Frequently Asked Questions

1. What about God?

2. Why use the word ‘religious’ when it carries so much baggage for so many people?

3. What is the relation of Religious Naturalism to other groups that seem similar?

What about God?

Religious naturalists have a variety of views about the question of God, and an even greater variety of approaches to articulating those views. But it is perhaps safe to say the following:

1. We are not enthusiastic about a traditional god-concept that see God as a paternalistic, absolutist being who pronounces scriptures that are to be taken literally. Nor are we enthusiastic about any concept that sees God as manipulating or temporarily suspending the laws of nature that we have discovered by scientific inquiry — that is, a God that performs "miracles."
2. Some of us, however, maintain god-concepts that are more subtle than that. For example some find process theology's fairly abstract understanding of God credible; some identify God with a generalized synonym for the sense of mystery most humans seem to feel; some view God as a metaphor for the healing and transforming force in the universe; at least one of our allies embraces a god-concept and then refuses to give it any concretized form; some of us are non-literal pantheists; and so on.
3. Perhaps most of us tend to think that anything said with god-language could easier be said in more ordinary language. Indeed many Religious Naturalists prefer using ordinary language whenever possible, not so much because technical language seems "unnatural," as because we want to communicate in ways that are accessible to all persons. These among us are more likely to either avoid using the word God altogether (and are more likely simply to disbelieve God exists), or if they do use the word they mean it to be understood as a synonym for mystery, for love or other psychological dynamics, etc. Each of us tries to be clear about her own use.

Why use the word ‘religious’ when it carries so much baggage for so many people?

We consider the adjective ‘religious’ — which is rooted in the Latin legere, to bind together (the same root as ‘ligament’) — to encompass three spheres of human experience.

1. The interpretive sphere describes responses to the big questions asked by humans — e.g. Why is there anything at all rather than nothing? Does the universe/my life have Plan? Purpose? How do I think about death?
2. The spiritual sphere describes inward responses such as gratitude, awe, humility, and reverence, responses that for some are best accessed in community with others.
3. The moral sphere describes outward, communal responses such as compassion and fair-mindedness and respect.

Religious naturalism, then, entails interpretive, spiritual, and moral responses to our understandings of nature and human nature. Naturalism is the noun and religious is the adjective. We are not endeavoring to articulate the inverse — a naturalistic religion — nor do we limit our focus to one facet of religious orientation — e.g. spirituality — in order to avoid the R word. The fact that ‘religious’ carries baggage does not, to our minds, mean that the term should be discarded. Rather, by framing it in the context of naturalism, we hope to foster its rehabilitation.

What is the relation of Religious Naturalism to other groups that seem similar?

The general word ‘naturalism’ expresses quite well the philosophical common ground shared by several groups, including ours: a sort of cognitive set, deeply informed by mainstream science, about how we think the world is best understood. Even with that ground in common, however, there will inevitably be some differences in emphasis. So as religious naturalists we may find ourselves moved to emphasize reverence or awe or gratitude as appropriate responses to our naturalistic conclusions about reality.

Other groups with this same basic orientation may emphasize different things. Some naturalistic atheists see themselves as fighting a very necessary fight against god, and prefer NOT to emphasize any ‘religious’ aspect. There are also theistic naturalists among us, though their god-concepts probably wouldn't be acceptable to supernaturalistic theists (see the FAQ on God). Certain naturalists specialize in debunking the paranormal and creationism. The World Pantheist Movement approaches pantheism from a naturalistic perspective. Ethical Culture societies emphasize good works, and much good is doubtless being done by others who consider themselves naturalists. Moreover, most naturalists emphasize to one degree or another the personal and social implications of a thorough-going naturalism.

The term ‘naturalist’ in this sense has a long history, including the American Naturalists, including Dewey, Santayana, Frederick Woodbridge, and John Randall (see William Shea's book The Naturalists and the Supernatural; see also the section of this website on the history of Religious Naturalism, still under construction).

At any rate, our approach is simply that ‘naturalism’ and ‘naturalist’ name what we have in common, and allow us to add qualifiers (e.g., religious). Thus the phrase ‘Religious Naturalism’ is meant to immediately signify where we are coming from, namely naturalism, and yet the qualifier distinguishes us from other varieties of naturalists with whom we have much in common.