2019/09/28

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

Quaker and Naturalist Too by Os Cresson, 2014 Book Review

Quaker and Naturalist too.doc

Book Review
Quaker and Naturalist Too
By Os Cresson 


For more than twenty years Os Cresson has been a leading light among nontheist Friends, his quiet, unassuming influence extending to Friends’ communities in the United States, Britain and beyond.

Os is a 100% Quaker, – and a one-hundred-per-cent naturalist without a trace of supernaturalism or mystical transcendentalism in his make-up. Not half-Quaker and half-atheist, not in two minds, nor standing with feet planted in two opposing camps, but “a person whose philosophies of science and religion and everything else, are bound to what we observe and what we infer from that”. 


Clear as he is about his own position (he quotes the Oxford English Dictionary definition of naturalism: “A view of the world, and of man’s relation to it, in which only the operation of natural [as opposed to supernatural or spiritual] laws and forces is admitted or assumed”) he is equally clear that this is only one position among many to be found in the modern, liberal, creedless Society of Friends. Os delights in this diversity and would have it no other way. Dogmatism is religion’s most relentless enemy within, and readers will find no trace of it in this book. 

Os has never thrust himself into the limelight. He has written for Friends Journal1
and contributed two classic essays to Godless for God’s Sake, the book which might be said to have given nontheist Quakerism lift-off when it was published in 2006. But many of his most valuable and insightful contributions have appeared in the transient medium of the internet, on the email forum  


nontheistfriends@googlegroups.com2
and the website 


www.nontheistfriends.org3
 




One reason for welcoming this book is that it snatches some of these gems from cyberspace and gives them new life on the printed page. 



The result is not only a powerful personal exposition of religious commitment free of outdated supernaturalism but also something of a handbook for nontheist Friends of all descriptions – naturalist, humanist, atheist, devout skeptic – and an eye-opener for Friends who have found it hard to reconcile godlessness with traditional Quaker metaphysics. Os starts with a short section on Quaker Unity, but I would recommend coming back to that after first taking in a truly wonderful
essay, Quakers from the Viewpoint of a Naturalist, which opens his second section. This is probably the best short statement of what it means to be a nontheist Friend that I have read anywhere. 


In a third section, Os digs deep into Quaker history to reveal a developing strand of Quaker dissent, or open-mindedness, which he characterises as the roots which eventually flowered into Quaker nontheism. Here he builds on one of his Godless for God’s Sake essays, starting with Gerrard  Winstanley and Jacob Bauthumley in the 17th century, moving on to 18th century “Quaker Skeptics” like John Bartram, the “proto-Hicksites” Job Scott, Abraham Shackleton, Hannah Barnard and Mary Newhall, and the Free Quakers of Philadelphia.



 In the 19th century he rediscovers David Duncan and the Manchester Free Friends, the Progressive and Congregational Friends of Longwood and New York, and the redoubtable Lucretia Mott (“I confess to great scepticism as to any account or story which conflicts with the unvarying natural laws of God and his creation”). Among several 20th century radicals he includes Henry Joel Cadbury,
historian, Biblical scholar, social activist (“I can describe myself as no ardent theist or atheist... My own religion is mainly neither emotional nor rational but expresses itself habitually, or occasionally in action”). 


This section concludes with an essay on Religious Naturalism in the Time of Fox. Os does not claim these giants for fully-developed naturalism or humanism, but offers them as examples of a freethinking movement at the heart of the Quaker tradition which paved the way to an inclusive Quakerism where today’s nontheist Friends can find themselves at home. Here he has made a most
valuable contribution to Quaker historiography, the more so since each entry is backed by source notes including an extensive bibliography.

No less valuable is the list of more than fifty recent books, pamphlets, articles and essays by Quaker nontheists which brings the book to a close.

This combination of exposition and resource manual makes Quaker and Naturalist a must-read both for Friends already committed to a nontheist viewpoint and others willing to explore adventurously what it might mean to be both religious and godless, Quaker and atheist. I cannot recommend it too highly. 


David Boulton 
---

Quaker and Naturalist Too – by Os Cresson, 2014 

published by Morning Walk Press, Iowa City, Iowa,
USA. ISBN 978-0-9914344-0-4 


----------

 1 Friends Journal is an American publication. 

2 An open forum set up by James Riemermann of the US 

3 A US web site set up by James Riemermann. 

Review: Quaker and Naturalist Too | Quaker Earthcare Witness

Review: Quaker and Naturalist Too | Quaker Earthcare Witness

Review: Quaker and Naturalist Too

2015. Mary Gilbert
Quaker and Naturalist
There I was, at the age of almost 13, away at camp for the first time. This camp ran a 24-hour recruitment program for being born again and baptized in the lake. There was a lot of pressure, so that none of us would leave at the end of the week without this conversion ritual. As I recall I held out until Thursday or Friday, but I wasn’t that strong; I wound up in the lake with the others, and I’ve never really lost the assumption that other people want me to come over to their religious beliefs and faith language.
The push to agree can also be found among Quakers. Decades later I had an argument with a weighty Friend at Pendle Hill, in which said Friend told me I was wrong for not wanting to pray "in Jesus’ name." Now much older, I was able to stay true to my own experiences, which happen not to be Christian, or even theist. In my Meeting a rainbow of theology is accepted and welcomed. There may be some quiet tolerating going on, however, obscured by just not talking about differences of belief, which holds us apart from real unity.

THE BOOK: QUAKER AND NATURALIST TOO

Os Cresson is a member of Iowa Conservative Yearly Meeting and of Quaker Earthcare Witness, where we served together on a committee. He is a lover of language and a careful thinker. Until I read his book, I didn’t know that he is also a serious historian. His book, published by Morning Walk Press in 2014, is lively with voices, and easy to read.
Following a foreword by David Boulton, well-known British Quaker non-theist and historian, the book is organized into three sections.
In the first section, "Unity," Cresson guides us beyond tolerance toward active love of each other, based in mutual confidence of acceptance despite differences. He sees each of us using the language that proceeds from our personal experience, not holding back because of the different words we use or the theology they imply. He says, "This contrasts with our usual practice of ignoring or hiding differences, limiting dialogue to terms we all agree on." (p. 9) More than half of this section is an anthology of quotations from Quakers through the years, demonstrating through many voices that this kind of diversity is truly part of our heritage.
In the second section, "Quakers and Naturalists," Cresson addresses the question of whether science and Quakerism are at odds. He has met Quakers who are skeptical of science. I have not run into this, possibly because I live near Cambridge (MA) with so many universities. Cresson suggests active Quaker outreach to scientists.
The third section is "History." He provides convincing statements from early and modern Friends showing that non-theism has been present among Quakers from our beginning. Then he turns to what he calls "religious naturalism in the time of Fox," looking at what Quakers and non-Quakers wrote about finding God through nature. Some held views similar to what we call stewardship, seeing God as Lord and Creator and humankind as responsible for the care of God’s Creation. Others found divinity in the unity of all being. Jacob Boehme, who was widely read by Friends, wrote, "[C]onsider how the whole Nature …is together the Body or Corporeity of God…" and "We can…in no wise say that God’s essence is something far off, which possesses a special abode or place, for the abyss of Nature and creation is God himself." (p. 108) This quotation "speaks my mind" exactly.
The largest section of the book, over a third of the total pages, consists of appendices, glossary, publications on Quaker non-theism, bibliography, and source notes. I write this in gratitude, because I love it when someone does years of research for me and shows me where I can find the original material.
I recommend this book to Friends and others who are interested in unity within theological diversity and how we conceive and experience divinity in the natural world.

Nontheist Quakers - Wikipedia 2019



Nontheist Quakers - Wikipedia



Nontheist Quakers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search


Nontheist Quakers (also known as nontheist Friends or NtFs) are those who engage in Quaker practices and processes, but who do not necessarily believe in a theistic God or Supreme Being, the divine, the soul or the supernatural. Like traditional Quakers, also known as Friends, nontheist Friends are interested in realizing peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, joy, and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond.


Contents
1Beliefs
2Nontheist Quakerism Books
3Notable Nontheist Friends
4See also
5References
6Further reading
7External links




Beliefs[edit]

Quakers in the unprogrammed or “silent worship” tradition of Quaker practice have in the 20th century begun to examine the significance of nontheistic beliefs in the Society of Friends, as part of the Quaker tradition of seeking truth. Non-theism among Quakers probably dates to the 1930s, when some Quakers in California branched off to form the Humanist Society of Friends (today part of the American Humanist Association), and when Henry Cadbury professed agnosticism in a 1936 lecture to Harvard Divinity School students.[1] The term "non-theistic" first appeared in a Quaker publication in 1952 on conscientious objection.[2][non-primary source needed] In 1976, a Friends General Conference Gathering hosted a well-attended Workshop for Nontheistic Friends (Quakers).[3]

Current resources include a nontheist Friends' website and there are nontheist Quaker study groups.[4] Os Cresson began a recent consideration of this issue from behaviorist, natural history, materialist and environmentalist perspectives. Roots and Flowers of Quaker Nontheism is one history. Friendly nontheism also draws on Quaker humanist and universalist traditions.[5] The book Godless for God's Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism offers recent, critical contributions by Quakers.[6] Some Friends engage the implications of human evolution, cognitive anthropology, evolutionary psychology, bodymind questions (esp. the "relaxation response"[7][8]), primatology, evolutionary history, evolutionary biology, biology and consensus decision-making, online especially, in terms of Quaker nontheism.

Nontheist Friends tend to share the Religious Society of Friends (RSOF) historic Quaker peace testimony and support for war resistance and conscientious objection.

There are currently three main nontheist Quakers' web sites, including 

  1. the Nontheist Friends' Official Website,[4]
  2. Nontheist Friends Network Website (a listed informal group of Britain Yearly Meeting),[9] and 
  3. the Nontheist Friends' wiki subject/school at World University and School,[10] which was founded by Scott MacLeod.

Nontheist Friends are a group of individuals, many of whom are affiliated or involved in the unprogrammed tradition in Quakerism. F/friendly nontheists are attempting sympathetically to generate conversation with others who are more comfortable with the traditional and often reiterated language of Quakerism. 

Some nontheistic f/Friends see significance in this lower-case / upper-case distinction in terms of inclusiveness and friendliness, welcoming both to the ongoing NTF email list conversations. 

Questioning theism, they wish to examine whether the experience of direct and ongoing inspiration from God ("waiting in the Light") – "So wait upon God in that which is pure. ..."[11] – which traditional Quakers understand as informing Silent Meeting and Meeting for Business, might be understood and embraced with different metaphors, language and discourse.

Nontheist Quakerism Books[edit]

  1. Boulton, David (Ed). 2006. Godless for God's Sake – Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism. Nontheist Friends.
  2. Cresson, Os, and David Boulton (Foreword). 2014. Quaker and Naturalist Too. Morning Walk Press.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Cadbury, Henry, 1936. "My Personal Religion." Accessed online: July 17, 2007. Unpublished manuscript in the Quaker Collection at Haverford College; lecture given to Harvard divinity students in 1936.
  2. ^ Tatum, Lyle (ed.). 1952. "Handbook for Conscientious Objectors." Philadelphia, PA: Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.
  3. ^ Morgan, Robert. 1976. "Report from the Workshop for Non-Theistic Friends – Friends General Conference, Ithaca, NY, June, 1976." (Note at end of report reads: "The author of this report is 'Workshop for Non-Theistic Friends'. The workshop was led by Robert Morgan (1916–1993), a Friend from Pittsburgh PA." Morgan was therefore "recording clerk" for this report).
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b "NontheistFriends.org". www.nontheistfriends.org.
  5. ^ Cresson, Os Roots and Flowers of Quaker Nontheism NontheistFriends.org, September 16, 2010
  6. ^ Boulton, David (ed.). 2006. Godless for God's Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism. Dent, UK: Dales Historical Monographs. ISBN 0-9511578-6-8
  7. ^ Benson MD, Herbert and Miriam Z. Klipper. 2000 [1972]. The Relaxation Response. Expanded updated edition. Harper. ISBN 0-380-81595-8
  8. ^ Benson MD, Herbert. 1976. Steps to Elicit the Relaxation Response.RelaxationResponse.org. From "The Relaxation Response." HarperTorch.
  9. ^ "Non-theist Friends Network". Non-theist Friends Network.
  10. ^ "Nontheist Friends' wiki school at World University and School".
  11. ^ Royce, Josiah. 1913. "George Fox as a Mystic" Cambridge, MA: The Harvard Theological Review. 6:1:31-59. JSTOR 1506970.
  12. ^ Anderson, Sam. 2011. "Nicholson Baker, The Art of Fiction No. 212." The Paris Review(198).

Further reading[edit]

I'm an atheist, so how did I end up such a committed Quaker? | Aeon Essays

I'm an atheist, so how did I end up such a committed Quaker? | Aeo



I contradict myself

I am an atheist and a Quaker. Does it matter what I believe, when I recognise that religion is something I need?

A Friends Meeting House in Casco, Maine, USA. 



Photo by MyLoupe/Getty

Nat Caseis is a cartographer living and working in Minneapolis, who blogs at maphead.blogspot.com

Brought to you by Curio, an Aeon partner



2,100 words



SYNDICATE THIS ESSAY

Tweet863





I read voraciously as a child, even obsessively. Our family drove across the US when I was 13, and I hardly noticed the scenery, eyes glued to a mammoth book of classic science-fiction stories. As I recall, this ticked off my parents.



Magical stories moved me to tears. I vividly remember, at the age of eight, being surprised at how deeply the second chapter of Astrid Lindgren’s The Brothers Lionheart (1973) affected me. The narrator dies and goes to the land where sagas come from, and when he arrives he finds that all that he had wanted — to be strong, healthy and beautiful like his older brother — has come to be, and that his beloved brother is there, too. And this is just the beginning of the story. I remember arriving at the end of Penelope Farmer’s The Summer Birds (1962) and weeping bitterly as the children, who have spent the summer flying about the English countryside, return gravity-bound to school while their lonely classmate and the strange bird-boy fly off together over the ocean.



This essay wasn’t supposed to be about the stories I read as a child. It was supposed to be about how I manage to be an atheist within a religious community, and why I dislike the term ‘atheism’. But however I wrote that essay, the words died on the page. That story comes down to this: I do not believe in God, and I am bored with atheism. But these stories, this magic, and their presence in my heart, they don’t bore me — they are alive. Even though I know they are fiction, I believe in them.



My main religious practice today is meeting for worship with the Religious Society of Friends: I am a Quaker. Meeting for worship, to a newcomer, can feel like a blank page. Within the tradition of Friends, it is anything but blank: it is a religious service, expectant waiting upon the presence of God. So it’s not meditation, or ‘free time’. But that’s how I came to it at first, at the Quaker high school I attended.



After almost 15 years away, I returned to Quakerism in 1997. During a difficult patch of my life, a friend said I needed to do something for myself. So I started going to the meeting house on Sunday mornings. What I rediscovered was the simple fact of space. It was a hiatus, a parenthesis inserted into a complicated, twisty life. Even if it held nothing but breath, it was a relief, and in that relief, quiet notions emerged that had been trampled into the ground of everyday life.



‘Truth’, in the sense that it was used by 17th-century Friends, had less to do with verifiable evidence, and more to do with sense of being a ‘true friend’, an arrow flying true



I am an atheist, but I’ve been bothered for a long time by the mushiness I’ve found in the liberal spiritual communities that admit non-believers such as me. I’ve spent the better part of two decades trying to put my finger on the source of this unease, but it is not a question to be solved by the intellect: it must be lived through.



Several years ago, Marshall Massey, a fellow Friend, pointed out to me that ‘truth’, in the sense that it was used by 17th-century Friends, had less to do with verifiable evidence, and more to do with sense of being a ‘true friend’, an arrow flying true. It was about remaining on a path, not about conforming to the facts of the world. This points to a deep truth: we humans are built for a different kind of rigour than that of evidentiary fact. It is at least as much about consistency, discipline and loyalty as it is about the kinds of repeatable truth that we hold up in a scientific world as fundamental.



This is a large part of what drew me to the Friends rather than the Unitarians or other study groups. Binding oneself to specific patterns, habits, and language seems to have the effect of providing a spine, and Quakers seemed to have more of this spine than other groups I was attracted to. It was a partial solution of my sense of mushiness, but it certainly didn’t solve everything.



If you are really going to be part of a community, just showing up for the main meal is not enough: you need to help cook and clean up. So it has been with me and the Quakers: I’m concerned with how my community works, and so I’ve served on committees (Quakerism is all about committees). There’s pastoral care to accomplish, a building to maintain, First-Day School (Quakerese for Sunday School) to organise. And there’s the matter of how we as a religious community will bring our witness into the world. Perhaps this language sounds odd coming from a non-theist, but as I hope I’ve shown, I’m not a non-theist first. I’ve been involved in prison visiting, and have been struck at the variety of religious attitudes among volunteers: some for whom the visiting is in itself ministry, and others for whom it’s simply social action towards justice (the programme grew out of visiting conscientious objectors in the Vietnam era). The point is: theological differences are not necessarily an issue when there’s work to be done.



But the committees I’ve been in have also had a curious sense of unease too, a sense of something missing, and I’ve now been on three committees that were specifically charged with addressing aspects of a sense of malaise and communal disconnect. The openness of liberal religion resonates strongly with me. It means I do have a place, and not just in the closet or as a hypocrite. But I wonder if my presence, and the presence of atheists and skeptics such as me, is part of the problem.



People need focus. There’s a reason why the American mythologist Joseph Campbell chose the hero’s journey as his fundamental myth: we don’t give out faith and loyalty to an idea nearly as readily as we give it to a hero, a person. And so a God whom we understand not as a vague notion or spirit, but as a living presence, with voice and face and will and command — this is what I think most people want in a visceral way. In some ways, it’s what we need.



And I do not believe such a God exists in our universe.



Here’s a peculiar sense I’ve been getting in Friends committee meetings: we often don’t know how to seek the will of God; we are uncertain whether God actually possesses will. And yet, I suspect that the way out of our tortuous debates is to stop arguing and submit. That submission — because that’s what it is, in the same sense that islam means submission — is what pulls us out of ourselves and gets us lined up to do what needs doing instead of arguing about whose idea is better.



In the 17th century, the Quaker theologian Robert Barclay argued for the bodiless Holy Spirit as the only way to reach Christ and then God. Nowadays, we might find comfort in the spirit alone, or the Light, as Quakers describe an inwardly detected sense of the divine. But submission to something so vague is difficult. We might love and treasure and ‘hold our beloved friends in the Light’, but that’s not a humbling of self, a laying low of ego, and that is what I believe we are missing.



How can we do that? How can I do that? Submitting to something I am pretty sure doesn’t exist? How can I bow down to a fiction? I did it all the time as a child. Open the cover of the book, and I’m in that world. If I’m lucky, and the book is good enough, some of that world comes with me out into the world of atoms and weather, taxes and death. It’s a story, and sometimes stories are stronger than stuff.



Maybe part of the trick is realising that it doesn’t have to be just my little bubble of fiction. I can read a novel, or I can go gaming into the evening with friends. I can watch a ballet on a darkened stage, or I can roar along to my favourite band in the mosh pit. I hated school dances with a passion, yet I have been a morris dancer for 23 years now: I just had to find the form that was a right fit. I don’t pray aloud, or with prescribed formulas. But I can ask Whatever-There-Is a question, or ask for help from the universe, or say thank you. And now that I’m in a place with a better fit, sometimes I get answers back. And so there I am, a confirmed skeptic, praying in a congregation.



Maybe that god would tell us not to tramp over the earth in armies, pretending we are bigger than we are, and that dying is OK



A year and a half ago, our family began worshipping with a smaller Conservative Friends group. Conservative Friends are socially and theologically liberal but stricter in adhering to older Quaker practices. The group uses the Montessori-based Godly Play curriculum for the children: it’s all about stories. Every session begins with a quieting and a focusing. The leader tells a story from the Bible or from the Quaker story book. Then ‘wondering’ questions are asked that spur the children to reflect on what’s going on, and what they would do in the same situation.



I wish I’d had this great programme as a child. The teacher is a good storyteller who clearly loves the kids, and they love the stories and the time with their friends. To me, it’s such an improvement on school-style lessons. It says: this is a different kind of knowing and learning — this is not about facts and theories you need to learn, but about the stories we want to become part of your life.



I love facts and theories, the stuff of the world. I spend most of my life wrestling and dancing with all this amazing matter. As the Australian comic Tim Minchin says in his rant-poem ‘Storm’ (2008): ‘Isn’t this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable world?’ And yes, it’s enough. We don’t need to tell lies about the real world in order to make it magical. But we do still need impossible magic for our own irrational selves. At any rate, I do.



Because I don’t feel stuff-and-logic-based explanations deep down in my toes. There are no miracle stories of flying children there, or brothers reborn into the land where the sagas come from. The language of ‘stuff is all there is’ tells me that I can — even ought to — be rational and sensible, but it doesn’t make me want to be. ‘Atheism’ tells me what I am not, and I yearn to know what I am. What I am has a spine, it’s a thing I must be true to, because otherwise it evaporates into the air, dirt and water of the hard world.



Maybe I — we — need to start small, rebuilding gods that we talk to, and who talk back. Or just one whom we can plausibly imagine, our invisible friend. Maybe part of our problem is that we don’t actually want to talk to the voice of Everything, because Everything has gotten so unfathomably huge. George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, didn’t have to think about light years, let alone billions of light years. The stars now are too far away to be our friends or speak to us in our need. Maybe we could talk to a god whom we imagined in our house. Maybe we could ask what is wanted, and hear what is needed. Maybe that god would tell us not to tramp over the earth in armies, pretending we are bigger than we are, and that dying is OK, because it’s just something that happens when your life is over. Maybe we would ask for help and comfort from unexpected places, and often enough receive it and be thankful for it.



Maybe we need to name that little god something other than God, because maybe our God has a boss who has a boss whose boss runs the universe. Maybe we name this god Ethel, or Larry, or Murgatroyd. Maybe there is no god but God… or maybe there just is no God. And maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe we just tell stories that ring true to us and say up-front that we know they are fiction. We can let people love these stories or hate them. Maybe imagining impossible things — such as flying, the land where sagas come from, God — is what is needed. Maybe we don’t need the gods to be real. Maybe all we need is to trust more leaps of the imagination.



Sam Harris - Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion - Wikipedia



Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion - Wikipedia


Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion


Author Sam Harris
Country United States
Language English
Subject Spirituality
Publisher Simon & Schuster

Publication date September 9, 2014
Media type Print (hardcover and paperback)
Pages 256 (hardcover)
ISBN 978-1451636017
Preceded by Free Will
Followed by Islam and the Future of Tolerance



MENU

0:00

Excerpt from Waking Up read by Sam Harris on his podcast.

Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

is a 2014 book by Sam Harris that discusses a wide range of topics including secular spirituality (essentially within the context of spiritual naturalism), the illusion of the self, psychedelics, and meditation. He attempts to show that a certain form of spirituality is integral to understanding the nature of the mind. In late September 2014, the book reached #5 on the New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers list.[1]

In September 2018 Harris released a meditation app entitled "Waking Up with Sam Harris."[2] Harris' podcast had previously been titled Waking Up, but he retitled it Making Sense to differentiate it from his meditation app.[2]


Contents


1Content
1.1Role of spirituality
1.2Meditation and experiences
2Reception
3See also
4References
5External links


Content[edit]
Role of spirituality[edit]

Harris rejects the dichotomy between spirituality and rationality, and seeks to define a middle path that preserves spirituality and science but does not involve religion.[3] He writes that spirituality should be understood in light of scientific disciplines like neuroscience and psychology.[3] Science, he contends, can show how to maximize human well-being but may fail to answer certain questions about the nature of being, answers to some of which he says are discoverable directly through our experience.[3] His conception of spirituality does not involve a belief in God.[4]

Harris' treatment of the nature of the mind draws on psychology, split-brain scientific literature, and philosophy of mind.[5] He explores various positions on the mind-body problem but states that the solution may lie beyond the capabilities of human reason.[6]

Harris writes that the purpose of spirituality (as he defines it – he says the term's uses are diverse and sometimes indefensible) is to become aware that our sense of self is illusory, and says that this realization brings both happiness and insight into the nature of consciousness.[3][5] He says spiritual discipline allows us to repeatedly recognize in our day-to-day lives that there is no self.[3][6] Instead, there is an apprehension of "pure consciousness," a profoundly peaceful state independent of any sense experience.[6] He argues this process of realization is based on experience and is not contingent on faith.[3]

Meditation and experiences[edit]

Harris provides brief guidance on how to meditate, and directs readers to his website for more in-depth instructions.[5] He has studied under several Eastern meditation teachers, and gives advice on how to identify a good spiritual teacher.[4] He describes his experience with Dzogchen, a Tibetan Buddhist practice, and recommends it to his readers.[3]

Although Harris assigns great value to religious experiences, he argues that facts about the cosmos and particular religious dogmas cannot reasonably be inferred from these experiences.[7] In this vein, he describes some of his own deep spiritual experiences, but does not interpret them as evidence, for instance, of Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist metaphysics, as he says adherents of those religions likely would.[4] He defends a segment of English spiritual author Douglas Harding's book On Having No Head against the sharp criticisms of neuroscientist Douglas Hofstadter. By contrast, he criticizes Eben Alexander's Christian interpretation of a near-death experience in Proof of Heaven at length as filled with unwarranted assumptions.[6]
Reception[edit]

Waking Up has been praised by literary critics. Frank Bruni of The New York Times wrote, "Harris's book [...] caught my eye because it's so entirely of this moment, so keenly in touch with the growing number of Americans who are willing to say that they do not find the succor they crave, or a truth that makes sense to them, in organized religion."[7] He notes that since publishing The End of Faith in 2004, Harris has shifted focus to some extent from criticizing religion to trying to understand what people seek in religion and arguing these benefits are possible without it.[7]

Stephen Cave of the Financial Times similarly described Waking Up as "a fine book" and observed, "although it portrays only a fragment of the emerging picture of post-Christian spirituality, it nonetheless does so with great colour and clarity – like a shining stained glass window for a church that is still being built."[8] Kirkus Reviews called it "A demanding, illusion-shattering book certain to receive criticism from both the scientific and the religious camps."[5] Peter Clothier, writing for the Huffington Post, described it as "an immensely readable and enjoyable book. Harris writes about the profound issues that affect our lives with clarity, and with occasional humor."[3]

It received a more mixed response from Trevor Quirk of The New Republic, who criticized what he perceived as the book's inconsistencies and Harris's willingness to belittle religious people. He nevertheless wrote, "[Harris's] new book, whether discussing the poverty of spiritual language, the neurophysiology of consciousness, psychedelic experience, or the quandaries of the self, at the very least acknowledges the potency and importance of the religious impulse—though Harris might name it differently—that fundamental and common instinct to seek not just an answer to life, but a way to live that answer."[6] Likewise, the Washington Independent Review of Books' Holly Smith writes, "Overall, Harris’ book has much to recommend it, but not so much that it should be anyone’s first stop on the road to secular spirituality."[4]

See also[edit]


Why Buddhism is True by Robert Wright
Secular Buddhism
Buddhism and psychology

Joseph Goldstein (writer)
Daniel Goleman
Richard Davidson
Hard problem of consciousness
New mysterianism

References[edit]

^ "Sam Harris' Waking Up a Top 5 New York Times Best Seller". BrightSight Group. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
^ Jump up to:a b Freeland, Ben (29 March 2019). "Sam Harris' Waking Up App, Reviewed". Medium. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Clothier, Peter (2 September 2016). "'Waking Up', by Sam Harris: A Book Review". Huffington Post. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
^ Jump up to:a b c d Smith, Holly (17 September 2014). "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion". Washington Independent Review of Books. Retrieved 2 October 2017.
^ Jump up to:a b c d "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion". Kirkus Reviews. August 29, 2014. Retrieved August 12, 2016.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e Quirk, Trevor (September 10, 2014). "I Thought I Hated the New Atheists. Then I Read Sam Harris's New Book". The New Republic. Retrieved August 12, 2016.
^ Jump up to:a b c Bruni, Frank (August 30, 2014). "Between Godliness and Godlessness". The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2015.
^ Cave, Stephen (October 31, 2014). "'Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion', by Sam Harris". Financial Times. Retrieved August 12, 2016.
External links[edit]
Free audio and text of the first chapter
Two guided meditations on Harris' website
Harris discusses scientific research on meditation with Daniel Goleman and Richard Davidson
Harris discusses Buddhism and evolutionary psychology with Robert Wright (beginning at 9:00)
Book review on PhilosophyForLife.com
----------------


Sam Harris Books

The End of Faith (2004)
Letter to a Christian Nation (2006)
The Moral Landscape (2010)
Lying (2011)
Free Will (2012)
Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion (2014)
Islam and the Future of Tolerance (2015)



Other

New Atheism
Project Reason
Secular Coalition for America
Spiritual but not religious

Categories:
2014 non-fiction books
Books critical of religion
Books about atheism