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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.