Showing posts with label Robert Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Wright. Show all posts

2019/09/28

Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia



Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia



Nontheistic religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Part of a series on
Irreligion

Irreligion[show]

Atheism[show]

Agnosticism[show]

Nontheism[hide]

Criticism of religion
Secular humanism
Freethought
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Ignosticism
Inconsistent revelations
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Nontheistic religions
Pantheism
Parody religion
Post-theism

Russell's teapot
Theological noncognitivism
Transtheism

Naturalism[show]

People[show]

Books[show]

Secularist organizations[show]

Related topics[show]

Irreligion by country


v
t
e


Nontheistic religions are traditions of thought within a religious context—some otherwise aligned with theism, others not—in which nontheism informs religious beliefs or practices.[1] Nontheism has been applied[by whom?] to the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology, and plays significant roles in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. While many approaches to religion exclude nontheism by definition, some inclusive definitions of religion show how religious practice and belief do not depend on the presence of god(s). 

For example, Paul James and Peter Mandaville distinguish between religion and spirituality, but provide a definition of the term that avoids the usual reduction to "religions of the book":

Religion can be defined as a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing.[2]


Contents



Buddhism[edit]

The Buddha descending from Trāyastriṃśa Heaven. Palm leaf manuscript. Nalanda, Bihar, India

The gods Śakra (left) and Brahmā (right)
Existence of gods[edit]
See also: God in Buddhism

The Buddha said that devas (translated as "gods") do exist, but they were regarded as still being trapped in samsara,[3] and are not necessarily wiser than we. In fact, the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,[4] and superior to them.[5]

Since the time of the Buddha, the denial of the existence of a creator deity has been seen as a key point in distinguishing Buddhist from non-Buddhist views.[6] 

The question of an independent creator deity was answered by the Buddha in the Brahmajala Sutta. The Buddha denounced the view of a creator and sees that such notions are related to the false view of eternalism, and like the 61 other views, this belief causes suffering when one is attached to it and states these views may lead to desire, aversion and delusion. At the end of the Sutta the Buddha says he knows these 62 views and he also knows the truth that surpasses them.

Metaphysical questions[edit]

On one occasion, when presented with a problem of metaphysics by the monk Malunkyaputta, the Buddha responded with the Parable of the Poison Arrow

When a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, his family summons the doctor to have the poison removed, and the doctor gives an antidote:[7]

But the man refuses to let the doctor do anything before certain questions can be answered. The wounded man demands to know who shot the arrow, what his caste and job is, and why he shot him. He wants to know what kind of bow the man used and how he acquired the ingredients used in preparing the poison. Malunkyaputta, such a man will die before getting the answers to his questions. It is no different for one who follows the Way. I teach only those things necessary to realize the Way. Things which are not helpful or necessary, I do not teach.

Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Secular theology and Christian atheism

A few liberal Christian theologians, define a "nontheistic God" as "the ground of all being" rather than as a personal divine being. John Shelby Spong refers to a theistic God as "a personal being with expanded supernatural, human, and parental qualities, which has shaped every religious idea of the Western world."[8]

From a nontheist, naturalist, and rationalist perspective, the concept of divine grace appears to be the same concept as luck.[9]

Bust of Paul Tillich

Many of them owe much of their theology to the work of Christian existentialist philosopher Paul Tillich, including the phrase "the ground of all being". Another quotation from Tillich is, "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."[10] This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.


Nontheist Quakers[edit]

Logo of the Society of Nontheist Friends
Main article: Nontheist Quakers

A nontheist Friend or an atheist Quaker is someone who affiliates with, identifies with, engages in and/or affirms Quaker practices and processes, but who does not accept a belief in a theistic understanding of God, a Supreme Being, the divine, the soul or the supernatural. Like theistic Friends, nontheist Friends are actively interested in realizing centered peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, happiness and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond.


Hinduism[edit]
Main article: Atheism in Hinduism

Hinduism is characterised by extremely diverse beliefs and practices.[11] In the words of R.C. Zaehner, "it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism."[12] He goes on to say that it is a religion that neither depends on the existence or non-existence of God or Gods.[13] More broadly, Hinduism can be seen as having three more important strands: one featuring a personal Creator or Divine Being, second that emphasises an impersonal Absolute and a third that is pluralistic and non-absolute. The latter two traditions can be seen as nontheistic.[14]

Although the Vedas are broadly concerned with the completion of ritual, there are some elements that can be interpreted as either nontheistic or precursors to the later developments of the nontheistic tradition. The oldest Hindu scripture, the Rig Veda mentions that 'There is only one god though the sages may give it various names' (1.164.46). Max Müller termed this henotheism, and it can be seen as indicating one, non-dual divine reality, with little emphasis on personality.[15] The famous Nasadiya Sukta, the 129th Hymn of the tenth and final Mandala (or chapter) of the Rig Veda, considers creation and asks "The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. /Who then knows whence it has arisen?".[16] This can be seen to contain the intuition that there must be a single principle behind all phenomena: 'That one' (tad ekam), self-sufficient, to which distinctions cannot be applied.[17][18]

It is with the Upanishads, reckoned to be written in the first millennia (coeval with the ritualistic Brahmanas), that the Vedic emphasis on ritual was challenged. The Upanishads can be seen as the expression of new sources of power in India. Also, separate from the Upanishadic tradition were bands of wandering ascetics called Vadins whose largely nontheistic notions rejected the notion that religious knowledge was the property of the Brahmins. Many of these were shramanas, who represented a non-Vedic tradition rooted in India's pre-Aryan history.[19] The emphasis of the Upanishads turned to knowledge, specifically the ultimate identity of all phenomena.[20] This is expressed in the notion of Brahman, the key idea of the Upanishads, and much later philosophizing has been taken up with deciding whether Brahman is personal or impersonal.[21] The understanding of the nature of Brahman as impersonal is based in the definition of it as 'ekam eva advitiyam' (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1) - it is one without a second and to which no substantive predicates can be attached.[22] Further, both the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads assert that the individual atman and the impersonal Brahman are one.[23] The mahāvākya statement Tat Tvam Asi, found in the Chandogya Upanishad, can be taken to indicate this unity.[24] The latter Upanishad uses the negative term Neti neti to 'describe' the divine.

Patañjali statue in Pantanjali Yog Peeth Haridwar

Classical Samkhya, Mimamsa, early Vaisheshika and early Nyaya schools of Hinduism do not accept the notion of an omnipotent creator God at all.[25][26] While the Sankhya and Mimamsa schools no longer have significant followings in India, they are both influential in the development of later schools of philosophy.[27][28] The Yoga of Patanjali is the school that probably owes most to the Samkhya thought. This school is dualistic, in the sense that there is a division between 'spirit' (Sanskrit: purusha) and 'nature' (Sanskrit: prakṛti).[29] It holds Samadhi or 'concentrative union' as its ultimate goal[30] and it does not consider God's existence as either essential or necessary to achieving this.[31]

The Bhagavad Gita, contains passages that bear a monistic reading and others that bear a theistic reading.[32] Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily nontheistic message,[33] and by others who stress its theistic message.[34] These broadly either follow after either Sankara or Ramanuja[35] An example of a nontheistic passage might be "The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being," which Sankara interpreted to mean that Brahman can only be talked of in terms of negation of all attributes—'Neti neti'.[36]

The Advaita Vedanta of Gaudapada and Sankara rejects theism as a consequence of its insistence that Brahman is "Without attributes, indivisible, subtle, inconceivable, and without blemish, Brahman is one and without a second. There is nothing other than He."[37] This means that it lacks properties usually associated with God such as omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and additionally is identical with the whole of reality, rather than being a causal agent or ruler of it.[38]

Jainism[edit]
Main article: God in Jainism
Further information: Jainism and non-creationism

Jain texts claim that the universe consists of jiva (life force or souls) and ajiva (lifeless objects). According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents-soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion-have always existed. The universe and the matter and souls within it are eternal and uncreated, and there is no omnipotent creator god. Jainism offers an elaborate cosmology, including heavenly beings/devas, but these heavenly beings are not viewed as creators-they are subject to suffering and change like all other living beings, and are portrayed as mortal.

According to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation/Nirvana. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. If godliness is defined as the state of having freed one's soul from karmas and the attainment of enlightenment/Nirvana and a god as one who exists in such a state, then those who have achieved such a state can be termed gods (Tirthankara).

Besides scriptural authority, Jains also employ syllogism and deductive reasoning to refute creationist theories. Various views on divinity and the universe held by the vedics, sāmkhyas, mimimsas, Buddhists, and other school of thoughts were criticized by Jain Ācāryas, such as Jinasena in Mahāpurāna.


References[edit]

  1. ^ Williams, J. Paul; Horace L. Friess (1962). "The Nature of Religion". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Blackwell Publishing. 2 (1): 3–17. doi:10.2307/1384088. JSTOR 1384088.
  2. ^ James, Paul; Mandaville, Peter (2010). Globalization and Culture, Vol. 2: Globalizing Religions. London: Sage Publications. p. xii-xiii.
  3. ^ John T Bullitt (2005). "The Thirty-one planes of Existence". Access To Insight. Retrieved 26 May 2010. The suttas describe thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during this long wandering through samsara. These range from the extraordinarily dark, grim, and painful hell realms to the most sublime, refined, and exquisitely blissful heaven realms. Existence in every realm is impermanent; in Buddhist cosmology there is no eternal heaven or hell. Beings are born into a particular realm according to both their past kamma and their kamma at the moment of death. When the kammic force that propelled them to that realm is finally exhausted, they pass away, taking rebirth once again elsewhere according to their kamma. And so the wearisome cycle continues.
  4. ^ Susan Elbaum Jootla (1997). "II. The Buddha Teaches Deities". In Access To Insight (ed.). Teacher of the Devas. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. Many people worship Maha Brahma as the supreme and eternal creator God, but for the Buddha he is merely a powerful deity still caught within the cycle of repeated existence. In point of fact, "Maha Brahma" is a role or office filled by different individuals at different periods." "His proof included the fact that "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9). Devas, like humans, develop faith in the Buddha by practicing his teachings." "A second deva concerned with liberation spoke a verse which is partly praise of the Buddha and partly a request for teaching. Using various similes from the animal world, this god showed his admiration and reverence for the Exalted One.", "A discourse called Sakka's Questions (DN 21) took place after he had been a serious disciple of the Buddha for some time. The sutta records a long audience he had with the Blessed One which culminated in his attainment of stream-entry. Their conversation is an excellent example of the Buddha as "teacher of devas," and shows all beings how to work for Nibbana.
  5. ^ Bhikku, Thanissaro (1997). Kevaddha Sutta. Access To Insight. When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be... That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.
  6. ^ B. Alan Wallace, Contemplative Science. Columbia University Press, 2007, pages 97-98.
  7. ^ Nhat Hanh, Thich (1991). Old Path White Clouds: walking in the footsteps of the Buddha. Parallax Press. p. 299. ISBN 0-938077-26-0.
  8. ^ A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born, ISBN 0-06-067063-0
  9. ^ Kaufman, Arnold S. "Ability", The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 60, No. 19
  10. ^ Tillich, Paul. (1951) Systematic Theology, p.205.
  11. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 17.
  12. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 51.
  13. ^ R. C. Zaehner, (1966) Hinduism, P.1-2, Oxford University Press.
  14. ^ Griffiths, Paul J, (2005) Nontheistic Conceptions of the Divine Ch. 3. in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion by William J Wainwright, p.59 . Oxford University Press US, ISBN 0-19-513809-0
  15. ^ Masih, Y. A comparative study of religions, P.164, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2000 ISBN 81-208-0815-0
  16. ^ O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger, (1981)The Rig Veda: An Anthology of One Hundred Eight Hymns (Classic) Penguin
  17. ^ Collinson, Diané and Wilkinson, Robert Thirty-Five Oriental Philosophers, P. 39, Routledge, 1994 ISBN 0-415-02596-6
  18. ^ Mohanty, Jitendranath (2000), Classical Indian Philosophy: An Introductory Text, p:1 Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0-8476-8933-6
  19. ^ Jaroslav Krejčí, Anna Krejčová (1990) Before the European Challenge: The Great Civilizations of Asia and the Middle East, p:170, SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-0168-5
  20. ^ Doniger,Wendy, (1990) Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions,P. 441, Merriam-Webster, ISBN 0-87779-044-2
  21. ^ Smart, Ninian (1998) The World's Religions P.73-74, CUP ISBN 0-521-63748-1
  22. ^ Wainwright, William J. (2005) Ch.3 Nontheistic conceptions of the divine. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion p.67 OUP, ISBN 0-19-513809-0
  23. ^ Jones, Richard H. (2004) Mysticism and Morality: A New Look at Old Questions, P. 80, Lexington Books, ISBN 0-7391-0784-4
  24. ^ Brown, Robert L, (1991) Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-0656-3.
  25. ^ Larson, Gerald James, Ch. Indian Conceptions of Reality and Divinity found in A Companion to World Philosophies By Eliot Deutsch, Ronald Bontekoe, P. 352, Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-21327-9
  26. ^ Morgan, Kenneth W. and Sarma, D S, Eds. (1953) Ch. 5. P.207 Hindu Religious Thought by Satis Chandra Chatterjee, The Religion of the Hindus: Interpreted by Hindus, Ronald Press. ISBN 81-208-0387-6
  27. ^ Flood, Gavin D, An Introduction to Hinduism,(p.232) CUP, ISBN 0-521-43878-0
  28. ^ Larson, Gerald James,(1999) Classical Samkhya, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, ISBN 81-208-0503-8
  29. ^ Feuerstein, Georg (1989), Yoga: The Technology of Ecstasy, Tarcher, ISBN 0-87477-520-5
  30. ^ King, Richard (1999) Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, p:191, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-0954-7
  31. ^ Clements, Richard Pauranik, Being a Witness in Theory and Practice of Yoga by Knut A. Jacobsen
  32. ^ Yandell, Keith. E., On Interpreting the "Bhagavadgītā", Philosophy East and West 32, no 1 (January, 1982).
  33. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 45, 98, 115, 136.
  34. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, pages 47, 51.
  35. ^ Flood, Gavin D, An Introduction to Hinduism, (pps 239-234) CUP, ISBN 0-521-43878-0
  36. ^ Swami Gambhirananda, (1995), Bhagavadgita: with the Commentary of Sankaracharya, Ch. 13. Vs. 13, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta ISBN 81-7505-150-7
  37. ^ Richards, John, Viveka-Chudamani of Shankara Vs 468.
  38. ^ Wainright, William, (2006), Concepts of God, Stanford Encyclopedia of Religion
  39. ^ Charles Brough (2010). The Last Civilization. p. 246. ISBN 1426940572. Deism and pan-deism, as well as agnosticism and atheism, are all Non-Theisms.
  40. ^ "Satanic Temple: IRS has designated it a tax-exempt church". AP NEWS. 25 April 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2019.

Religious naturalism - Wikipedia



Religious naturalism - Wikipedia



Religious naturalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The interconnectivity of nature is a key postulate in religious naturalism.

Religious naturalism (RN) combines a naturalist worldview with perceptions and values commonly associated with religions.[1][2] In this, "religious" is understood in general terms, separate from established traditions, in designating feelings and concerns (e.g. gratitude, wonder, humility, compassion) that are often described as spiritual or religious.[3][4][5] Naturalism refers to a view that the natural world is all we have substantiated reason to believe exists, and there is no substantiated reason to believe that anything else, including deities, exists or may act in ways that are independent of the natural order.[6][7]

Areas of inquiry include attempts to understand the natural world and the spiritual and moral implications of naturalist views.[8] Understanding is based in knowledge obtained through scientific inquiry and insights from the humanities and the arts.[9] Religious naturalists use these perspectives in responding to personal and social challenges (e.g. finding purpose, seeking justice, coming to terms with mortality) and in relating to the natural world.[8]


Contents
1Naturalism
2Religious
3History
4Tenets
5Varieties
6Shared principles



Naturalism[edit]

Naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world".[10]

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."[11]


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.[12]
Religious[edit]

A religious attitude towards nature

Religious naturalists use the term "religious" to refer to an attitude – of being appreciative of and interested in concerns that have long been parts of religions.[13][14] These include:[15]

A spiritual sense (which may include a sense of mystery or wonder or feelings of reverence or awe in response to the scope and power and beauty of the natural world)
A moral sense (with compassion, desire for justice, and attempts to do what is right – with respect to other people, other creatures, and the natural environment)

As the source of all that is and the reason why all things are as they are, the natural world may be seen as being of ultimate importance.[16]

As in other religious orientations, religious naturalism includes a central story – a modern creation myth – to describe ourselves and our place in the world. This begins with the Big Bang and the emergence of galaxies, stars, planets, and life, and evolution that led to the presence of human beings. As this gives insight into who we are and how we came to be, religious naturalists look to the natural world (the source of our intelligence and inclinations) for information and insights that may help us to understand and respond to important questions:
Why do we want what we want?
Why we do the things we do?
What we might try to point ourselves toward?

and to try to find ways to minimize problems (in ourselves and in our world), become our better selves, and relate to others and the world we are part of.[17]

When discussing distinctions between "religious" naturalists and "plain old" (secular) naturalists, Loyal Rue said: "I regard a religious or spiritual person to be one who takes ultimate concerns to heart."[18]
He noted that, while "plain old" naturalists are concerned with morals and may have emotional responses to the mysteries and wonders of the world, those who describe themselves as religious naturalists take it more "to heart" and show active interest in this area.[19]

History[edit]

Core themes in religious naturalism have been present, in varied cultures, for centuries. But active discussion, with use of this name, is relatively recent.

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.[20]

Views consistent with religious naturalism can be seen in ancient Daoist texts (e.g., Dao De Jing) and some Hindu views (such as God as Nirguṇa Brahman, God without attributes). They may also be seen in Western images that do not focus on active, personal aspects of God, such as Thomas Aquinas' view of God as Pure Act, Augustine's God as Being Itself, and Paul Tillich's view of God as Ground of Being. 

As Wesley Wildman has described, views consistent with RN have long existed as part of the underside of major religious traditions, often quietly and sometimes in mystical strands or intellectual sub-traditions, by practitioners who are not drawn to supernatural claims.[21]

The earliest uses of the term, religious naturalism, seem to have occurred in the 1800s. In 1846, the American Whig Review described "a seeming 'religious naturalism'",[22] 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".[23] 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".[24]

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.

Mordecai Kaplan (1881–1983), one of the great rabbis of the 20th century and the founder of the Jewish reconstructionism movement,[25] 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.[26]

Other verified usages of the term came in 1940 from George Perrigo Conger[27] and from Edgar S. Brightman.[28] 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".[29] 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.

Ursula Goodenough

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 1998 when Ursula Goodenough published The Sacred Depths of Nature, which is considered one of the founding texts of this movement."[30]

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[31][32]

Donald Crosby's Living with Ambiguity published in 2008, has, as its first chapter, Religion of Nature as a Form of Religious Naturalism.[33]

Loyal Rue's Nature is Enough published in 2011, discusses "Religion Naturalized, Nature Sanctified" and "The Promise of Religious Naturalism".[34]

Jerome A. Stone

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.[35]

Chet Raymo writes that he had come to the same conclusion as Teilhard de Chardin: "Grace is everywhere",[36] 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".[37]

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.[38]

Tenets[edit]

Due to the high importance placed on nature, 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.[39]

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 theological language but fundamentally treats God metaphorically.

A commitment to naturalism using theological 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.
---
Neo-theistic (process theology, progressive religions) – Gordon Kaufman, Karl E. Peters, Ralph Wendell Burhoe, Edmund Robinson[40]
Non-theistic (agnostic, naturalistic concepts of god) – Robertson himself, Stanley Klein, Stuart Kauffman, Naturalistic Paganism.
----
atheistic (no God concept, some modern naturalisms, Process Naturalism, C. Robert Mesle, non-militant atheism, antitheism) – Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh, Donald A. Crosby,[41] Ursula Goodenough, Daniel Dennett[42]
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. 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.[43]

God concepts[44]

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.[30]

Shared principles[edit]

Biological classification

There are several principles shared by all the aforementioned varieties of religious naturalism:[45]
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.[46][47][48] "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."[49]

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."[50]

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.[51] He is joined by a number of other theologians in this position.[52][53][54]

Notable proponents and critics[edit]
Proponents[edit]

Support for religious naturalism can be seen from two perspectives. One is individuals, in recent times, who have discussed and supported religious naturalism, per se. Another is individuals from earlier times who may not have used or been familiar with the term, "religious naturalism", but who had views that are compatible and whose thoughts have contributed to development of religious naturalism.

People who have been supportive of and who discussed religious naturalism by name include:

Chet Raymo
Loyal Rue
Donald A. Crosby
Jerome A. Stone
Michael Dowd
Ursula Goodenough
Terrence Deacon
Loren Eiseley
Philip Hefner
Ralph Wendell Burhoe
Mordecai Kaplan
Henry Nelson Wieman
George Santayana
Gordon D. Kaufman
Stuart Kauffman
Stanley A. Klein
C. Robert Mesle
Karl E. Peters
Varadaraja V. Raman
Ian Barbour
Robert S. Corrington

People from earlier times, who did not use the term, religious naturalism, but who had compatible views, include:
Lao-Tzu
Albert Einstein
W.E.B. Du Bois
Aldo Leopold

Critics[edit]

Religious naturalism has been criticized from two perspectives. One is that of traditional Western religion, which disagrees with naturalist disbelief in a personal God. Another is that of naturalists who do not agree that a religious sense can or should be associated with naturalist views. Critics in the first group include supporters of traditional Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religion. Critics in the second group include:
Richard Dawkins[55]
John Haught[56]

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 other groups mainly communicate online. Some known examples of religious naturalists groupings and congregation leaders are:[57]
Religious Naturalist Association[58]
Spiritual Naturalist Society[59]
Unitarian Universalist Religious Naturalists[60]
Religious Naturalism Facebook Group[61]
World Pantheist Movement – largely web-based but with some local groups.[62]
Universal Pantheist Society founded 1975 – Pantheism is an intercepting concept with religious naturalism[63]
Congregation Beth Or, a Jewish congregation near Chicago led by Rabbi David Oler[64]
Congregation of Beth Adam in Loveland Ohio led by Rabbi Robert Barr[65]
Pastor Ian Lawton, minister at the Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, West Michigan and Center for Progressive Christianity[66][67]


Religious Naturalism is the focus of classes and conferences at some colleges and theology schools.[68][69] Articles about religious naturalism have appeared frequently in journals, including Zygon, American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, and the International Journal for Philosophy and Religion.[70]

References[edit]

^ Jerome Stone, Religious Naturalism Today, SUNY Press 2008, page 1
^ Michael S. Hogue, The Promise of Religious Naturalism, Rowman & Littlefield 2010, pages xix-xx
^ Varadaraja V. Raman, Book-jacket review of Loyal Rue's "Nature is Enough", SUNY Press 2012
^ Loyal Rue, Nature is Enough, SUNY Press 2012, page 114
^ Michael Cavanaugh, "What is Religious Naturalism?", Zygon 2000, page 242
^ Loyal Rue, Nature is Enough, SUNY Press 2012, page 91
^ Wesley Wildman. Religious Naturalism: What It Can Be, and What It Need Not Be. Page 36
^ Jump up to:a b Ursula Goodenough, NPR 13.7 Blog, November 23, 2014: What is religious naturalism?
^ Michael S. Hogue. Religion Without God: An Essay on Religious Naturalism. The Fourth R 27:3 (Spring 2014)
^ Oxford English Dictionary Online naturalism
^ 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
^ (Sabra 2003)
^ Loyal Rue, Nature is Enough, State University of New York Press, 2011. Page 91
^ Varadaraja V. Raman. Back-cover review of Loyal Rue's "Nature is Enough"
^ Ursula Goodenough. Religious Naturalism and naturalizing morality. Zygon 38 2003: 101-109.
^ Donald Crosby. Living with Ambiguity: Religious Naturalism and the Menace of Evil, SUNY Press, 2008, page ix-x
^ Loyal Rue, Nature is Enough, State University of New York Press, 2011. Pages 93-96
^ Loyal Rue, Nature is Enough, State University of New York Press, 2011. Page 110
^ Loyal Rue, Nature is Enough, State University of New York Press, 2011. Pages 110-111
^ Sharon M. Kaye; Paul Thomson (2006). Philosophy for Teens: Questioning Life's Big Ideas,. Prufrock Press Inc. p. 72. ISBN 9781593632021.
^ Wildman, Wesley. Religious Naturalism: What It Can Be, and What It Need Not Be. Philosophy, Theology, and the Sciences. 1(1). 2014. Pages 49-51.
^ George Hooker Colton; James Davenport Whelpley (1846). The American Review: A Whig Journal, Devoted to Politics and Literature. p. 282.
^ Athanasia. American Unitarian Association. 1870. p. 6.
^ Ludwig Feuerbach; George Eliot (1881). The Essence of Christianity. Religion. Trübner. p. 103.
^ Alex J. Goldman - The greatest rabbis hall of fame, SP Books, 1987, page 342, ISBN 0933503148
^ Rabbi Emanuel S. Goldsmith - Reconstructionism Today Spring 2001, Volume 8, Number 3,Jewish Reconstructionist Federation retrieved 4-1-09
^ Perrigo Conger, George (1940). The Ideologies of Religion. p. 212. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
^ Brightman, Edgar S (1940). God as the Tendency of Nature to Support or Produce Values (Religious Naturalism). A Philosophy of Religion. p. 148.
^ Stone, Jerome A (1991). The Minimalist Vision of Transcendence. p. 9. ISBN 9780791411599.
^ Jump up to:a b Ignatowski, Mike (June 25, 2006). Religious Naturalism. Kingston. Retrieved 2009-03-07.
^ Goodenough, Ursula (2000). The Sacred Depths of Nature. Oxford University Press. p. 171. ISBN 0195136292.
^ "Video Interview - Speaking of Faith". Krista's Journal. April 7, 2005. Archived from the original on October 11, 2008.
^ Crosby, Donald A (2008). Living with Ambiguity. SUNY Press. p. 1. ISBN 0791475190.
^ Loyal Rue. Nature is Enough: Religious Naturalism and the Meaning of Life. SUNY Press. 2011.
^ Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative
^ When God is Gone Everything is Holy – The Making of a Religious Naturalist, Chet Raymo, 2008, p 136
^ Chet Raymo - When God is Gone Everything is Holy, Soren Books, 2008, page 114, ISBN 1-933495-13-8
^ Gillette, P. Roger. "Theology Of, By, & For Religious Naturalism". Archived from the original on 2009-11-14. Retrieved 2009-03-09.
^ Loyal D. Rue - RELIGION is not about god, Rutgers University Press, 2005, page 367, ISBN 0813535115
^ Robinson, Rev. Edmund. "2029 Presentation of Skinner Award-Winning Social Justice Sermon". archive.uua.org. Archived from the original on 19 July 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
^ Crosby, Donald A. A Religion of Nature. amazon.com. ISBN 0791454541.
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U
^ The Promise of Religious Naturalism – Michael Hogue, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Sept.16, 2010, ISBN 0742562611
^ Rev. Dr. Jerome Stone's Presentation. "3062 Religious Naturalism: A New Theological Option". Archived from the original on 19 July 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
^ "Introduction, page xviii" (PDF). Taylor's Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature.
^ How Grand a Narrative– Ursula Goodenough
^ " Epic, Story, Narrative – Bill Bruehl
^ How Grand a Narrative – Philip Hefner
^ "The Epic of Evolution". Taylor's Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. 2004.
^ Connie Barlow - The Epic of Evolution: Religious and cultural interpretations of modern scientific cosmology. Science & Spirit Archived 2006-05-23 at the Wayback Machine
^ "Thank God for Evolution". thankgodforevolution.com.
^ Eugenie Carol Scott, Niles Eldredge, Contributor Niles Eldredge, - Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction, University of California Press, 2005, page 235, ISBN 0520246500 - [1]
^ John Haught - God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, Westview Press, 2008ISBN 0813343704
^ Quotes of Berry and Hefner
^ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin 2006, pages 14,15,19
^ Loyal Rue, Nature is Enough, SUNY Press 2011, pages 116-122
^ 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
^ "Religious Naturalist Association". Retrieved September 17, 2015.
^ "Spiritual Naturalist Society". Retrieved February 22, 2018. Serving Religious and Spiritual Naturalists.
^ "Unitarian Universalist Religious Naturalists". Retrieved September 17, 2015.
^ "Religious Naturalism Facebook Group". Retrieved September 17, 2015.
^ "World Pantheism: The online community for naturalistic Pantheists". Retrieved June 24,2010.
^ Jerome A. Stone – Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press, page 10 (Dec 2008)
^ Jerome A. Stone – Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press, page 221 (Dec 2008)
^ A Jewish Perspective Archived 2009-01-17 at the Wayback Machine retrieved 2/15/2010
^ "Ian Lawton". Center for Progressive Christianity. Archived from the original on 16 July 2011. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
^ "Ian Lawton's Page".
^ "Religious Naturalism Resources". Retrieved September 17, 2015.
^ "International Congress on Religious Naturalism". Retrieved September 17, 2015.
^ Template:Cite web name=web search "journal article religious naturalism"


Further reading[edit]
2015 – Donald A. Crosby – More Than Discourse: Symbolic Expressions of Naturalistic Faith, State University of New York Press, ISBN 1438453744
2015 – Nathan Martinez – Rise Like Lions: Language and The False Gods of Civilization, ISBN 1507509901
2008 – Donald A. Crosby – The Thou of Nature: Religious Naturalism and Reverence for Sentient Life, State University of New York Press, ISBN 1438446691
2011 – Loyal Rue – Nature Is Enough, State University of New York Press, ISBN 1438437994
2010 – Michael Hogue – The Promise of Religious Naturalism, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Sept.16, 2010, ISBN 0742562611
2009 – Michael Ruse & Joseph Travis – Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, Belknap Press, 2009, ISBN 067403175X
2008 – Donald A. Crosby – Living with Ambiguity: Religious Naturalism and the Menace of Evil, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0791475190
2008 – Michael Dowd – Thank God for Evolution:, Viking (June 2008), ISBN 0670020451
2008 – Chet Raymo – When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy: The Making of a Religious Naturalist, Sorin Books, ISBN 1933495138
2008 – Kenneth R. Miller – Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, Viking Adult, 2008, ISBN 067001883X
2008 – Eugenie C. Scott – Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Greenwood Press, ISBN 978-0313344275
2007 – Eric Chaisson – Epic of Evolution, Columbia University Press (March 2, 2007), ISBN 0231135610
2006 – John Haught – Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press (May 31, 2006), ISBN 0521609933
2006 – Loyal Rue – Religion Is Not About God, Rutgers University Press, July 24, 2006, ISBN 0813539552
2004 – Gordon Kaufman – In the Beginning... Creativity, Augsburg Fortress Pub., 2004, ISBN 0800660935
2003 – James B. Miller – The Epic of Evolution: Science and Religion in Dialogue, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2003, ISBN 013093318X
2002 – Donald A. Crosby – A Religion of Nature – State University of New York Press, ISBN 0791454541
2000 – Ursula Goodenough – Sacred Depths of Nature, Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (June 15, 2000), ISBN 0195136292
2000 – John Stewart – Evolution's Arrow: The Direction of Evolution and the Future of Humanity, Chapman Press, 2000, ISBN 0646394975
1997 – Connie Barlow – Green Space Green Time: The Way of Science, Springer (September 1997), ISBN 0387947949
1992 – Brian Swimme – The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth to the Ecozoic Era, HarperCollins, 1992, ISBN 0062508350

Reading lists – Evolution Reading Resources[permanent dead link], Books of the Epic of Evolution, Cosmic Evolution


External links[edit]
Look up religious naturalism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Religious naturalism

Religious Naturalist Association
Religious Naturalism
Religious Naturalism Resources Boston University
The Great Story leading RN educational website
Naturalism.org
The New Cosmology
SacredRiver.org
The Spiritual Naturalist Society