Religious naturalism

File:Ojibwecosmos.jpg

The interconnectivity of Nature is a key postulate in Religious Naturalism

Religious Naturalism is a pluralistic paradigm that proposes a spiritual/intellectual approach to life devoid of supernatural assumptions.

It is religious in that it advocates a sincere subjective interpretation of, feeling for and behavior towards life and the world. Those things considered most important are deemed sacred and respected. It is naturalistic in that it uses objective science, evidential truth and reason to what is rather than supernatural explanations, although some proponents maintain a god concept. Some sectors of it may use cultural sources to form like-minded communities. Religious Naturalists find commonality in their ethical values, spiritual inclinations and tolerance for diversity of thought.

Philosopher meditating on the spiritual and aesthetic Rembrandt

Religious Naturalism, like most religions, is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living life in the here and now in a rational, happy way. The meaning of life constitutes a religious/philosophical question about purpose and the significance of human existence. This concept is expressed through a variety of related questions, such as What's life all about?, What is the meaning of it all? and Why is there something rather than nothing?. It is also concerned about the concepts of existence, consciousness and happiness. An alternative, human-centric, and not a cosmic/religious approach, is the question "What is the meaning of my life and does it have a purpose?" Religious Naturalism attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is an objectivity with human feelings.

Naturalism

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 the ultimate value in assessing our 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 we live out our lives. That we and who we are – our physical bodies, our amazing brains with their capacity for human emotions and even our predisposition to be religious – are 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 provide the most reliable understanding of Nature and the world, including human nature.

File:Ibn haithem portrait.jpg

Ibn al-Haytham

The Scientific method collects and examine data, forms postulates about it, tests those speculations, and retests to verify. The result is most often the development of theories about what is factual and trustworthy. These then undergo challenges and critiques. Only insofar as a theory continues to meet these assessments is it accepted as true, and this truth is seen as the best answer until a better one is found. There is nothing magical or supernatural in this process; it produces factual, believable explanations for forming naturalistic tenets.

Ibn al-Haytham was a key figure in developing the scientific method, his intent was to seek truth:"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."

Religious

A religious attitude for Nature

While some adherents, especially those in the sciences, look to those sciences for their approach to Nature, many Religious Naturalists however find their analysis of Nature as one of spiritual appreciation rather than as objectively perceived. It is an interpretation by feeling rather than by technical examination.

Religious Naturalism is religious in a number of aspects. It has a devout attitude toward existence, the environment, morality and the human epic. Its proponents honor the experience and expression of the human emotions of awe, reverence, wonder and gratitude at and for the magnificence of the Cosmos. The possibilities for being one with it all can be very spiritual in its practice.

It is a form of spiritual naturalism that is one of immanence rather than transcendence, of freedom rather than servitude and a binding connection to the natural world. Some Religious Naturalists feel a sense of unity with The All: a sense of eternity here and now; the beauty, truth and presence of everything; and acceptance of what is. Nature is seen as a sufficient answer to everything and a satisfying solution to why we are. Religious Naturalism embraces mystery because we do not know everything, and the unknown can be delightfully mysterious. Thus it does not depend strongly on being religious in the usual theistic, mystical sense.

Most Religious Naturalists, but not all, respect the traditional religious language of others and translate it into their own more objective thinking. They accept and respect a naturalistic reinterpretation of supernaturalism as a kindred viewpoint because there are many ways of defining a God, and those who see a godliness in Nature are sensing there the same sacredness as they do. Likewise there are other naturalistic worldviews (humanism, materialistic naturalism, monism and modern pantheism) that are not religious in their approach but are similar to, and compatible with, main stream interpretations of Religious Naturalism.

Consequently some who describe themselves as Religious Naturalists participate in the social traditions of religion, including congregations and practicing of rituals. They do this to promote a sense of community and to provide a foundation for other activities. Many still attend churches of their upbringing or selection. There are liberal Quakers (Nontheistic Friends), Reconstructionist Judaism Jews and some members of the Unitarian Universalist Association. To these can be added some adherents of Progressive Christianity.

Religious Naturalism is religious in its approach to morality which is seen as coming from our 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 twenty four vitues. (Character Strengths and Virtues (Martin Seligman)

Added to these evolutionary and socio-developmental dynamics, human beings individually have the ability to contemplate moral principles, modify them, or even reject them. The process is dynamic and entirely natural. Religious Naturalists think through, debate and determine what is right, and where necessary, make policies to implement what is right. This is done with a high regard for individual differences. Thus rigid dogmatic standards are not canonized. Most Religious Naturalists try to adhere to the same Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity) that is common in some form or another to most of the ethical systems of human civilization.

Supreme Court 2006

Religious Naturalism qualifies as a religion in the way the Supreme Court of the United States would judge it. The Court interprets religion to mean a sincere, meaningful world view that occupies in the life of its adherent, a place similar to that held by deity in the lives of other persons. A religion need not include belief in the existence a supreme being nor be stated in traditional religious terms, have rituals or churches to fall within the protection of the First Amendment.

Freedom of religion is regarded as a dynamic guarantee that was written to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of new religious paradigms such as Religious Naturalism. Buddhism is an example of a major religion that demonstrates these characteristics. Thus Religious Naturalism qualifies as a religion even thought is has no group deity nor traditional practices.

From a less legalistic standpoint, a religion is often described as a way of life or a person’s primary worldview which guides one's ethical thoughts and actions. It may also be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred, esteemed or uppermost value. Religious Naturalism incorporates these attributes into its credo. Religions tend to focus on a limitation of belief thus proclaiming that they are the true one while other beliefs are false, misleading or naive. Religious Naturalism makes no such claims rather it advocates religious pluralism and religious tolerance. Diversity of naturalistic opinions are welcomed in what it calls a big tent structure. This approach precludes a single issue litmus test or ideological rigidity, and advocates acceptance of a broad spectrum of viewpoints.

History

Baruch Spinoza

Religious Naturalism is a relatively new religious movement although the term religious naturalism began to find usage in the late 1840’s. The American Whig Review stated in 1846 “there maybe an attempt to disguise the transition under a transcendental pantheism or what may be more appropriate be described as a seeming 'religious naturalism. In 1869 Epes Sargent wrote “The spiritual philosophy pulls them down, and opens again the fair fields of 'spiritual naturalism' to the contemplation of thinker" In the same year “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”. was expressed in American Unitarian Association literature.Ludwig Feuerbach wrote “It is true that 'religious naturalism', or the acknowledgment of the Divine in Nature, is also an element of the Christian religion….but it is by no means the characteristic, the tendency of the Christian religion.”

Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

In the 1870s J.K. Huysmans was among a rising group of writers ”the so-called Naturalist school, of whom Émile Zola was the acknowledged head…With Là-bas (1891), a novel which reflected the aesthetics of the spiritualist revival and the contemporary interest in the occult, Huysmans formulated for the first time an aesthetic theory which sought to synthesize the mundane and the transcendent: 'spiritual Naturalism'.”

Many modern Religious Naturalists find philosophical similarity with ancient philosophers in the stoic or skeptical traditions (Zeno (333-BC 264), founder of Stoicism, “All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature…… Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.” ) and certain rationalist philosophers beginning with Benedictus de Spinoza. Spinoza (1632-1677) proposed that God was the totality of existence rather than external to it ("God, or substance…. is the indwelling, and not the transient cause of all things” ). Others find both philosophical and religious resonance in certain Eastern traditions, particularly modern schools of Buddhism and Taoism (being one with the'Tao' is not a union with an eternal spirit but rather living in accordance with nature). However, the roots of Religious Naturalists today are found in thinkers who used the term in the 1940s and 1950s and writers since then.

The earliest currently verified usages were in 1940 by George Perrigo Conger and Edgar S. Brightman . 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. These articles and books draw not only on Wieman, but also on ideas developed by the Chicago School of theology and by at least the 1950s Wieman and Bernard Meland in Chicago were frequently using the term to designate their own views. In the 1950s one also finds Jack J. Cohen's book The Case for Religious Naturalism: A Philosophy for the Modern Jew. Other liberal Christian authors such as Paul Tillich were contributing to more broadminded naturalistic approaches to their theology.

In 1991 Jerome A. Stone wrote “The purpose of this book is to explore the possibility of this alternative, to sketch a philosophy of religious naturalism” 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 Peters.

Goodenough, PhD

Biologist Ursula Goodenough on Religious Naturalism - “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”. ,

The most recent work on Religious Naturalism is Donald Crosby’s Living with Ambiguity published in 2008. His first chapter is titled Religion as a Form of Religious Naturalism. Also in December of 2008, an in depth look at the history of this worldview was published. In addition a few modern theologians with liberal orientations have rejected some of the historical claims of some biblical doctrines and moved to progressive forms of Christianity and Judaism akin to neo-theistic Religious Naturalism. Examples are: Mordecai Kaplan, John Shelby Spong, Paul Tillich, John A. T. Robinson, William Murry and Gordon Kaufman. Some of those into process theology may also be included in this movement.

File:Jstone.jpg

Stone, PhD

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.

Tenets and Environmental Ethics

It should come as no surprise that the rationality and feelings provided by science and a naturalistic spirituality would instill within the Religious Naturalism community, a strong sense of stewardship for the Earth. Consequently Religious Naturalism can be viewed as an outgrowth of the world environmental movement. 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”.

The principle tenets and ethics of Religious Naturalism are:

• To rely on mainstream science to answers questions of being
• To adopt a spiritual attitude towards living and the natural world
• To be benevolent stewards of the earth
• Adherence to devout environmental ethics and personal morality
• A consilience of religious thinking acceptable to most peoples
• Live by the Golden Rule common to most societies
• Respect for the opinion of others

This is not a complete listing of the key goals of Religious Naturalism but the main consensus ones. The different sectors within this worldview also have their own specific tenets. These are explained more fully at: Religious Naturalism Tenets

Varieties

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 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 some what different ways to categorize them. They are:

Michael Cavanaugh – God-language [10]

• 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.

• 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.

Jerald Robertson – Theistic spectrum [11]

• neo-theistic ([process theology], progressive religions –Gordon Kaufman, Karl E. Peters, Ralph Wendell Burhoe, Edmund Robinson

• non-theistic (agnostic, naturalistic concepts of god, neo-Pantheism) - Robertson himself, Spinoza, Stanley Klein [ [12], Stuart Kauffman

• not-theistic (no God concept, some modern naturalisms, non-militant atheism) – Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh [13], Donald A. Crosby [14], Ursula Goodenough

• a hodgepodge of individual perspectives.- Philip Hefner

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. Hard core militant atheists are not considered Religious Naturalists in this differentiation. Some individuals call themselves Religious Naturalisms but refuse to be categorized.

Jerome A. Stone – God concepts [15]

• 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.

---

Emergence of Life

There are several principles shared by all these varieties of Religious Naturalism.

• 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.

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.

Areas of disagreement

Free and cordial debate is welcomed

There are some tensions existing between and even within varieties of Religious Naturalism -

1. When the third variety refers to the ultimate and identifies God as one of the meanings or referents of ultimacy, this raises the question for those who espouse the first variety of whether the[[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism] part of Religious Naturalism is being denied or deemphasized. This tension may not arise with those users of God-language who use the label entirely metaphorically and do not posit the existence of a God that transcends the natural world (for example, the Harvard theologian Gordon Kaufman). However, some would urge that even an acknowledged metaphorical use of God language, with all its historical associations, leads to ambiguity and confusion.

2. Other language tensions. Even apart from God-language and the language of ultimacy, different Religious Naturalists (even those who espouse the same variety) may mean different things by certain terms. For example:

a)The word nature is usually but not always used in the broadest possible sense, including humans and all of their psychological and cultural dimensions; what happened (if anything) before the Big Bang; what exists (if anything) in the dimensions posited by string theory; etc. This usage includes within Nature much that science does not currently describe with relative certainty, but cannot contravene what science currently describes with relative certainty. However, Religious Naturalists at times use the word Nature in the traditional sense of distinguishing that which is not human, without meaning by that usage to suggest that we are not part of nature.

b)The word sacred typically points to that which is worthy of the highest honor, reverence and care, but some Religious Naturalists would prefer not to use the word at all. Likewise the word "spiritual" usually connotes meaningful inward responses to the sacred; again, however, some Religious Naturalists would prefer not to use the word at all, in favor of more ordinary words or phrases like "deeply meaningful" or "emotionally fulfilling."

c)The word religious may mean that which concerns the sacred, but is at least as likely to refer to that which binds us together, recognizing the "lig" in religion to be the same root as the "lig" in ligament (see Religion:Etymology).

3. The question of free will, like in many religious beliefs, is debated vigorously. Are the laws of Nature causally deterministic, or does Nature itself allow for causal fluctuations that cannot strictly be called deterministic? In particular, are the details of human life wholly determined by outside forces in either the environment or the psychological development, or is there room for a robust free will?

A difference between Religious Naturalism and other modern naturalistic and humanistic ideologies is that it doesn't look for differences with other doctrines. It is more accepting of a diversity of theological opinions and thus tolerates a broader range of perspectives.

Proponents and Critics

Proponents - Donald A. Crosby - Ursula Goodenough - Loyal Rue - Chet Raymo - Philip Hefner - Paul Tillich - Stuart Kauffman - Ralph Wendell Burhoe - Karl E. Peters - Henry Nelson Wieman

Critics - Daniel Dennett - John Haught - Fundamentalism

Prominent Communities

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 are:

Jewish Religious Naturalism

• Main group - Religious Naturalism Interest Group of IRAS (The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science), which usually meets annually on Star Island off the coast of New Hampshire

• Jewish congregation near Chicago (Congregation Beth Or) led by Rabbi David Oler (see www.BethOr.com) and one in Loveland ,Ohio calling itself humanistic Judaism (Congregation Beth Adam) led by Rabbi Robert Barr [16]

• Group of Unitarian Universalists who are also Religious Naturalists UURN organized by John Hooper [17]

• On-line group open to the public [18] and the IRAS group has an on-line service, but it is open only to IRAS members.

• Local Progressive Christianity groups [19]

• Nontheistic Friends Non-theist Quakers

• Organizations with naturalistic orientation [20]

==See Also== *Emergence

• Immanence
• Liberal religion
• Naturalism
• neo-Pantheism
• Pantheism
• Religious Humanism
• self-organization
• Spiritual Naturalism

See also: List of new religious movements

Further Reading

Most recent publications

Literature on RN

• 2008- Jerome A. Stone - Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press (Dec 2008), ISBN-10: 0791475379

• 2008- Chet Raymo - When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy: Making of a Religious Naturalist, Sorin Books (September 2008), ISBN-10: 1933495138

• 2008- Donald A. Crosby - Living with Ambiguity: Religious Naturalism and the Menace of Evil, State University of New York Press (August 7, 2008), ISBN-10: 0791475190

• 2006- Loyal Rue - Religion is not About God, Rutgers University Press (September 25, 2006), ISBN-10: 0813539552

• 2006- William R. Murry - Reason and Reverence, Skinner House Books (November 6, 2006), ISBN-10: 1558965181

• 2004- Gordon Kaufman - In the Beginning….Creativity, Augsburg Fortress Publishers (July 2004), ISBN-10: 0800660935

• 2002- Karl Peters - Dancing with the Sacred, Trinity Press International (August 2002), ISBN-10: 1563383934

• 2000- Ursula Goodenough - The Sacred Depths of Nature, Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (June 15, 2000), ISBN-10: 0195136292

• 2000- Paul Tillich - The Courage to Be, Yale University Press; 2 Sub edition (July 11, 2000), ISBN-10: 0300084714

This is only a sampling of the work of these authors. See their Wikipedia articles for more. Also the Bibliograhy.

Bibliography

Over 100 books pertaining to Religious Naturalism can be found at LibraryThing. It includes many of the authors referenced here. LibraryThing - ReligiousNaturalism

External links

• ReligiousNaturalism.org
• Religious Naturalism Information
• RN at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS)
• LibraryThing – Religious Naturalism
• Naturalism.org
• RN articles and sermons
• Neo-Pantheism
• Ursula Goodenough, Religious Naturalist
• Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion
• The New Cosmology
• SacredRiver.org
• Humanistic Religious Naturalism
• 33 sites relating to Religious Naturalism