Hubbry Logo
Religious naturalismReligious naturalismMain
Open search
Religious naturalism
Community hub
Religious naturalism
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Religious naturalism
Religious naturalism
Religious naturalism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

All living beings are interrelated and interdependent.

Religious naturalism is a framework for religious orientation in which a naturalist worldview is used to respond to types of questions and aspirations that are parts of many religions.[1] It has been described as "a perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world."[2]

Religious naturalism can be considered intellectually as a philosophy and it can be embraced as a part of, or as the focus of, a personal religious orientation.[3] Advocates have stated that it can be a significant option for people who are unable to embrace religious traditions in which supernatural presences or events play prominent roles, and that it provides "a deeply spiritual and inspiring religious vision" that is particularly relevant in a time of ecological crisis.[4]

Overview

[edit]

Naturalism

[edit]

Naturalism is the view that the natural world is all that exists, and that its constituents, principles, and relationships are the sole reality. All that occurs is seen as being due to natural processes, with nothing supernatural involved.[5][6] As Sean Carroll has put it:[7]

Naturalism comes down to three things:

  1. There is only one world, the natural world.
  2. The world evolves according to unbroken patterns, the laws of nature.
  3. The only reliable way of learning about the world is by observing it.

Essentially, naturalism is the idea that the world revealed to us by scientific investigation is the one true world.

In religious naturalism, a naturalist view (as described above) defines the bounds of what can be believed as being possible or real.[8] As this does not include a view of a personal god who may cause specific actions or miracles, or of a soul that may live on after death, religious naturalists draw from what can be learned about the workings of the natural world as they try to understand why things happen as they do, and for perspectives that can help to determine what is right or good (and why) and what we might aspire to and do.[9]

Religious

[edit]
Religious responses to the beauty, order, and importance of nature (as the conditions that enable all forms of life)

When the term religious is used with respect to religious naturalism, it is understood in a general way—separate from the beliefs or practices of specific established religions, but including types of questions, aspirations, values, attitudes, feelings, and practices that are parts of many religious traditions.[10][11] It can include:

  • interpretive, spiritual, and moral responses to questions about how things are and which things matter,[12]
  • beliefs, practices, and ethics that orient people to "the big picture"[13] (including our place in relation to a vast and ancient cosmos and other people and forms of life), and
  • pursuit of "high-minded goals" (such as truth, wisdom, fulfillment, serenity, self-understanding, justice, and a meaningful life).[14]

As Jerome Stone put it, "One way of getting at what we mean by religion is that it is our attempt to make sense of our lives and behave appropriately within the total scheme of things."[15]

When discussing distinctions between religious naturalists and non-religious (nonspiritual) naturalists, Loyal Rue said: "I regard a religious or spiritual person to be one who takes ultimate concerns to heart." He noted that, while "plain old" naturalists share similar views about what may occur in the world, those who describe themselves as religious naturalists take nature more "to heart", in seeing it as vitally important, and as something that they may respond to on a deeply personal level.[16]

Shared principles

[edit]

The main principle of religious naturalism is that a naturalist worldview can serve as a foundation for religious orientation.[17]

Shared principles related to naturalism include views that:

  • the best way to understand natural processes is through methods of science; where scientists observe, test, and draw conclusions from what is seen[18] and non-scientists learn from what scientists have described;[19]
  • for some topics, such as questions of purpose, meaning, morality, and emotional or spiritual responses, science may be of limited value and perspectives from psychology, philosophy, literature, and related disciplines, plus art, myth, and use of symbols, can contribute to understanding; and[20][21]
  • due to limits in human knowledge, some things are currently not well-understood, and some things may never be known.[22]

Shared principles related to having nature as a focus of religious orientation include the view that nature is of ultimate importance—as the forces and ordered processes that enable our lives, and all of life, and that cause all things to be are as they are.[23] As such, nature can prompt religious responses, which can vary for each person and can include:

  • a sense of amazement or awe – at the wonder of our lives and our world, and the beauty, order, and power that can be seen in nature,[24]
  • appreciation or gratitude – for the gift of life, and opportunities for fulfillment that can come with this,[25]
  • a sense of humility, in seeing ourselves as small and fleeting parts of a vast and ancient cosmos,[26]
  • an attitude of acceptance (or appreciation) of mystery, where learning to become comfortable with the fact that some things are unable to be known can contribute to peace of mind, and[27]
  • reverence – in viewing the natural world as sacred (worthy of religious veneration).[24]

Nature is not "worshipped", in the sense of reverent devotion to a deity.[28] Instead, the natural world is respected as a primary source of truth[29]—as it expresses and illustrates the varied principles of nature that enable life and may contribute to well-being.

With this, learning about nature, including human nature (via both academic and artistic resources and direct personal experiences), is seen as valuable—as it can provide an informed base of understanding of how things are and why things happen as they do, expand awareness and appreciation of the interdependence among all things, prompt an emotional or spiritual sense of connection with other people and forms of life in all of nature, and serve as a point of reference for considering and responding to moral and religious questions and life challenges.[30][31][32]

Tenets

[edit]

As in many religious orientations, religious naturalism includes a central story, with a description of how it is believed that our world and human beings came to be.[33]

In this (based on what can be understood through methods of science), the cosmos began approximately 13.8 billion years ago as a massive expansion of energy, which has been described as "the Big Bang". Due to natural forces and processes, this expansion led over time to the emergence of light, nuclear particles, galaxies, stars, and planets.[34] Life on Earth is thought to have emerged more than 3.5 billion years ago[35]—beginning with molecules that combined in ways that enabled them to maintain themselves as stable entities and self-replicate,[36] which evolved to single-cell organisms and then to varied multi-cell organisms that, over time, included millions of varied species, including mammals, primates, and humans, living in complex interdependent ecosystems.

This story has been described as "The Epic of Evolution"[37] and, for religious naturalists, it provides a foundation for considering how things are, which things matter, and how we should live. It is also seen as having a potential to unite all humans with a shared understanding of our world, including conditions that are essential to all lives,[38] as it is based on the best available scientific knowledge and is widely accepted among scientists and in many cultures worldwide.[39]

From the perspective of religious naturalism humans are seen as biological beings—composed of natural substances and products of evolution who act in ways that are enabled and limited by natural processes. With this, all of what we think, feel, desire, decide, and do is due to natural processes and, after death, each person ceases to be, with no potential for an eternal afterlife or reincarnation.[40] Due to evolving from common ancient roots, many of the processes that enable our human lives (including aspects of body and mind) are shared by other types of living things. And, as we recognize what we share, we can feel a type of kinship or connection with all forms of life.[41][42] Similarly, recognizing that all forms of life are:

  • dependent on conditions on Earth (to provide atmosphere, soil, temperature, water, and other requirements for life) and also
  • interdependent with other forms of life (as sources of food, and in contributing to healthy ecosystems),

and in recognizing and appreciating Earth as a rare site, in a vast cosmos, where life exists, and as the environment that is essential for our lives and well-being, this planet and its life-enabling qualities is seen as being of ultimate concern,[43] which can prompt or warrant a felt need to respect, preserve, and protect the varied ecosystems that sustain us.[44]

Values are seen as having accompanied the emergence of life—where, unlike rocks and other inanimate objects that perform no purposeful actions, living things have a type of will that prompts them to act in ways that enable them (or their group) to survive and reproduce.[45] With this, life can be seen as a core/primary value,[46] and things that can contribute to life and well-being are also valued. And, from a religious naturalist perspective, ongoing reproduction and continuation of life (a "credo of continuation"),[47] has been described as a long-term goal or aspiration.

Morality, likewise, is seen as having emerged in social groups, as standards for behavior and promotion of virtues that contribute to the well-being of groups. Evolutionary roots of this can be seen in groups of primates and some other types of mammals and other creatures, where empathy, helping others, a sense of fairness, and other elements of morality have often been seen. It includes promotion of "virtues" (behaviors seen pro-social or "good").[48]

With perspectives of religious naturalism, moral concern is seen as extending beyond the well-being of human groups to an "ecomorality" that also includes concern for the well-being of non-human species (in part, as this recognizes how non-human life can contribute to the well-being of humans, and also as it respects the value of all life).[49]

With recognition that moral choices can be complex (where as some choices benefit one group, they may cause harm to others), an aspiration is that, beyond aspiring to virtues and adhering to social rules, religious naturalists can work to develop mature judgement that prepares them to consider varied aspects of challenges, judge options, and make choices that consider impact from several perspectives.[50]

Advocates of religious naturalism believe that, as they offer perspectives that can help to show how things really are in the physical world, and which things ultimately matter, and as they can contribute to development of religious attitudes, including humility, gratitude, compassion, and caring, and enhance exposure to and appreciation of the many wonders of the natural world, perspectives from religious naturalism can contribute to personal wholeness, social cohesion, and awareness and activities that can contribute to preservation of global ecosystems.[51][52]

Beyond supporting a credo of continuation that values varied forms of life and ecosystems, aspirations based on religious naturalism include:

  • living in harmony with nature,
  • exploring and celebrating the mysteries of nature, and
  • pursuing goals that enable the long-term viability of the biosphere.[53]

As suggested by Donald Crosby, since nature is regarded as a focus of religious commitment and concern, religious naturalists may "grant to nature the kind of reverence awe, love and devotion we in the West have formerly reserved for God."[54]

History

[edit]

Core themes in religious naturalism have been present, in varied cultures, for centuries. But active discussion, with the 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[55]

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 Nirguna 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.[citation needed] As Wesley Wildman has described, views consistent with religious naturalism 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.[56]

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'",[57] 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".[58] 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".[59]

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), founder of the Jewish Reconstructionist movement,[60] was an early advocate of 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.[61]

Other verified usages of the term came in 1940 from George Perrigo Conger[62] and from Edgar S. Brightman.[63] Shortly thereafter, H. H. Dubs wrote an article entitled "Religious Naturalism: An Evaluation",[64] 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".[65] Use of the term was expanded in the 1990s by Loyal Rue, who was familiar with it 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 the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS) 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 include 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 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."[66]

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 continues 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[67][68]

Donald Crosby's Living with Ambiguity published in 2008, has, as its first chapter, "Religion of Nature as a Form of Religious Naturalism".[69]

Loyal Rue's Nature Is Enough published in 2011, discusses "Religion Naturalized, Nature Sanctified" and "The Promise of Religious Naturalism".[70]

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.[71]

Chet Raymo writes that he had come to the same conclusion as Teilhard de Chardin: "Grace is everywhere",[72] 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".[73]

Carol Wayne White is among a younger generation of scholars whose model of religious naturalism helps advance socially- and ethically- oriented models of practice. Using the best available insights from scientific studies, White conceives of the human as an emergent, interconnected life form amid spectacular biotic diversity, which has far-reaching ethical implications within the context of ecology, religion, and American life. Her religious naturalism contributes to an intellectual legacy that has attempted to overcome the deficient conceptions of our myriad nature couched in problematic binary constructions. In doing so, her religious naturalism not only presents human beings as biotic forms emerging from evolutionary processes sharing a deep homology with other sentient beings, it also emphasizes humans valuing such connection. In Black Lives and Sacred Humanity: Toward an African American Religious Naturalism (Fordham Press, 2016), White confronts both human–human forms of injustice and ecological forms of injustice that occur when we fail to recognize these basic truths.[74]

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.[75]

Varieties

[edit]
Further information: Theistic naturalism

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.

The 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:

  • An approach to naturalism using theological language but fundamentally treats God metaphorically.
  • An approach 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 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[76]
  • Non-theistic (agnostic, naturalistic concepts of god) – Robertson himself, Stanley Klein, Stuart Kauffman, Naturalistic Paganism.
  • Atheistic (no God concept, some modern naturalism, Process Naturalism, C. Robert Mesle, non-militant atheism, antitheism) – Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh, Donald A. Crosby,[77] Ursula Goodenough, Daniel Dennett,[78] and Carol Wayne White[79]
  • A miscellany 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.[80]

God concepts[81]

  • 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 religious naturalism into only two types—theistic and non-theistic.[66]

Notable proponents and critics

[edit]

Proponents

[edit]

Proponents of religious naturalism are seen from two perspectives. The first includes contemporary individuals who have discussed and supported religious naturalism, per se. The other includes historic individuals who may not have used or been familiar with the term, "religious naturalism", but who had views that are relevant to and whose thoughts have contributed to the development of religious naturalism.

Individuals who have openly discussed and supported religious naturalism, include:

Individuals who were precursors to religious naturalism, or who otherwise influenced its development, include:

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 religions. Critics in the second group include:

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:[84]

Religious Naturalism is the focus of classes and conferences at some colleges and theology schools.[94][95] 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.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Religious naturalism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Religious naturalism is a that fuses a commitment to naturalism—holding that the physical and its observable processes constitute the entirety of —with religious orientations such as profound , reverence, and ethical dedication toward nature's complexities and emergent phenomena, explicitly excluding entities or transcendent realms. This approach derives spiritual depth and moral imperatives from empirical scientific insights into causal mechanisms like and cosmology, rather than from doctrinal assertions of divine agency. Emerging as a revival of earlier naturalistic traditions, it emphasizes responsive attitudes to the world's intrinsic wonders, positioning itself as the locus of ultimate value and meaning without invoking non-empirical foundations. Prominent articulations include those by theologian Jerome A. Stone, whose analyses highlight varieties of religious naturalism as pathways for cultivating values and communal practices attuned to a godless yet awe-inspiring , and biologist , who illuminates the "sacred depths" embedded in biological and interdependence. Grounded in first-principles scrutiny of evidence, religious naturalism counters nihilistic interpretations of a purely material by affirming that naturalistic explanations suffice for robust existential fulfillment, influencing contemporary and ecological ethics through its causal-realist lens on human embeddedness in natural systems. While not a mass movement, its resurgence underscores a shift toward evidence-based amid declining traditional theisms, fostering practices like contemplative engagement with scientific narratives to evoke transcendent-like experiences immanent to reality.

Definition and Core Concepts

Naturalistic Foundations

Religious naturalism is predicated on philosophical naturalism, which asserts that the natural world constitutes the entirety of reality, encompassing all phenomena without recourse to entities or realms. This foundation denies the existence of an ontologically distinct superior domain, such as gods, , or heavens, maintaining that is self-sufficient and requires no external purposive agents for explanation. All causal processes are understood as arising from natural laws and interactions, with serving as the primary method for , though not the exclusive source of knowledge. Central to these foundations is a commitment to empirical observation and materialist metaphysics, wherein emerges from diverse forms of through immanent natural processes, from the to complex biological systems. posits that higher-order properties, including and meaning, arise from lower-level natural interactions without invoking transcendent causes. This approach rejects cosmic or comprehensive value conservation beyond observable natural dynamics, emphasizing interconnectedness within ecological and physical systems over human . The naturalistic framework integrates the "epic of evolution" as a core narrative, detailing the scientific account of cosmic and biological development through empirical evidence from physics, , and cosmology. This story underpins a causal realism wherein events unfold via verifiable natural mechanisms, providing a basis for deriving inspiration and ethical orientations from the rather than dogmatic or assertions. By confining explanations to the natural domain, religious naturalism ensures that any religious sentiments—such as reverence or awe—are elicited by and responsive to this-worldly phenomena, aligning spiritual attitudes with rigorous evidentiary standards.

Religious Orientations Within Naturalism

Religious naturalism accommodates orientations that parallel traditional religious sentiments through naturalistic lenses, emphasizing , reverence, and ethical commitment derived from scientific understandings of the . Practitioners experience profound wonder at the cosmos's scale and life's evolutionary complexity, interpreting these as sources of intrinsic value without agency. This approach posits the natural world as exhaustive of , yet worthy of responses typically deemed religious, such as and devotion toward ecological and physical processes. A core orientation involves a sense of sacredness attributed to nature, where phenomena like biodiversity and stellar formation evoke holiness or divinity in metaphorical terms, fostering attitudes of humility and interconnectedness. Religious naturalists often adopt the scientific narrative of cosmic evolution—spanning the Big Bang to biological emergence—as a foundational "epic" story, exploring its potential to inspire spiritual depth and communal rituals aligned with natural cycles, such as seasonal changes or life milestones. Empirical grounding ensures these experiences remain tied to verifiable data, distinguishing them from faith-based assertions. Ethical orientations within this framework derive imperatives from causal realities of and , promoting behaviors like and as extensions of survival-enhancing traits observed in interactions. For instance, reverence for nature's terror and —evident in phenomena like predation or symbiotic relationships—motivates moral systems prioritizing long-term over anthropocentric short-term gains. Thinkers like Jerome A. Stone highlight an empirical variability in these orientations, ranging from strict methodological naturalism to broader appreciations incorporating aesthetic and emotional dimensions, while rejecting dualistic supernaturalism. These orientations vary in intensity, with "thin" versions limiting religiousness to basic and "robust" forms positing as an supportive of deeper theological metaphors, though always naturalistic. Surveys and philosophical analyses indicate that such perspectives appeal to those seeking meaning amid , potentially bridging secular and spiritual divides without compromising evidential standards.

Philosophical Underpinnings

Principles of Empirical Inquiry and Causal Explanation


Religious naturalism adheres to empirical inquiry as a foundational principle, prioritizing , experimentation, and evidence-based reasoning derived from scientific methodologies to understand the natural world. This orientation rejects appeals to entities or forces, insisting that claims must be testable and falsifiable through sensory and inductive validation. Proponents emphasize participation in ongoing scientific endeavors, viewing them as essential for uncovering reliable patterns in nature without invoking non-natural explanations. Causal explanations within religious naturalism are strictly naturalistic, positing that all phenomena arise from prior natural processes governed by discoverable laws, thereby upholding the of the physical domain. This framework dismisses miraculous interventions or divine agency as unnecessary and unverifiable, aligning instead with well-confirmed theories from physics, , and cosmology that account for and change through material interactions. Ultimate questions about origins or purpose are reframed within empirical bounds, such as evolutionary processes or cosmic , rather than transcendent postulates. Variations in exist among adherents, ranging from strict methodological naturalism—treating claims as outside scientific purview—to broader interpretations incorporating humanistic insights, yet all converge on toward unverified metaphysical assertions. This commitment fosters a coherent with empirical successes, such as the predictive power of evolutionary theory documented since Charles Darwin's 1859 , which religious naturalists extend to ethical and existential dimensions without altering causal mechanisms.

Attribution of Meaning and Reverence to Natural Processes

Religious naturalists derive meaning from natural processes by interpreting empirical scientific accounts—such as cosmic , biological , and ecological interdependence—as inherently profound, capable of evoking and ethical imperatives without reliance on agencies. This approach posits that the causal chains revealed by , from the to the of , furnish a of continuity and value sufficient to inspire reverence, viewing nature's self-organizing dynamics as the ultimate locus of significance. Ursula Goodenough, in The Sacred Depths of Nature (1998, reissued 2023), articulates this by arguing that scientific explanations of life's origins and complexity generate a visceral sense of the sacred, defining reverence as "the capacity to perceive the sacred" in these processes and motivating commitments to preservation and wonder. Goodenough emphasizes that contemplating the "how" of natural phenomena—such as cellular replication or evolutionary —yields emotional and existential fulfillment traditionally sought in , asserting that "surely is sacred" as the fundamental reality warranting ultimate care. This perspective aligns with causal explanations grounded in physics and , rejecting dualistic separations between matter and spirit. Jerome A. Stone, in works like Religious Naturalism Today (2009), advocates a "minimalist vision of transcendence" wherein meaning emerges from the richness of natural experiences and relationships, encouraging toward evolutionary processes that enable human consciousness and . Stone contends that provides adequate grounds for religious responses, including reverence for its emergent properties, without positing , as seen in his endorsement of attitudes like for living forms and at ecological systems. He critiques overly reductive naturalism for failing to capture this layered reality, proposing instead that reverence arises from acknowledging 's capacity to sustain value-laden outcomes through impersonal mechanisms. Proponents like Donald Crosby further specify this attribution in "naturism," where natural processes are deemed sacred—worthy of veneration—for originating all value and meaning, yet remain non-divine and fully explicable by . This framework translates abstract reverence into practices such as rituals honoring seasonal cycles or , fostering emotional satisfaction akin to traditional while adhering to naturalistic . Overall, such attributions prioritize verifiable causal narratives over mythic interpretations, with source credibility rooted in peer-reviewed integrations of and rather than institutional dogmas.

Historical Development

Precursors in Ancient and Enlightenment Thought

In , precursors to religious naturalism emerged through efforts to explain cosmic order via observable natural processes rather than mythological interventions. Pre-Socratic thinkers such as (c. 624–546 BCE) and (c. 610–546 BCE) posited that fundamental principles like water or the boundless () underlay all phenomena, prioritizing empirical observation over divine . This shift laid groundwork for viewing nature as self-sustaining, though early formulations retained teleological elements without fully eschewing divinity. Stoicism, founded by Zeno of Citium (c. 334–262 BCE), advanced a more explicitly naturalistic reverence for the cosmos by identifying the divine logos—a rational, immanent principle—with the ordered structure of nature itself. Stoic cosmology described the universe as a living, fiery entity governed by providential reason, where piety involved aligning human conduct with natural laws discernible through observation and logic, rather than supernatural revelation. Figures like Cleanthes (c. 331–232 BCE) invoked the cosmos in hymnic terms as a self-regulating whole, fostering a sense of awe toward natural processes that prefigures religious naturalism's emphasis on empirical engagement with the world. During the Enlightenment, (1632–1677) synthesized metaphysics into a pantheistic framework equating God with nature (Deus sive Natura), as articulated in his (published posthumously in 1677). Spinoza argued that the singular substance comprising reality operates through deterministic natural modes, rejecting transcendent agency while attributing infinite attributes like extension and thought to this immanent totality, thereby enabling a form of intellectual love (amor intellectualis Dei) directed at natural necessity. This monistic naturalism influenced subsequent deistic and scientific worldviews by reframing religious awe as comprehension of causal chains within the , without reliance on miracles or personal deities. Spinoza's ideas, condemned by contemporaries as atheistic yet pivotal for secular , highlighted nature's self-sufficiency as a basis for ethical and existential orientation.

20th-Century Formalization

In the early , philosophers such as advanced naturalistic interpretations of religious experience, emphasizing poetry and reverence for without supernatural posits, as explored in works like his 1900 Interpretations of Poetry and Religion. Santayana's approach integrated empirical observation with aesthetic and moral attitudes toward the natural world, influencing later developments by framing religion as a humanistic response to finitude and beauty inherent in . Similarly, John Dewey's 1934 book A Common Faith sought to reconstruct on naturalistic grounds, distinguishing institutional "religions" from a universal "religious" dimension rooted in human ideals, adjustments to uncertainty, and communal aspirations, thereby emancipating faith from and supernaturalism. Dewey argued that genuine religious experience arises from natural processes of growth and , fostering attitudes of wholehearted commitment to shared ideals without invoking transcendent entities. Mid-century formalization gained traction through empirical theology, particularly via Henry Nelson Wieman, who from the 1920s onward developed "theistic naturalism" as a framework identifying God with the ongoing creative events in nature accessible through empirical method. Wieman's publications, including The Wrestle of Religion with Truth (1927) and The Issues of Life (1930), applied scientific inquiry to religious claims, positing that authentic religion involves submission to natural processes of value-creation rather than personal deities or revelation. This approach, centered at institutions like the University of Chicago Divinity School, emphasized testable hypotheses about religious living, contrasting with both orthodox theism and reductive scientism by attributing ultimacy to naturalistic dynamics. Wieman's influence extended to students like Bernard E. Meland, sparking debates on the adequacy of purely empirical criteria for religious meaning, yet solidifying naturalism's role in theology. These efforts coalesced around a rejection of supernaturalism while preserving religion's function in orienting humans toward nature's profundity, though the framework remained marginal amid dominant neo-orthodox and existential trends until late-century revivals. By mid-century, figures like Wieman explicitly named their positions "naturalistic" in religious contexts, providing systematic articulations that prioritized causal explanations from over metaphysical dualism. This period's contributions, grounded in American pragmatism and process thought , laid the groundwork for viewing natural processes as sources of and ethical direction, without reliance on unverified transcendent hypotheses. Jerome A. Stone later chronicled these 20th-century strands in his analysis of religious naturalism's history, highlighting how thinkers like Dewey and Wieman bridged and empirical to formalize a non-supernatural alternative viable for modern inquiry. Stone noted the framework's underappreciation due to its challenge to both secular dismissal of and theistic , yet affirmed its coherence through adherence to verifiable natural causation.

Post-2000 Expansion and Ecological Influences

Following the formalization of religious naturalism in the late 20th century, the early marked a period of expanded scholarly and communal engagement, driven by key publications that synthesized naturalistic reverence with empirical understandings of the universe. Jerome A. Stone's Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, published in 2008, surveyed historical precedents and advocated for RN as a viable alternative to supernaturalist traditions, emphasizing its potential to foster meaning through natural processes. Similarly, Loyal Rue's Religion Is Not About (2005) argued that religious orientations serve human and ecological flourishing by binding individuals to naturalistic realities, without reliance on deities. These works contributed to growing academic discourse, as evidenced by the 2018 Routledge Handbook of Religious Naturalism edited by Donald Crosby and Stone, which outlined interdisciplinary frameworks integrating , , and . Organizational growth paralleled this intellectual expansion, with dedicated groups emerging to cultivate RN communities. The Unitarian Universalist Religious Naturalists (UURN) was established in 2004 to support humanist-oriented adherents within that denomination, hosting annual gatherings to explore naturalistic . The Spiritual Naturalist Society formed in 2012, promoting online forums and resources for synchronous and asynchronous engagement with RN principles. Most notably, the Religious Naturalist Association (RNA) was founded in 2014 as a nonprofit to provide a global platform for self-identified religious naturalists, facilitating discussions on reverence for nature amid scientific advancements. These entities reflected a shift from marginal undercurrents to structured networks, with activity at institutions like the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science () accelerating in the early 2000s. Ecological concerns profoundly shaped RN's post-2000 trajectory, positioning natural systems as objects of intrinsic value and moral imperatives for stewardship. Amid rising awareness of anthropogenic climate change and biodiversity loss, proponents like Ursula Goodenough in her 2000 edition of The Sacred Depths of Nature invoked the "epic of evolution" to inspire awe toward evolutionary and ecological processes, urging behaviors aligned with planetary health. Publications such as Carol Wayne White's Black Lives and Sacred Humanity (2016) extended this to intersections of racial justice and ecological interconnectedness, critiquing anthropocentric paradigms that exacerbate environmental degradation. Michael Hogue's American Immanence (2018) further addressed the Anthropocene, advocating democratic ethical responses to eco-injustice rooted in naturalistic sacrality. RN thus contrasts with traditional religions, which some adherents view as ecologically hazardous due to dominion-oriented theologies, instead promoting rituals and attitudes—such as earth-centered festivals—that cultivate sustainable human-nature relations without supernatural appeals.

Varieties and Typologies

Reductive and Methodological Variants

Reductive variants of religious naturalism maintain that all religious phenomena, including experiences of , reverence, and meaning, can be fully accounted for through scientific explanations rooted in physical processes, such as neural activity and evolutionary , without invoking any non-natural or irreducible elements. This approach aligns with metaphysical naturalism's commitment to ontological , where higher-level religious concepts are viewed as emergent from but ultimately explainable by fundamental physical laws. For instance, the perception of sacredness in natural phenomena is interpreted as a byproduct of cognitive mechanisms that evolved to promote social cohesion and environmental , rather than as an objective feature of . Proponents of this variant, often drawing from and , argue that such reductions demystify while preserving its practical value for human flourishing within a naturalistic framework. In contrast, methodological variants emphasize the application of empirical and scientific methods to the study and practice of religious attitudes toward , without requiring strict ontological reduction to physical basics. This perspective adopts methodological naturalism as a guiding , positing that investigations into religious experience should proceed by seeking natural causes and patterns, while remaining open to emergent properties like or intrinsic value arising from complex natural systems. Jerome A. Stone, in outlining varieties of religious naturalism, advocates a minimalist and pluralist form that prioritizes attitudes of , , and ethical responsibility toward the natural world, informed by scientific insights but not confined to reductive . Stone's approach addresses boundary issues with and process thought, focusing on practical reverence derived from empirical understanding rather than dogmatic . These variants differ primarily in their treatment of religious meaning: reductive forms dissolve it into scientific terms, potentially risking the loss of distinctively religious dimensions, whereas methodological forms integrate scientific inquiry with experiential reverence, fostering a naturalistic spirituality compatible with ongoing empirical discovery. Critics of reductive variants contend that they may undermine the motivational force of religious naturalism by eliminating any sense of ultimacy or transcendence, even within . Methodological proponents counter that this flexibility allows religious naturalism to evolve with scientific advances, such as in and complexity theory, without presupposing untestable reductions.

Emergent and Process-Oriented Forms

Emergent forms of religious naturalism incorporate the scientific concept of , where complex systems exhibit properties irreducible to their basic physical constituents, such as arising from neural interactions or ecosystems displaying . This perspective posits that these emergent levels—encompassing life, , and cultural phenomena—possess genuine causal and intrinsic value, serving as foci for , ethical commitment, and without supernatural posits. Religious naturalists employing argue it bridges strict and experiential depth, allowing naturalistic reverence for phenomena like evolutionary creativity or cosmic . Proponents such as biologist highlight how emergent processes in the "Epic of Evolution"—from to human symbolic capacity—evoke sacral responses grounded in empirical observation, framing nature's unfolding as a of profound interconnectedness. extends this by theorizing teleodynamics, an emergent dynamic integrating and to explain goal-directed systems in and mind, which religious naturalists interpret as naturalistic grounds for purpose and meaning. These forms contrast with reductive variants by rejecting eliminative , insisting higher-order realities exert downward causation, as evidenced in ecological feedbacks or social norms influencing individual behavior. Process-oriented forms adapt elements of , emphasizing flux, relationality, and creativity as fundamental to reality, while adhering to naturalistic causality sans divine agency. Drawing from Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics but secularized, these views depict the universe as a continuum of events where novelty emerges through prehensions—interactions among actual occasions—fostering a religious sensibility toward ongoing becoming rather than static being. Jerome A. Stone delineates this as a boundary with , noting religious naturalists retain empirical primacy, attributing creativity to natural processes like quantum indeterminacy or evolutionary variation rather than a cosmic lure. David Ray Griffin exemplifies this orientation in his "constructive naturalism," integrating process thought with relativity and to affirm a panentheistic-like fully within , where ethical norms arise from relational harmonies observable in symbiotic ecosystems or human societies. Such forms critique substance ontologies for overlooking , instead finding reverence in verifiable dynamics like stellar nucleogenesis or driving . Empirical support includes process models in physics, such as dissipative structures theorized by , which demonstrate order emerging from chaos in open systems.

Core Tenets and Ethical Frameworks

Epistemological Commitments

Religious naturalism adheres to methodological naturalism, positing that all phenomena, including those evoking religious or spiritual responses, must be explained through natural causes accessible via empirical investigation rather than intervention. This commitment prioritizes sensory perception and scientific methodologies as reliable paths to , rejecting appeals to divine , faith-based propositions, or non-falsifiable claims that lack empirical grounding. Proponents like Jerome A. Stone emphasize that constitutes the sole robust method for establishing factual , while interpretive or value-laden understandings of nature—such as or reverence—derive legitimacy only insofar as they align with or extend from verified empirical data. Central to this epistemology is a materialist orientation, wherein human cognition, emotions, and symbolic interpretations emerge from neurobiological and evolutionary processes, rendering all epistemic pursuits reducible to naturalistic mechanisms. Ursula Goodenough exemplifies this by grounding religious sensibility in scientific accounts of complexity and emergence, arguing that profound encounters with nature's depths yield meaning without transcending empirical boundaries or invoking non-natural epistemologies. Such views maintain that knowledge claims about the universe's causal structure demand rigorous testing against observable evidence, dismissing dogmatic assertions that evade scrutiny. Fallibilism underpins these commitments, acknowledging that scientific knowledge remains provisional and subject to revision through ongoing empirical refinement, thereby fostering an agnostic stance toward unverified hypotheses. Religious naturalists thus critique both theistic reliance on unfalsifiable intuitions and strict scientism's potential overreach into prescriptive metaphysics, advocating instead for a pragmatic that integrates experiential reverence as motivational rather than justificatory. This framework ensures that "religious" elements, such as ethical imperatives or existential wonder, function heuristically within a naturalistic , evaluated by their alignment with causal explanations derived from interdisciplinary evidence.

Moral and Existential Implications

Religious naturalism posits that moral frameworks emerge from empirical observations of natural processes, such as evolutionary dynamics of , reciprocity, and ecological interdependence, rather than divine imperatives. Proponents argue that behaviors promoting and flourishing—evident in phenomena like and mutualism in ecosystems—form the basis for ethical norms, fostering a reverence for life's adaptive strategies without invoking sanctions. This approach aligns with causal mechanisms in and physics, viewing human ethical systems as extensions of natural selection's outcomes, where virtues like and arise from the observable benefits of group cohesion in social species. In thicker variants, religious naturalism adopts a moral realist stance, asserting that ideals such as and equity reflect objective features of , like the thermodynamic imperatives of energy flow and maintenance, rather than subjective preferences. , for instance, configures moral thought within this paradigm by integrating scientific insights with a sense of ultimate concern for natural systems, emphasizing responsibilities toward planetary resilience informed by on impacts and loss since the . Jerome A. Stone similarly underscores naturalized grounded in the "overriding importance" of processes like and , which demand human responses calibrated to of , such as the 1.1°C global temperature rise documented by 2023. Existentially, religious naturalism counters by locating meaning in humanity's embedded role within cosmic , deriving purpose from at the universe's 13.8-billion-year unfolding and the improbability of conscious observers emerging from quantum fluctuations and . Adherents find fulfillment not in transcendent afterlives but in active participation in natural narratives, such as advancing scientific understanding or mitigating extinction risks—evidenced by the loss of over 1 million species as projected in biodiversity assessments—thus framing human existence as a transient yet pivotal expression of universal creativity. Loyal Rue articulates this as shifting the "teleological center" to nature's vitality, where individual purpose aligns with sustaining the web of life against , supported by observations of resilient ecosystems recovering from disturbances like the 1980 eruption. This perspective yields existential resilience through naturalistic spirituality, prioritizing evidence-based agency over illusory consolations, though critics note its vulnerability to deterministic interpretations of that might undermine subjective freedom.

Prominent Proponents and Their Contributions

Key Intellectual Figures

Jerome A. Stone, a philosopher and professor emeritus at Meadville Lombard Theological School, has been instrumental in systematizing religious naturalism through his analysis of its historical development and contemporary forms. In his 2008 book Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, Stone examines nearly fifty thinkers and distinguishes between reductive and emergent variants, arguing that religious naturalism offers a viable alternative to supernaturalism by grounding meaning in natural processes without denying religious sensibilities. He emphasizes in the face of nature's complexity, critiquing overly optimistic views of progress while advocating for ethical commitments derived from empirical observation of interdependence. Ursula Goodenough, a cell biologist at , exemplifies religious naturalism's integration of scientific insight with existential reverence. Her 1998 book The Sacred Depths of Nature, revised in 2000, articulates a "religious naturalist" perspective where evokes profound awe and ethical imperatives, rejecting deities in favor of immanent sacredness in biological processes. Goodenough describes her stance as "religious non-theism," influenced by her scientific career spanning over four decades, including research on in , and she co-founded the Religious Naturalist Association to promote naturalistic spirituality. Loyal Rue, an environmental philosopher and professor emeritus at , contends that , redefined naturalistically, is essential for human flourishing amid ecological crises. In Religion Is Not About God (2005), Rue posits that narratives and rituals fostering commitment to cosmic and biotic realities—without theistic posits—can sustain moral behavior, drawing on to explain religion's adaptive role in aligning human actions with survival needs. His work, informed by field studies in and , critiques anthropocentric and advocates for "planetary " grounded in natural dependencies. Donald A. Crosby, a philosopher at , proposes a pantheistic religious naturalism where itself serves as the ultimate source of value and mystery. In A Religion of Nature (1974) and subsequent works like Living with Ambiguity (2009), Crosby argues that the universe's contingency and warrant religious attitudes of and reverence, rejecting dualistic separations between sacred and profane while emphasizing empirical realism over speculative metaphysics. His framework, developed over five decades of scholarship, influences debates on naturalistic by positing 's totality as religiously pregnant without invoking transcendent agents.

Institutional and Community Builders

The Religious Naturalist Association (RNA), incorporated in August 2014, functions as a primary institution for religious naturalists, aiming to unite adherents globally and disseminate the worldview through digital platforms, publications, and events. Co-founded by biologist Ursula Goodenough, who assumed the role of president, the RNA emphasizes empirical reverence for nature without supernatural posits, hosting webinars, newsletters, and board-led initiatives to cultivate discourse. Goodenough's leadership, informed by her 1998 publication The Sacred Depths of Nature, has driven membership growth and collaborations, including support for the religiousnaturalism.org portal that facilitates online forums and resource sharing. The Spiritual Naturalist Society (SNS), established by Daniel T. Strain—a certified Humanist minister—advances by promoting naturalistic spiritual practices, offering educational courses, and coordinating local groups for in-person and virtual gatherings. Strain's efforts, rooted in his background with Humanist organizations, include developing curricula on and grounded in scientific naturalism, with the society The Spiritual Naturalist and hosting podcasts to engage diverse participants. By 2025, SNS supports chapters and events emphasizing evidence-based awe and moral frameworks derived from and cosmology. Jerome A. Stone, through his 2008 book Religious Naturalism Today, spurred institutional momentum by documenting historical precedents and advocating minimalist variants, influencing symposia and alliances like those with the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (). These builders collectively enable religious naturalism's transition from fringe to organized networks, prioritizing verifiable natural processes over doctrinal while navigating debates on terminology like "religious."

Criticisms and Philosophical Challenges

Objections from Traditional Theism

Traditional theists contend that religious naturalism fails to constitute genuine because it explicitly rejects entities, transcendent , and personal agency, rendering the term "religious naturalism" an . In traditional theistic frameworks, such as those rooted in Abrahamic scriptures, religion necessitates belief in a creator distinct from creation, capable of , , and moral command; religious naturalism's confinement to empirical processes alone eliminates these elements, equating it to or aesthetic appreciation of nature rather than worship of an . Critics from argue that this immanentist approach mirrors , which biblical doctrine condemns as idolatrous by conflating the divine with the material world, thereby denying God's and sovereignty. Without a transcendent , religious naturalism cannot provide a coherent account of sinfulness or redemption, reducing ethical failings to mere environmental oversight or evolutionary rather than against divine order. Theistic proponents, drawing on scriptural , assert that humanity's spiritual alienation requires divine intervention, not naturalistic reverence, which lacks mechanisms for or eschatological hope. Furthermore, traditional theists challenge religious naturalism's epistemological adequacy, noting its inability to ground objective morality or explain phenomena like cosmic fine-tuning without invoking a purposeful beyond natural laws. While religious naturalists may invoke toward emergent complexity, theists maintain this substitutes subjective sentiment for rational inference to a necessary being, undermining religion's role in addressing existential ultimates through covenantal relationship rather than impersonal processes.

Critiques from Strict Atheism and Scientism

Strict atheists often reject religious naturalism as an unnecessary hybridization that dilutes the precision of by importing religious connotations into a grounded solely in empirical . , in (2006), dismisses analogous pantheistic reverence for nature as "sexed-up ," asserting that poetic or sacralizing language applied to natural processes adds emotional appeal but no substantive explanatory or ontological value beyond standard . This perspective holds that terms like "sacred" or "spiritual" in religious naturalism, even when redefined naturalistically, retain baggage from supernatural traditions, potentially misleading adherents or observers into inferring transcendent qualities absent in verifiable data. Philosopher Graham Oppy echoes this by labeling religious naturalism "oxymoronic," arguing it conflates "religion"—historically tied to supernatural posits—with naturalism's exclusion of such elements, rendering the framework internally contradictory. Proponents of , prioritizing science as the sole arbiter of knowledge, further criticize religious naturalism for elevating subjective experiences of or cosmic interconnectedness to epistemic parity with falsifiable hypotheses, thereby anthropomorphizing without empirical justification. Analyses distinguish this from "science-inspired naturalism," which adheres strictly to empirical methods without overlaying or narrative meaning-making, warning that religious naturalism risks imposing human-centric interpretations on scientific findings, such as in derived from . Such framing, critics contend, inadequately addresses existential challenges like suffering or meaninglessness, favoring inspirational sublime over rigorous agnosticism toward unknowable realities, and may foster uncritical pluralism at odds with science's demand for evidence-based revision.

Internal Debates on Coherence and Efficacy

Within religious naturalism, proponents debate the conceptual coherence of integrating naturalistic metaphysics—positing nature as self-sufficient and devoid of supernatural agency—with religious sensibilities such as awe, reverence, and ritual. Jerome A. Stone identifies varieties including minimalist approaches that treat "God" symbolically for value-enhancing natural forces, contrasting with more expansive views that emphasize sacred plurality or moral ambiguity in cosmic processes, raising questions about whether such pluralism dilutes naturalism's ontological strictness or enriches its descriptive power. Mikael Leidenhag delineates reductive forms, which eliminate traditional religious elements as illusory, from non-reductive ones that accommodate emergent religious attitudes like numinous experience grounded in evolutionary biology, yet notes demarcation challenges: does expansive religious naturalism risk smuggling dualistic residues, undermining strict causal closure of the physical? Early debates, such as between and Henry Nelson Wieman, highlight tensions in coherence around the unity of natural forces: Dewey advocated plural, indeterminate sources of good without hypostatizing them into a singular "God," while Wieman insisted on their creative unity for coherent religious orientation, fearing fragmentation erodes naturalistic meaning-making. Boundary disputes persist with , where figures like Stone question whether anthropocentric suffice for religious naturalism's openness to transcendent natural depths, or if they render it mere lacking efficacy in fostering communal rituals. is often excluded for positing an ontologically distinct divine lure, which Stone argues violates naturalism's , though some defend hybrid forms as coherent if emerges empirically rather than metaphysically. On , critics within the tradition, including Loyal Rue, contend that religious naturalism requires "noble lies"—narratives of cosmic purpose—to achieve personal wholeness and social cohesion, as unadorned naturalism may fail to motivate ethical commitment amid indifferent evolutionary processes, potentially yielding existential barrenness. Stone counters with a pluralist wager, asserting no empirical proof is needed; lies in pragmatic testing of religious responses to nature's ambiguities, such as environmental reverence yielding adaptive behaviors, though he concedes minimalist versions risk thinness in sustaining transformative compared to theistic traditions. Debates also probe : Wieman's agathonic view of divine creativity as inherently good contrasts with views of nature's ambiguity, questioning whether naturalism can ground robust without transcendent guarantees, as plural forces (per Dewey) invite over unified action. Proponents like Donald Crosby argue emerges from reverential engagement with nature's contingency, empirically verifiable in heightened ecological , yet acknowledge internal that such attitudes devolve to aesthetic appreciation absent deeper causal anchors.

Societal and Cultural Ramifications

Intersections with Environmentalism and Science

Religious naturalism integrates scientific methodologies as the primary means of understanding reality, positing that empirical investigation reveals the profound order and complexity of the natural world, which can evoke a sense of reverence akin to religious awe. Proponents maintain that scientific discoveries in fields such as and cosmology provide the evidentiary foundation for naturalistic spirituality, rejecting supernatural explanations while affirming the universe's self-sufficiency. For instance, biologist describes religious naturalists as viewing humans as emergent from natural processes, informed by scientific evidence, thereby framing scientific inquiry itself as a participatory engagement with the . This alignment with extends to environmentalism through a naturalistic ethic that emphasizes ecological interdependence, derived from empirical on and climate systems rather than theological mandates. Religious naturalism advocates for by recognizing the intrinsic value of natural processes and the consequences of human disruption, such as habitat loss affecting 1 million at risk of as reported in the 2019 IPBES Global Assessment. Thinkers like Michael S. Hogue argue that religious naturalism fosters an ecological ethic by broadening moral concern to entire biotic communities, promoting actions like habitat preservation based on observed causal chains in ecosystems. Critics from stricter scientism contend that infusing scientific findings with religious language risks anthropomorphizing nature without adding explanatory power, yet proponents counter that such framing enhances motivation for evidence-based conservation without contradicting data. In practice, this intersection manifests in initiatives where naturalists draw on peer-reviewed studies, such as those documenting a 68% average decline in vertebrate populations since 1970 per the WWF Living Planet Report, to justify reverence-driven policies like rewilding projects. Thus, religious naturalism bridges science's descriptive rigor with environmentalism's prescriptive imperatives, grounding ethical imperatives in verifiable natural dynamics.

Potential Political and Ethical Pitfalls

Critics contend that religious naturalism's rejection of foundations undermines the objectivity of values, as ethical norms must emerge solely from empirical patterns in nature, which exhibit through events like mass extinctions and intraspecies violence. This grounding risks fostering , where judgments vary by cultural or ecological context rather than universal principles, potentially eroding for actions deemed "natural" such as hierarchical dominance or resource scarcity responses. In addressing the , some religious naturalists propose limiting reverence to life-affirming aspects of nature, which may selectively devalue human or ecological elements perceived as destructive, complicating ethical responses to suffering without a transcendent justification for intervention. Politically, the worldview's emphasis on nature's intrinsic sacrality can infuse with quasi-religious zeal, potentially justifying coercive policies that prioritize systemic ecological balance over individual liberties, such as stringent controls or preservation mandates that override human development needs. By portraying traditional religions as ecologically hazardous, religious naturalism may politically marginalize faith-based , weakening defenses of human and enabling utilitarian trade-offs that subordinate personal to collective biospheric imperatives.

References

  1. https://files.meadville.edu/files/resources/v2n1-stone-what-is-religious-naturalism-478.pdf
  2. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12510
  3. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/12919/
  4. https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Naturalism-Today-Forgotten-Alternative/dp/0791475387
  5. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/13138/galley/26653/download/
  6. https://religiousnaturalism.org/ursula-goodenough/
  7. https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1201&context=fac_pubs
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/religious-naturalism/D8E00970EC19D6F51368C39B5DF664DB
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.18254827
  10. https://religiousnaturalism.org/what-is-religious-naturalism/
  11. https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/11/23/366104014/exploring-the-religious-naturalist-option
  12. https://blog.unitedseminary.edu/the-canvas/religious-naturalism-a-theology-for-uu-humanists-part-i
  13. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/zygo.12747
  14. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/13067/galley/26511/download/
  15. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-sacred-depths-of-nature-9780197662069
  16. https://www.themortalatheist.com/blog/the-sacred-depths-of-nature-ursula-goodenough
  17. https://source.washu.edu/bookshelf/the-sacred-depths-of-nature/
  18. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/13195/galley/26767/download/
  19. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relnat/reviews/review_goodenough01.htm
  20. https://religiousnaturalism.org/naturism-crosbys-religion-of-nature/
  21. https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Religious_Naturalism
  22. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/
  23. https://www.snsociety.org/stoicisms-god-the-god-of-nature-2/
  24. https://iep.utm.edu/spinoza-religion/
  25. https://philarchive.org/archive/GOOSNAv1
  26. https://continuingcreation.org/naturalism-spinoza-and-rni/
  27. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300186116/a-common-faith/
  28. https://harvardsquarelibrary.org/theology-philosophy/john-dewey-a-common-faith/
  29. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315228907-5/religious-naturalism-henry-nelson-wieman-cedric-heppler
  30. https://www.openhorizons.org/religion-without-a-personal-god-bob-mesle-on-henry-nelson-wieman.html
  31. https://www.meadville.edu/files/resources/controversies-in-early-religious-naturalism.pdf
  32. https://harvardsquarelibrary.org/theology-philosophy/appendix-henry-nelson-wieman-the-confessions-of-a-religious-seeker/
  33. https://religious-naturalist-association.org/origins/
  34. https://progressivechristianity.org/resource/celebrate-the-earth-alive-religious-naturalism-in-ritual-festivals-and-celebrations/
  35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21692327.2020.1749717
  36. https://philpapers.org/rec/STOVOR
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259437561_Religious_naturalism_and_its_rivals
  38. https://religiousnaturalism.org/emergence/
  39. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/14074/
  40. https://www.counterpointknowledge.org/religious-naturalism-emergence-and-science-a-counterpoint-conversation/
  41. https://religiousnaturalism.org/open-forum-views-on-rn/2094-2/
  42. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Schilbrack_Kevin_2002_Re-Enchantment_review.pdf
  43. https://www.issrnc.org/2020/03/30/religious-naturalism-carol-wayne-white/
  44. http://americanhumanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/04_Powell-Goodenough-Essay.pdf
  45. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relnat/essays/NaturalisticFaith_FaithinagreementwiththeEpistemicPrinciplesofEmpiricismandFallibilism.html
  46. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13126/
  47. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/bio_facpubs/99/
  48. https://www.snsociety.org/how-spiritual-naturalism-could-save-our-future/
  49. https://www.themortalatheist.com/blog/nature-is-enough-loyal-rue
  50. https://naturalism.org/spirituality/naturalistic-spirituality
  51. https://rnassociation2.wordpress.com/welcome/
  52. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ursula-goodenough-09b0682a2
  53. https://religiousnaturalism.org/ursulagoodenough/
  54. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13969/
  55. https://www.snsociety.org/about-sns/what-is-spiritual-naturalism/
  56. https://www.snsociety.org/welcome-to-the-spiritual-naturalist-society/
  57. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/spiritualnaturalist/about-spiritual-naturalism/
  58. https://www.snsociety.org/community/local-group-center/
  59. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=bio_facpubs
  60. https://religiousnaturalism.org/online-communities/
  61. https://firstunitarian.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Religious-Naturalism-D-Wheeler.pdf
  62. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/14072/
  63. https://www.religion-online.org/article/mordecai-m-kaplan-and-process-theology-metaphysical-and-pragmatic-perspectives/
  64. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/01/09/pantheism-and-biblical-christianity/
  65. https://sentinel.christianscience.com/issues/1906/6/8-41/the-fallacy-of-pantheism
  66. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/13533/galley/27443/download/
  67. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/files/68985648/Leidenhag2018PhilosophyCompass.pdf
  68. https://marxistnkrumaistforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion.pdf
  69. https://americanhumanist.org/what-we-do/publications/eph/journals/volume32/steinhart/
  70. https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/14787/
  71. https://files.meadville.edu/files/resources/controversies-in-early-religious-naturalism.pdf
  72. https://religiousnaturalism.org/science-and-religion/
  73. https://www.religion-online.org/article/broadening-care-discerning-worth-the-environmental-contributions-of-minimalist-religious-naturalis/
  74. https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/relnat/reviews/review_hogue02.htm
  75. https://blog.unitedseminary.edu/the-canvas/religious-naturalism-a-theology-for-uu-humanists-part-i-0
  76. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/personhood-and-the-challenge-of-naturalism/
  77. https://www.str.org/w/-strask-does-naturalism-necessarily-lead-to-moral-relativism-
  78. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-the-basis-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-taylor-debate
  79. https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/ReligiousNaturalism
  80. https://www.naturalism.org/applied-naturalism/politics
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.