Comments for Swimming the Sacred River

Comment on Academic and Movement Religious Naturalism by Ash

Ash — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:38:11 +0000

Yes, ignorance can be comforting, especially when spewing hyperbolic criticisms.

Comment on Academic and Movement Religious Naturalism by Helvétius

Helvétius — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:33:03 +0000

“I would suggest that you are unfamiliar with the viewpoints of religious naturalism.”

That would be a relief.

Comment on Academic and Movement Religious Naturalism by Ash

Ash — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:21:50 +0000

I would suggest that you are unfamiliar with the viewpoints of religious naturalism. If anything, I think that Spinoza was too theistic for RN, at least for my taste.

But, your comment illustrates one of my chief criticisms of the title “religious naturalism.”

Comment on Religious Wagers by Bob

Bob — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:04:17 +0000

Not only do they lose their sense of reason, but also all the time and effort used up for an empty cause their entire lives. Imagine if they put that time to something productive.

Comment on Why Bother with Religious Naturalism? Answering a Critic by Joakim

Joakim — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:14:19 +0000

Great! As a RN yoga instructor these themes are relevant to my practice, so I look forward reading that.

Comment on Religious Naturalism: A Working Title by Peter Schogol

Peter Schogol — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:07:30 +0000

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.

Comment on Why Bother with Religious Naturalism? Answering a Critic by Ash

Ash — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:01:02 +0000

This is an interesting topic, so I’ll do you one better and write a post on it in the near future…

Comment on Why Bother with Religious Naturalism? Answering a Critic by Joakim

Joakim — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:09:19 +0000

Good work, Ash.

A short question. You write “There is already much discussion about various forms of mindfulness and non-petitionary prayer.” Could you please point me to this discussion?

Comment on Religious Naturalism: A Working Title by Paul Harrison

Paul Harrison — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:24:50 +0000

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.

Comment on Religious Naturalism: A Working Title by Paul Harrison

Paul Harrison — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:18:47 +0000

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.