basic theological perspective of liberal religion and religious humanism, according to some sources.[3]

Religious naturalism is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more anthropocentric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: "What is the meaning of one's life and does it have a purpose?" It is an approach to understanding the natural world in a religious way and does not offer a detailed system of beliefs or rituals.[4] Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is a combination of objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature. It is a promising form of contemporary religious ethics and pluralism responding to the challenges of late modern religious transformations and ecological peril. In so doing, it is emerging as an increasingly plausible and potentially rewarding form of religious moral life consistent with the insights of the natural sciences.[5][6]

Naturalism[edit]

All forms of religious naturalism, being naturalistic in their basic beliefs, assert that the natural world is the center of our most significant experiences and understandings. Consequently, nature is considered as the ultimate value in assessing one's being. Religious naturalists, despite having followed differing cultural and individual paths, affirm the human need for meaning and value in their lives. They draw on two fundamental convictions in those quests: the sense of Nature's richness, spectacular complexity, and fertility, and the recognition that Nature is the only realm in which people live out their lives. Humans are considered interconnected parts of Nature.

Science is a fundamental, indispensable component of the paradigm of religious naturalism. It relies on mainstream science to reinforce religious and spiritual perspectives. Science is the primary interpretive tool for religious naturalism, because, scientific methods are thought to provide the most reliable understanding of Nature and the world, including human nature.

"Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."[7]

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.[8]

Religious[edit]

A religious attitude towards nature

Religious naturalism is religious in its approach to morality which is seen as coming from humans' biological and social evolution rather than divine revelations. Human evolution has produced a brain complex enough both for symbolic contemplation and for participating in unique human forms of social life. Since humans are hardwired for flexibility, morality varies from culture to culture. However, most world cultures adhere to the same basic 24 virtues.[9]

P. Roger Gillette of Meadville Lombard Theology School says that religious naturalism is a religion "in that it is a system of belief and practice that demands and facilitates one's intellectual and emotional reconnection with one's self, one's family, one's local and global community and ecosystem, the universe of which the global ecosystem is a part, and (perhaps) the creative source of this universe". It is also a theology, an ethics, and a “full service" belief that requires a "radical spiritual transformation".[10]

History[edit]

Religious naturalism is a relatively new religious movement. Early uses of the term include the American Whig Review in 1846 describing "a seeming 'religious naturalism'",[11] In 1869 American Unitarian Association literature adjudged:"Religious naturalism differs from this mainly in the fact that it extends the domain of nature farther outward into space and time. ...It never transcends nature".[12][broken citation] Ludwig Feuerbach wrote that religious naturalism was "the acknowledgment of the Divine in Nature" and also "an element of the Christian religion", but by no means that religion's definitive "characteristic" or "tendency".[13]

Lao Tzu, traditionally the author of the Tao Te Ching

In 1864, Pope Pius IX condemned religious naturalism in the first seven articles of the Syllabus of Errors.

Zeno (c. 334 – c. 262 BCE, a founder of Stoicism) said:

All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature […] Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.[14]

Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), one of the great rabbis of the 20th century and the founder of the Jewish reconstructionism movement,[15] early advocated religious naturalism. He believed that a naturalistic approach to religion and ethics was possible in a desacralizing world. He saw God as the sum of all natural processes.[16]

Other verified usages of the term came in 1940 from George Perrigo Conger[17] and from Edgar S. Brightman.[18] Shortly thereafter, H. H. Dubs wrote an article entitled Religious Naturalism – an Evaluation (The Journal of Religion, XXIII: 4, October, 1943), which begins "Religious naturalism is today one of the outstanding American philosophies of religion…" and discusses ideas developed by Henry Nelson Wieman in books that predate Dubs's article by 20 years.

In 1991 Jerome A. Stone wrote The Minimalist Vision of Transcendence explicitly "to sketch a philosophy of religious naturalism".[19] Use of the term was expanded in the 1990s by Loyal Rue, who was familiar with the term from Brightman's book. Rue used the term in conversations with several people before 1994, and subsequent conversations between Rue and Ursula Goodenough [both of whom were active in IRAS (The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science) led to Goodenough's use in her book "The Sacred Depths of Nature" and by Rue in "Religion is not about god" and other writings. Since 1994 numerous authors have used the phrase or expressed similar thinking. Examples are Chet Raymo, Stuart Kauffman and Karl E. Peters.

Mike Ignatowski states that "there were many religious naturalists in the first half of the 20th century and some even before that" but that "religious naturalism as a movement didn’t really come into its own until about 1990 [and] took a major leap forward in 2000 when Ursula Goodenough published The Sacred Depths of Nature, which is considered one of the founding texts of this movement."[20]

Biologist Ursula Goodenough states:

I profess my Faith. For me, the existence of all this complexity and awareness and intent and beauty, and my ability to apprehend it, serves as the ultimate meaning and the ultimate value. The continuation of life reaches around, grabs its own tail, and forms a sacred circle that requires no further justification, no Creator, no super-ordinate meaning of meaning, no purpose other than that the continuation continue until the sun collapses or the final meteor collides. I confess a credo of continuation. And in so doing, I confess as well a credo of human continuation[21][22]

Donald Crosby’s Living with Ambiguity published in 2008, has, as its first chapter, Religion of Nature as a Form of Religious Naturalism.[23]

Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative is a history by Dr. Jerome A. Stone (Dec. 2008 release) that presents this paradigm as a once-forgotten option in religious thinking that is making a rapid revival. It seeks to explore and encourage religious ways of responding to the world on a completely naturalistic basis without a supreme being or ground of being. This book traces this history and analyzes some of the issues dividing religious naturalists. It covers the birth of religious naturalism, from George Santayana to Henry Nelson Wieman and briefly explores religious naturalism in literature and art. Contested issues are discussed including whether nature’s power or goodness is the focus of attention and also on the appropriateness of using the term "God". The contributions of more than twenty living Religious Naturalists are presented. The last chapter ends the study by exploring what it is like on the inside to live as a religious naturalist.[24]

Chet Raymo writes that he had come to the same conclusion as Teilhard de Chardin: "Grace is everywhere",[25] and that naturalistic emergence is in everything and far more magical than religion-based miracles. A future humankind religion should be ecumenical, ecological, and embrace the story provided by science as the "most reliable cosmology".[26]

As P. Roger Gillette summarizes:

Thus was religious naturalism born. It takes the findings of modern science seriously, and thus is inherently naturalistic. But it also takes the human needs that led to the emergence of religious systems seriously, and thus is also religious. It is religious, or reconnective, in that it seeks and facilitates human reconnection with one's self, family, larger human community, local and global ecosystem, and unitary universe (…) Religious reconnection implies love. And love implies concern, concern for the well-being of the beloved. Religious naturalism thus is marked by concern for the well-being of the whole of nature. This concern provides a basis and drive for ethical behavior toward the whole holy unitary universe.[27]

Tenets[edit]

Due to the rationality and feelings provided by science and a naturalistic spirituality, some religious naturalists have a strong sense of stewardship for the Earth. Luther College professor Loyal Rue has written:

Religious naturalists will be known for their reverence and awe before Nature, their love for Nature and natural forms, their sympathy for all living things, their guilt for enlarging the ecological footprints, their pride in reducing them, their sense of gratitude directed towards the matrix of life, their contempt for those who abstract themselves from natural values, and their solidarity with those who link their self-esteem to sustainable living.[28]

Varieties[edit]

The literature related to religious naturalism includes many variations in conceptual framing. This reflects individual takes on various issues, to some extent various schools of thought, such as basic naturalism, religious humanism, pantheism, panentheism, and spiritual naturalism that have had time on the conceptual stage, and to some extent differing ways of characterizing Nature.

Current discussion often relates to the issue of whether belief in a God or God-language and associated concepts have any place in a framework that treats the physical universe as its essential frame of reference and the methods of science as providing the preeminent means for determining what Nature is. There are at least three varieties of religious naturalism, and three similar but somewhat different ways to categorize them. They are:

  • A kind of naturalism that does use God-language but fundamentally treats God metaphorically.
  • A commitment to naturalism using God-language, but as either (1) a faith statement or supported by philosophical arguments, or (2) both, usually leaving open the question of whether that usage as metaphor or refers to the ultimate answer that Nature can be.
  • Not-theistic (no God concept, some modern naturalisms, non-militant atheism) – Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh, Donald A. Crosby,[30] Ursula Goodenough

The first category has as many sub-groups as there are distinct definitions for god. Believers in a supernatural entity (transcendent) are by definition not religious naturalists however the matter of a naturalistic concept of God (Immanence) is currently debated. Strong atheists are not considered Religious Naturalists in this differentiation. Some individuals call themselves religious naturalists but refuse to be categorized. The unique theories of religious naturalists Loyal Rue, Donald A. Crosby, Jerome A. Stone, and Ursula Goodenough are discussed by Michael Hogue in his 2010 book The Promise of Religious Naturalism.[31]

God concepts[32]

  • Those who conceive of God as the creative process within the universe – example, Henry Nelson Wieman
  • Those who think of God as the totality of the universe considered religiously – Bernard Loomer.
  • A third type of religious naturalism sees no need to use the concept or terminology of God, Stone himself and Ursula Goodenough

Stone emphasizes that some Religious Naturalists do not reject the concept of God, but if they use the concept, it involves a radical alteration of the idea such as Gordon Kaufman who defines God as creativity.

Ignatowski divides RN into only two types – theistic and non-theistic.[20]

Shared principles[edit]

Biological classification

There are several principles shared by all the aforementioned varieties of religious naturalism:[33]

  • All varieties of religious naturalism see humans as an interconnected, emergent part of nature.
  • Accept the primacy of science with regard to what is measurable via the scientific method.
  • Recognize science's limitations in accounting for judgments of value and in providing a full account of human experience. Thus religious naturalism embraces nature's creativity, beauty and mystery and honors many aspects of the artistic, cultural and religious traditions that respond to and attempt to interpret Nature in subjective ways.
  • Approach matters of morality, ethics and value with a focus on how the world works, with a deep concern for fairness and the welfare of all humans regardless of their station in life.
  • Seek to integrate these interpretative, spiritual and ethical responses in a manner that respects diverse religious and philosophical perspectives, while still subjecting them and itself to rigorous scrutiny.
  • The focus on scientific standards of evidence imbues RN with the humility inherent in scientific inquiry and its limited, albeit ever deepening, ability to describe reality (see Epistemology).
  • A strong environmental ethic for the welfare of the planet Earth and humanity.
  • Belief in the sacredness of life and the evolutionary process

The concept of emergence has grown in popularity with many Religious Naturalists. It helps explain how a complex Universe and life by self-organization have risen out of a multiplicity of relatively simple elements and their interactions. The entire story of emergence is related in the Epic of Evolution - the mythic scientific narrative used to tell the verifiable chronicle of the evolutionary process that is the Universe. Most religious naturalist consider the Epic of Evolution a true story about the historic achievement of Nature.[34][35][36] “The Epic of Evolution is the 14 billion year narrative of cosmic, planetary, life, and cultural evolution—told in sacred ways. Not only does it bridge mainstream science and a diversity of religious traditions; if skillfully told, it makes the science story memorable and deeply meaningful, while enriching one's religious faith or secular outlook.”[37]

A number of naturalistic writers have used this theme as a topic for their books using such synonyms as: Cosmic Evolution, Everybody’s Story, Evolutionary Epic, Evolutionary Universe, Great Story, New Story, Universal Story. ‘Epic of evolution’ is a term that, within the past three years(1998), has become the theme and title of a number of gatherings. It seems to have been first used by Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson in 1978. ‘The evolutionary epic,’ Wilson wrote in his book On Human Nature, ‘is probably the best myth we will ever have.’ Myth as falsehood was not the usage intended by Wilson in this statement. Rather, myth as a grand narrative that provides a people with a placement in time—a meaningful placement that celebrates extraordinary moments of a shared heritage. The epic of evolution is science translated into meaningful story.”[38]

Evolutionary evangelist minister Michael Dowd uses the term to help present his position that science and religious faith are not mutually exclusive (a premise of religious naturalism). He preaches that the epic of cosmic, biological, and human evolution, revealed by science, is a basis for an inspiring and meaningful view of our place in the universe. Evolution is viewed as a spiritual process that it is not meaningless blind chance.[39] He is joined by a number of other theologians in this position.[40][41][42]

Notable proponents and critics[edit]

Proponents[edit]

Critics[edit]

Prominent communities and leaders[edit]

Religious naturalists sometimes use the social practices of traditional religions, including communal gatherings and rituals, to foster a sense of community, and to serve as reinforcement of its participants' efforts to expand the scope of their understandings. Some known examples of religious naturalists groupings and congregation leaders are:[43]

  • World Pantheist Movement – largely web-based but with some local groups.[44] The WPM is the world’s largest religious naturalist organization [45]
  • Universal Pantheist Society founded 1975 – Pantheism is an intercepting concept with religious naturalism [46]
  • Gaia Community – similar viewpoints[47]
  • Congregation Beth Or, a Jewish congregation near Chicago led by Rabbi David Oler[46]
  • Congregation of Beth Adam in Loveland Ohio led by Rabbi Robert Barr[48]
  • Pastor Ian Lawton, minister at the Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, West Michigan and Center for Progressive Christianity [49][50]

Religious Naturalism is growing in the academic community.[citation needed] Articles appear frequently in Zygon, Religious Humanism and the Journal of Liberal Religion. There are three major electronic discussion groups.[51]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Religious Naturalism and Eco-morality, 2009-2010 Witherspoon Memorial Lecture in Religion & Science". artsci.wustl.edu. 
  2. ^ "Religious Naturalism Resources". people.bu.edu. Retrieved 3/2/2010. 
  3. ^ "A new religious humanism is emerging". uuworld.org. Retrieved 2010-3-3. 
  4. ^ "Religious Naturalism". Taylor's Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. 2004. 
  5. ^ The Promise of Religious Naturalism - Michael Hogue, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Sept.16, 2010, ISBN 0742562611
  6. ^ http://meadville.academia.edu/MichaelSHogue/Books/325740/The_Promise_of_Religious_Naturalism
  7. ^ Alhazen (Ibn Al-Haytham) Critique of Ptolemy, translated by S. Pines, Actes X Congrès internationale d'histoire des sciences, Vol I Ithaca 1962, as referenced in Sambursky 1974, p. 139
  8. ^ (Sabra 2003)
  9. ^ Peterson, Christopher & Seligman, Martin E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. ^ Roger (2006). "Theology Of, By, & For Religious Naturalism". Journal of Liberal Religion 6(1). Retrieved 03/07/09. 
  11. ^ George Hooker Colton, James Davenport Whelpley (1846). The American Review: A Whig Journal, Devoted to Politics and Literature. p. 282. 
  12. ^ Athanasia. American Unitarian Association. 1870. p. page 6. 
  13. ^ Ludwig Feuerbach, George Eliot (1881). "The Essence of Christianity". Religion (Trübner). p. 103. 
  14. ^ Sharon M. Kaye, Paul Thomson (2006). Philosophy for Teens: Questioning Life's Big Ideas,. Prufrock Press Inc. p. page 72. ISBN 9781593632021. 
  15. ^ Alex J. Goldman - The greatest rabbis hall of fame, SP Books, 1987, page 342, ISBN 0933503148
  16. ^ Rabbi Emanuel S. Goldsmith - Reconstructionism Today Spring 2001, Volume 8, Number 3, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation retrieved 4-1-09
  17. ^ Perrigo Conger, George (1940). The Ideologies of Religion. p. 212. Retrieved 29 November 2010. 
  18. ^ Brightman, Edgar S (1940). "God as the Tendency of Nature to Support or Produce Values (Religious Naturalism)". A Philosophy of Religion. p. 148. 
  19. ^ Stone, Jerome A (1991). The Minimalist Vision of Transcendence. p. 9. 
  20. ^ a b Ignatowski, Mike (June 25, 2006). Religious Naturalism. Kingston. Retrieved 3-07-09. 
  21. ^ Goodenough, Ursula (2000). The Sacred Depths of Nature. Oxford University Press. p. 171. ISBN 0195136292. 
  22. ^ "Video Interview - Speaking of Faith". Krista's Journal. April 7, 2005. 
  23. ^ Crosby, Donald A (2008). Living with Ambiguity. SUNY Press. p. 1. ISBN 0791475190. 
  24. ^ Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative
  25. ^ When God is Gone Everything is Holy – The Making of a Religious Naturalist, Chet Raymo, 2008, p 136
  26. ^ Chet Raymo - When God is Gone Everything is Holy, Soren Books, 2008, page 114, ISBN 1-933495-13-8
  27. ^ Gillette, P. Roger. "Theology Of, By, & For Religious Naturalism". Retrieved 3-09-09. 
  28. ^ Loyal D. Rue - RELIGION is not about god, Rutgers University Press, 2005, page 367, ISBN 0813535115
  29. ^ Robinson, Rev. Edmund. "2029 Presentation of Skinner Award-Winning Social Justice Sermon". archive.uua.org. Retrieved 29 November 2010. 
  30. ^ Crosby, Donald A. A Religion of Nature. amazon.com. Retrieved 29 November 2010. 
  31. ^ The Promise of Religious Naturalism – Michael Hogue, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Sept.16, 2010, ISBN 0742562611
  32. ^ "3062 Religious Naturalism: A New Theological Option". Retrieved 29 November 2010. 
  33. ^ "Introduction, page xviii". Taylor’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. 
  34. ^ How Grand a Narrative– Ursula Goodenough
  35. ^ Epic, Story, Narrative – Bill Bruehl
  36. ^ How Grand a Narrative – Philip Hefner
  37. ^ "The Epic of Evolution". Taylor’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. 2004. 
  38. ^ Connie Barlow - The Epic of Evolution: Religious and cultural interpretations of modern scientific cosmology. Science & Spirit
  39. ^ "Thank God for Evolution". thankgodforevolution.com. 
  40. ^ Eugenie Carol Scott, Niles Eldredge, Contributor Niles Eldredge, - Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction, University of California Press, 2005, page 235, ISBN 0520246500 - [1]
  41. ^ John Haught - God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, Westview Press, 2008, ISBN 0813343704
  42. ^ Quotes of Berry and Hefner
  43. ^ Jerome A. Stone – Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press (Dec 2008), pages 10, 11, 141,ISBN 0791475379
  44. ^ "World Pantheism: The online community for naturalistic Pantheists". Retrieved June 24, 2010. 
  45. ^ Jerome A. Stone – Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press (Dec 2008), pages 10, 11, 141
  46. ^ a b Jerome A. Stone – Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press, page 10 (Dec 2008)
  47. ^ Jerome A. Stone – Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press, page 11 (Dec 2008)
  48. ^ A Jewish Perspective retrieved 2/15/2010
  49. ^ "Ian Lawton". Center for Progressive Christianity. Retrieved 29 November 2010. 
  50. ^ "Ian Lawton's Page". 
  51. ^ “Religious Naturalism” Demystified comments by Jerome A. Stone retrieved 8/25/09

Further reading[edit]

Reading lists – Evolution Reading Resources, Books of the Epic of Evolution, Cosmic Evolution

External links[edit]