Religious Naturalism: A Working Title
As much as I identify as a religious naturalist, I must confess that I do not like the term. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that religious naturalism be eliminated, only used in the way other categorical terms are used, such as Abrahamic Religion. I can’t say that I have a better choice, but I do hope that one comes to light.
First, the term is blandly descriptive—it fails to evoke the deep emotions that many of us actually feel about nature. It simply does not reflect the life and majesty inherent in its object of reverence. Second, the use of the term “religious” is for many naturalists a source of dissonance, in some ways requiring a redefinition of the word. Third, “naturalism” is a poorly understood and confusing construct—because of that, its boundaries are too porous for my own taste (e.g. does it include pantheism or is it somehow distinct?). Finally, the term is an academic one, mostly referring to dry concepts found within the pages of theology journals, untethered from the personal and cultural experience of adherents.
Alas, I believe the term is becoming solidified in the wake of recent publications, most notably The Sacred Depths of Nature, by Ursula Goodenough, and Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, by Jerome Stone (both excellent books). But rather than address religious naturalism as a religion, or even a religious movement, these books use the term to describe a religious orientation within an intellectual or academic framework. There’s nothing at all wrong with this, but it places RN more in the realm of philosophy or academic theology, places generally inaccessible to the average person.
Another major drawback with the term is that it describes an attitude towards Nature as a whole, offering little in terms of what we think about each other. From what I can tell, many religious naturalists have adopted some form of humanism into their worldview to fill in the ethics gap. But it really becomes a mouthful to say I am a Religious Naturalist Humanist.
Words matter. Names matter. The best names are symbols, which is why I chose Sacred River for this venture rather than “Ash’s Religious Naturalism Project”. It’s hard to imagine an inspiring symbol for “A scientifically-informed, reverent orientation towards Nature absent of the supernatural yet worthy of awe and wonder.” If there is an answer, I think it lies within the Story of Everyone, also known as The Epic of Evolution—not just natural selection, but big-E Evolution, the process of change that resulted in everything there is, including us. Something that embodies the experience of discovery, the thrill of progress, and the mystery of emergence—the sheer majesty of this universe and an utterly complex brain that allows us to contemplate and study it. What name could possibly encapsulate all of that?
I’m certain that the answer is out there, waiting to emerge from our movement. Until that happens, I’ll have to be satisfied with our working title.
If you can come up with a better name, please put it out there! If I had a dollar for every line that’s been posted in efforts to find a better name, I’d be a wealthy woman. I’ve of late scrubbed the -ism part from my vocabulary — I now try my best to just use -ist, as in a religious naturalist orientation, where most have more positive valence with the concept of being a naturalist than with espousing naturalism.
But in my vocabulary, “what we think about each other” — what you’re calling humanism (aagh, another -ism) — is as fully a part of nature as galaxies and butterflies. I don’t find a need to add an additional word to cover our facet of of the whole.
If you can come up with a better name, please put it out there!
I wish I had one. It took me forever just to come up with Sacred River. But I don’t think this can be designed…I think it has to happen organically. Some word or phrase will be uttered and someone will think it sounds good and others will join in and there a name will be. The only point of the article was to say that RN is a good academic description of a particular orientation, but not so good as a movement name, and so we should keep our eyes and ears open.
Regarding natural-ist vs. -ism… I agree, but have run into problems. It took multiple emails and phone calls with my dissertation chair (this was when RN was going to be part of my topic) to get her to understand that the naturalists I was referring to wasn’t greensters, conservationists, or ecologists. When people hear “naturalist” they think Muir not Spinoza.
But in my vocabulary, “what we think about each other” — what you’re calling humanism (aagh, another -ism) — is as fully a part of nature as galaxies and butterflies. I don’t find a need to add an additional word to cover our facet of of the whole
Agreed, which is a point I tried to make. But nothing within naturalism leads to any particular set of moral values or principles, which is something I believe RN needs to develop/adopt before it can ever become a mainstream movement. At the moment, RN does not adequately address the human condition, how we should see and treat each other, or what goals we should prioritize as a species (except perhaps environmental stewardship). RN will be lacking something vital until we begin to integrate these things into our model.
But none of this is a fault of naturalism. This is why I believe RN is lacking as a name, because it is inherently limited. Philosophical naturalism, as I understand it, isn’t concerned with ethics (except insofar as to say they derived naturally through the process of evolution). Any name that emerges would ideally encompass not just naturalism and a reverent orientation, but also an ethical and cultural framework.
Of course, we might just be stuck with RN, in which case the project will be to develop a definition of that term that extends beyond its simple description.
But nothing within naturalism leads to any particular set of moral values or principles, which is something I believe RN needs to develop/adopt before it can ever become a mainstream movement. At the moment, RN does not adequately address the human condition, how we should see and treat each other, or what goals we should prioritize as a species (except perhaps environmental stewardship). RN will be lacking something vital until we begin to integrate these things into our model.
This is the sticking point I keep seeing with this whole “religious naturalism” project.
Religious naturalism, you tell us, needs “an established set of spiritual practices or traditions”, but currently has none; needs “stories, both personal and mythological”, but currently has none; needs a “particular set of moral values or principles” but currently has none. Yet you talk of religious naturalism “becom[ing] a mainstream movement.”
Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse, a little? Doesn’t one usually have something to promote, and only then develop a “movement” to promote it? I’m confused as to how and why one would want to turn into a “mainstream movement” something that not only does not yet seem to exist in any meaningful form, and not only has no firm definition for what it would be even if it did exist, but something of which only the vaguest of statements can be made as to what even that definition might one day look like. Until you really know what “religious naturalism” is, how can you even tell whether or not you’d want to turn it into a mainstream movement? Suppose – and I agree with you that I don’t think it can or ever will – an investigation into the natural world someday does yield a “particular set of moral values or principles”, but they are principles that you don’t like (which seems the most likely outcome when we look at the violence rampant in the natural world and inherent in the process of evolution). What happens then?
This isn’t a snarky criticism, but a serious point. Despite the whole superstructure you have here about the “four virtues” and the “three pillars”, all I really see when I look at it is a combination of atheism (which I obviously agree with) and what I might loosely term progressive liberal morality, and the superstructure appears to have little purpose other than to attempt to justify that. Beyond those two things – which require no such superstructure – to put it crudely, I genuinely cannot discern what you are trying to sell.
Religious naturalism has no “established set of spiritual practices or traditions”, no “stories, both personal and mythological”, and no “particular set of moral values or principles”. You, I assume, consider yourself to have a more-or-less “spiritually fulfilling” life which you have clearly managed to achieve and sustain without any these things that you acknowledge religious naturalism cannot yet provide. That being the case, as a genuine question, why do you think that a “mainstream movement” is needed to provide such things if you’ve managed to do perfectly well without them yourself?
Once more, I’m not saying this just to rubbish the whole idea for a bit of a daft laugh, but I’ve been following this Sacred River project for a while and I really don’t see anything there. If you already had practices, stories, morality, and the like which you believed to be valuable and wished to promote, regardless of whether or not I’d share that view, I could at least see what you were trying to do, but you don’t. The whole thing seems to me to be looking for a solution which will then and only then be used to try to find a problem to go along with it. The entire concept seems irrelevant, unnecessary and potentially downright counter-productive to me – I just don’t get it.
Hi Erwin.
RN is a developing orientation that I personally hope will turn into a larger movement. It isn’t really new…it’s been around since the 1940s or so (as such), with philosophical roots in Spinoza. But you are right in that it has been more of a perspective rather than a religion, and no one in RN would dispute that. So, rather than “selling something”, I am working towards developing something that can fulfill the spiritual drive and remain in alignment with a scientific understanding of nature.
Once more, I’m not saying this just to rubbish the whole idea for a bit of a daft laugh, but I’ve been following this Sacred River project for a while and I really don’t see anything there…The entire concept seems irrelevant, unnecessary and potentially downright counter-productive to me – I just don’t get it.
That’s okay, not everyone will see value in religious naturalism. Fortunately, a growing number of people are finding RN to be meaningful, relevant, necessary, and productive. Perhaps you would be better served going to sources other than my own…try reading some of the other RN writing out there, especially by Goodenough and Stone. Perhaps they can shine a light for you where I have not.
It isn’t really new…it’s been around since the 1940s or so (as such)
And still doesn’t have any of the aforementioned things…
So, rather than “selling something”, I am working towards developing something that can fulfill the spiritual drive
And again, what’s wrong with how you’ve been fulfilling your spiritual drive to date? What do you think is missing from that that seems to require a popular movement of some indefinite and unknown form?
That’s okay, not everyone will see value in religious naturalism…Perhaps you would be better served going to sources other than my own
Well, OK, but I was trying to get you to articulate an answer to that question. I’m perfectly aware there are other sources for religious naturalism, and if I wanted their views, I’d be asking them. You’ve gone to some trouble writing a blog on the subject – presumably at least partially for the purpose of inviting discussion on the subject – but you’re avoiding addressing what strikes me as a colossal, glaring and fundamental omission. If these fundamental questions are ones you aren’t interested in or aren’t comfortable addressing, then fine, I’ll quit asking them, but they seem kinda obvious and important to me.
If these fundamental questions are ones you aren’t interested in or aren’t comfortable addressing, then fine, I’ll quit asking them, but they seem kinda obvious and important to me.
Frankly, it seems a waste of time to answer you when you’ve already decided that my interests are “irrelevant, unnecessary and potentially downright counter-productive”. Yes, I could answer all your questions with far more substance and thoughtfulness, and perhaps I will when I have some time, but accusing me of avoiding challenging topics is not a good way to inspire such an effort. Not only that, your comments here are well outside the scope of the post, leading me to believe that your purpose was not to engage in conversation, but simply to express your contempt of RN in general and Sacred River in particular. And frankly, trying to persuade you of anything at this point seems irrelevant, unnecessary and counter-productive.
Yes, I could answer all your questions with far more substance and thoughtfulness, and perhaps I will when I have some time
Perhaps. I’ll take the suggestion seriously when I see it.
accusing me of avoiding challenging topics is not a good way to inspire such an effort.
I’m not “accusing” you, I’m observing you. I raised the challenging topics and you did, in fact, avoid addressing them. Twice now. This can not be seriously disputed. And this isn’t the first time, either, as I alluded to in the first sentence of my response.
your comments here are well outside the scope of the post
They talk directly and squarely to the scope of the comment you made that I quoted. Was your own comment outside the scope of the post, then? And even if they were, so what? They are well within the scope of your overall project – where else do you propose I put them? Respond in a new post if it will make you feel more organized. Really, this is just a disappointing evading tactic.
leading me to believe that your purpose was not to engage in conversation, but simply to express your contempt of RN in general and Sacred River in particular
If you want to believe things like that, despite me repeatedly going to the trouble of telling you that that wasn’t what I was doing, that’s your prerogative. If you want to avoid talking about issues important to the subject of your own blog and instead to go on some weird defensive trip, then good luck with that.
I’m not going to argue with you, Erwin. You came telling me that you think RN/SR is empty and useless, then asked questions mostly based on what I believe are incorrect premises. In my experience, conversations like this never go anywhere…and produce more heat than light. Call me defensive if you like, but I’m genuinely unmotivated to try persuading you to think other than you do—I honestly don’t have the time it would take, even if I thought it was at all possible. Your criticisms are noted.
You came telling me that you think RN/SR is empty and useless, then asked questions mostly based on what I believe are incorrect premises.
Dismissing a serious criticism just because of who’s saying it or how they are saying it isn’t going to wash in the long run. That sounds more like a religious response than the kind of scientific response you profess to be interested in. I’ve outlined my criticism for you clearly, and given you ample opportunity to respond on your own terms and on your own blog dedicated to the subject with what you think those “incorrect premises” are, and to address the suggestion that religious naturalism is “empty and useless”. But, at every turn you’ve been unwilling and/or unable to do so, instead merely offering a long line of tired excuses that:
– you “don’t have time” (despite apparently having plenty of time to write an entire blog on the subject);
– it’s off topic (despite bring directly related to the topic);
– you “could answer all” of them if you wanted (despite repeatedly being unable and/or unwilling to do so);
– it’s a “a waste of time to answer [me] when [I]’ve already decided” (i.e. debate, analysis, investigation, and advocacy of all kinds are completely worthless as a simple matter of policy);
– answering such questions would “produce more heat than light” (despite the failure to answer such questions clearly generating lots of heat and by definition no light at all)
and now that it’s just “incorrect” without any substantiation. If you’re genuinely uninterested in addressing the issues underlying your subject, then fine, but say so; hiding behind excuses like this is highly unbecoming. I’m mystified as to why you even bother if you’re not interested in examining your subject in any kind of meaningful depth. What is this blog for if not to look at issues such as this? I’m really starting to wonder whether you’re seriously engaged in this subject at all. If it even is a real subject.
Call me defensive if you like
OK.
I’m genuinely unmotivated to try persuading you to think other than you do
Well, again that’s your prerogative, but good luck forming a “mainstream movement” – to achieve any objective whatsoever, whether a religious one, a “progressive” ethical one, or an environmental one – with that kind of docile, disengaged and disinterested attitude. I suspect many of your compatriots in the progressive ethical and environmental spheres, for instance, care a great deal about persuading people to think other than they do – in those two cases by definition, in fact – but perhaps you’re right; perhaps they’ll “never go anywhere” as you suggest.
Almost all the major features of religious naturalism were already covered from 1996 on by Naturalistic Pantheism, in the World Pantheist Movement http://www.pantheism.net
The only perceptible difference these days, when I last inquired, was that the religious naturalism groups associated with IRAS had a “Big Tent” approach aiming to include naturalistic theists.
If you define theism the way most people do, as belief in a creator deity, I don’t believe it is possible to include it under the rubric of Naturalism. Briefly that’s because the question of the origin of the universe is a subject of scientific inquiry, and a creator deity is a supernatural answer of the kind that is not acceptable in science.
Of course I don’t include people might call themselves theists but whose deity is simply the natural universe – those people are pantheists.
Therefore I don’t think the term religious naturalism is appropriate for the “Big Tent” approach including non-pantheist theists.
Religious naturalism would be okay for an approach that excluded supernatural beings, realms and forces. And some of us would like to see the religious naturalism group(s)adopt such an approach.
If they did, of course, then this would be identical to the World Pantheist Movement.
Paul,
IRAS aside, I think that religious naturalism is more of a categorical term, within which WMP fits perfectly. As my last post suggested, and as we’ve discussed, I too think that the idea of god, even as a metaphor, is incompatible with naturalism. On the methodological side of naturalism, the idea of god isn’t useful because it doesn’t advance understanding or clarity, and on the philosophical side, god is simply not something that we have any evidence for and so can’t be rationally included within what we know about nature. If theism, even in the form of deism, is eventually included under the banner of RN, then I think the term loses any utility as a descriptor.
In regards to IRAS, can you please provide a reference so I can get a better grasp of the “big tent” position you say they are taking? I can’t really address their position if I don’t know what it is.
The Big Tent approach has been discussed many times on the religious naturalism yahoogroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/religious-naturalism/messages.
Exactly what it encompasses has shifted around with time, and also according to who is talking.
If it’s Ursula, it appears to extend as far as liberal theism and even what could be termed supernatural beliefs.
Others have a more orthodox interpretation of naturalism so that by definition it unambiguously excludes the supernatural.
The lack of a clear governance there means that it’s hard to pin down, if you raise the subject and ask for the current state of play you may get a better picture.
The WPM has always unambiguously excluded the supernatural, in fact we pioneered almost everything that the RN group has done to create a movement, usually several years beforehand.
You should check us out thoroughly, we have explored in detail many practical areas of developing a naturalistic religion and continue to explore them, especially now in our Ning group http://pantheists.ning.com.
Addendum:
We do fit perfectly with a 100% naturalistic definition of religious naturalism – and vice-versa. In other words, 100% naturalistic religious naturalism is 100% synonymous with Naturalistic Pantheism.
In that situation, having two movements just over the name issue would be absurd.
However, we do not fit at all with a definition of religious naturalism that is open to the supernatural or to the idea of any kind of creator, mental, personal or judging deity. That kind of use of the term religious naturalism is not one that I personally regard as legitimate.
I am a Jew by virtue of having been born into an ethno-religious civilization called Judaism. I am a humanist by upbringing and conviction. I am a religious naturalist by sensibility.
I find William R. Murry and Donald A. Crosby to be particularly inspiring, and along with others they have helped me with the spiritual and intellectual parameters of my life stance.
My life stance could be considered religious, and I seek out the company of others who practice naturalistic religion, but I would not join an umbrella organization of religious naturalists which would offer me a piece of its blanket.
I resist the idea that all who practice naturalistic religion are anonymous or pseudonymous Religious Naturalists or Naturalistic Pantheists and I am especially wary of any person or organization who seeks to brand these terms.
I find Sacred River to be a solid website whose vision and praxis are congenial with my own.