Secular Spirituality and Religious Naturalism

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

[Note - I have posted this here rather than the Religion forum because it is really more a 'philosophy of religion' than belonging to any particular religious thread. Excerpts adapted from Wikipedia.]

Religious Naturalism

[INDENT]

Quote:

"Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that [avoids] supernaturalism.

It is religious in that it advocates for a sincere subjective interpretation of, feeling for, and behavior towards life and the world. Those things considered most important are deemed sacred and respected. It is naturalistic in that it uses objective science, evidential truth, and reason in its explanations rather than supernatural explanations. This allows some proponents to preserve a naturalistic god concept (i.e. the universe is God, Nature is God, ultimate reality is God, etc...). Some religious naturalists[who?] may use cultural sources to form like-minded communities. Religious naturalists often find commonality in their ethical values, spiritual inclinations, and tolerance for diversity of thought.[citation needed]

Religious naturalism, like most religions, is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more human-centric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: "What is the meaning of one's life and does it have a purpose?". Religious naturalism attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is an objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature".

[/INDENT]From Wikipedia

Secular Spirituality

[INDENT]

Quote:

"Secular spirituality as a cultural phenomenon refers to the adherence to a spiritual ideology without advocating a [formal] religious framework. Secular spirituality in principle might embrace many of the same types of practices as religious spirituality, but the motivation is different. Clearly, since beliefs are radically different from those found in most religious spiritual traditions, the emphasis is likely to be on practice rather than belief and on the inner peace of the individual rather than on a relationship with the divine. Proponents make a case for a form of secular spirituality in which the motivation is simply to live happily, which demonstrates how such a motivation can lead to a spiritual life based on the development of qualities very like those prized by many religions."

[/INDENT]From Wikipedia.

Both these approaches offer new horizons for a contemporary understanding of spirituality and religion. On the one hand, they don't lend themselves to religious indoctrination and the formation of cults. On the other, they are an alternative to the 'pure scientific' account of an indifferent universe in which we are the product of chance and necessity. And they provide a loose framework within which spiritual ideas and practices such as meditation can be explored by the individual without a sense of conformity to institutional dogma. They can also incorporate a wide range of perspectives from diverse sources including the 'positive psychology' outlook, non-religious meditation disciplines, and many others.

Thoughts?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,832 • Replies: 54

No top replies

@jeeprs,

Hi,

Yes, I agree that there is great diversity in spiritual pursuits that do not manifest in standard religious or scientific paradigms. Often, individuals will perceive their view of the universe evolve as they gain experience with life. Within the Hindu philosophy there is a thought that everything that occurs in the first half of life is preparation of spiritual understandings in the second half of life. I have found this to be so, and among my acquaintances, each person's journey is quite different.

Einstein is quoted as saying:

Albert Einstein - Wikiquote

"I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mystically is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."

Einstein's life is well documented and one can perceive a constant change in his views as he reflects on his own life. Similarly for others that I have researched such as Jung.

I think there is a point in many people's lives where the mystical becomes more apparent and yearns for attention. Usually, after the family has grown and the financial security in life has been settled. Then one's attention turns to the mystery. Whether it is within organized religions, a search within the paradigms of science, or private meditations and thoughts, I think that it is part of life. Denying it or suppressing it, if it comes, may be quite unhealthy for the spirit.

Thanks for the question.

Rich

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

[QUOTE=jeeprs;89298][Both these approaches offer new horizons for a contemporary understanding of spirituality and religion. On the one hand, they don't lend themselves to religious indoctrination and the formation of cults. On the other, they are an alternative to the 'pure scientific' account of an indifferent universe in which we are the product of chance and necessity. And they provide a loose framework within which spiritual ideas and practices such as meditation can be explored by the individual without a sense of conformity to institutional dogma. They can also incorporate a wide range of perspectives from diverse sources including the 'positive psychology' outlook, non-religious meditation disciplines, and many others.[/QUOTE]

jeeprs;89298 wrote:

Thoughts?

I think religion in some form is inherent to the human existential situation.
As a self reflective creature aware of its own death and of the cosmos; humans have to develop some view of their relationship to both nature and death.

The materialist mechanist deterministic (atheistic) view is that death is final, life has only temporal self imposed meaning and the universe itself is indifferent and without ultimate purpose. Many find such an approach (although rational and coherent) deeply unsatisfactory on both an emotional and an intellectual level. People still look at the totality of their experience, the complexity of life and the wonder of the universe and refuse to accept the materialist mechanist view.

Since the level of education of the mass of humanity does not involve big bang cosmology, evolutionary theory in biology or the vast spans of geological and universal time, there is no need (for them) to make religious belief coherent with modern scientific notions. Their experience and knowledge of the world leads them to religious beliefs and explanations without contradiction.

For those who have been educated in the modern (scientific, rational, empirical world view) the problem becomes more complex. Some still simply compartmentalize religious belief and formal education (the thought systems do not have to have coherence).
For those who have a greater need to avoid cognitive dissonance and to integrate their formal scientific education with their religious inclinations; religious naturalism and secular spirituality are possible choices.

Personally, I despise materialism. It gives a completely inadequate world view, deprives man of his freedom and moral responsibility, denies the reality of subjective experience, and makes all ethical and aesthetic values subject to relativism or nihilism. Materialism forces one to accept in theory what must be denied in practice (in living). It fails the traditional task of philosophy to integrate experience, reason, values and aesthetics. In a similar vein I think logical positivism; linguistic analysis and analytic philosophy are a denial of the traditional tasks of philosophy.

I have years of education in science and the scientific method and so it becomes important to me to integrate what science tells us about reality with my larger religious and spiritual inclinations. An inclination is not really the proper word since I just can not rid my self of the conviction that the universe does have deeper purpose and meaning. I do not think supernatural theism is tenable. The notion that the divine works through process, nature and natural law is tenable and coherent. Naturalistic theism is thus not directly in conflict with science even though it is not a scientific assertion.

My particular system of thought revolves around process as primary ontology (A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy), panexperientialism (the pervasive presence of fundamental primitive properties of mind in nature) and panentheism as a religious conception. Although I have been accused of being a romantic idealist, in truth I classify myself with the pragmatists (James, Pierce, Bergson) and with the process philosophers (Whitehead, Hartshorne, Griffin). .

I think modern relativity theory and quantum mechanics (properly understood and interpreted) have demolished the scientific and intellectual basis (Newtonian mechanics) for viewing the universe in strictly materialist, mechanistic and deterministic terms.
Traditional, classical, orthodox, supernatural theism is not compatible with modern and educated notions of how "the world and the universe really work". Religion as an intellectual exercise is returning to notions of divine immanence (versus transcendence), naturalistic theism (versus supernatural intervention) and more limited views of divine power and knowledge. (Divine persuasion or influence not coercion).

Fundamentally the difference between your educated rational theist and your educated rational atheist (materialism, mechanism and determinism) is not one of reason or intellect but one of metaphysical assumptions and philosophical speculations.
My only criterion in evaluating religious assertions is one of coherence, consistency and correspondence to experience (subjective and objective). Science itself does not deal with religion, aesthetics, values, purposes or goals. One's worldview should account for; but not be limited to science.

I see the universe as tending towards order, complexity, life, mind and experience. I see process and creativity (potentiality becoming actuality) not matter as primary ontology. I see the universe as alive, enchanted, interconnected and full of mystery and magic not just as a mechanistic deterministic machine in which life and mind are accidental and without ultimate purpose and meaning. Fanciful?, romantic? idealistic? Perhaps but it is also a pragmatic choice which transcends but does not directly contradict science.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

The concept is very appealing to me. I like the ideas presented. I will ponder more on this as i have alraedy constructed some notions with regards to such thought-process.

I also feel that a new religion will take root out of this kind of ideas, feelings, and thoughts.
The 21st century is bound for a lot of thought(ful)-churnings.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I am very mindful of not creating division or exclusion. While it is true that you won't be able to create an approach that is all things to all people, I don't wish to necessarily present this framework as something opposed to naturalistic or scientific explanations. There are after all many scientists and naturalists who recognise that their particular view of the world, significant though it might be, is part of a larger picture.

As with politics, it is very easy for polarization to occur in these dialogs - between belief vs non-belief, God vs atheism, and so on. What I would hope is that we can create a framework for discussion of religious and spiritual ideas in the secular and naturalist context referred to above. Hopefully, those with no interest in the topic will not feel the need to derail the discussion. On the other hand, having one's views challenged is a part of this process and I am not saying debate is not a part of it.

I personally agree that the purely naturalistic account of life is deficient in important respects, and that this is something which should be debated. But I think we should be careful of how it is to be expressed. Feelings are deep and strong around these questions, as perhaps they must be, so a delicate balance is required.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

The problem of making religious belief compatible with current scientific views of the modern world has been an interest of mind for some time now.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;89338] I am very mindful of not creating division or exclusion. While it is true that you won't be able to create an approach that is all things to all people, I don't wish to necessarily present this framework as something opposed to naturalistic or scientific explanations. There are after all many scientists and naturalists who recognize that their particular view of the world, significant though it might be, is part of a larger picture. . [/QUOTE]I think almost by definition "religious naturalism" is a theistic worldview which attempts to incorporate and account for "truths" of science. The problem comes when one excludes as "superstition or delusion" all the areas which science does not; or can not; address starting with most forms of "subjective" experience. When one begins to use science as the only tool for "exists" or for "truth" one is no longer engaging in science but in metaphysical "scientism".

Secular spirituality is an interesting term, the exact meaning of which escapes me. The term secular usually is used to indicate neutrality towards or the exclusion of religion. Spiritualism on the other hand is usually associated with some form of superstitious or religious belief. I assume in this context the term "secular" is meant to exclude organized or established religious but not individual religious sentiment. The term spirituality seems to be used as the notion of a higher power or purpose to life and nature but not traditional religious notions.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;89338] As with politics, it is very easy for polarization to occur in these dialogs - between belief vs non-belief, God vs atheism, and so on. What I would hope is that we can create a framework for discussion of religious and spiritual ideas in the secular and naturalist context referred to above. Hopefully, those with no interest in the topic will not feel the need to derail the discussion. On the other hand, having one's views challenged is a part of this process and I am not saying debate is not a part of it. . [/QUOTE]It is important to realize, that an attack on a particular metaphysical position or philosophical speculation (in my case attacks on materialism, mechanism, determinism and reductionism) is not an attack on the personality, character or intellect of the person who may hold that view. It is true that people frequently fail to make that distinction. Ideas should stand or fall on their own merit using reason, experience and empirical fact and observation in their defense or to challenge them.

Metaphysical positions (especially ontological and epistemological views) have consequences. Such views determine attitudes towards a great number of other issues. Beliefs and attitudes are eventually reflected in action.

[QUOTE=jeeprs;89338] I personally agree that the purely naturalistic account of life is deficient in important respects, and that this is something which should be debated. But I think we should be careful of how it is to be expressed. Feelings are deep and strong around these questions, as perhaps they must be, so a delicate balance is required. [/QUOTE]My attack on materialism (also strong skepticism and solipsism) stems from my conviction that although one can claim to intellectually hold, defend or adhere to such views in theory: no one actually employs them in practice (in living). We all adhere to notions of human freedom, moral responsibility, casual efficiency, actuality of time, the presence of an "external" reality, the reality of metaphysical "truth", the belief that some outcomes are more desirable than others, and a host of other "hard core common sense or presuppositions in practice". To deny things in theory that one must and does "presuppose in practice" is to engage in a lack of consistency, coherence and correspondence. It is in short irrational.

The ultimate goal of philosophy IMV is precisely a system of ontology and empiricism that integrates belief and practice and includes values and aesthetics. Pointing philosophy in the direction of logical positivism, linguistic analysis and analytic philosophy has lead philosophy to a dead end and has led some to question its continued utility or viability.

Ultimately most of the discussions in philosophy stem back to more fundamental disagreements about what is "real and exists" (ontology) and how do we know (epistemology). People with fundamentally different views on ontology and on epistemology are not likely to agree on much of anything else. Are such metaphysical speculations or philosophical assumptions significant? Yes, because they form one's most basic beliefs which ultimately affect attitudes and actions in a host of other spheres.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I perfectly agree....in fact as a general rule I am in agreement with most of what you write anywhere on the forum. The problem is that even though, as you say, 'an attack on a philosophical position is not a personal criticism' it is very difficult for the subject of the attack to maintain philosophical detachment from it. I know, in my own case, as one who perhaps wears his heart too readily on his sleeve, that it is often very confronting to deal with views quite opposed to your own.

I want to try and invite the more scientific, physicalist thinkers (and anyone else interested, of course) into a dialog about these topics of spirituality away from the 'religion-science' dichotomy. Hence I am steering away from the word 'materialism'. I think that term is a little pejorative in that it has implications outside the strictly philosophical. (Of course if someone wants to self-identify with that title and declares themselves a committed materialist it is unlikely that we will find much to discuss.)

The other, somewhat subtle, point about the 'secular' approach is that there are things it doesn't say. It doesn't try to get down to the bottom of everything. There are plenty of threads here that do that. It is more like a discussion-based approach, which invites people to share their ideas and feelings about these matters without feeling as though they have to present a 'formal thesis'.

Generally, I am very much in accord with your view of life, but I hope you can see why I have selected this particular approach and what it is, and isn't, trying to achieve.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I hope you attract some interest and discussion to the topic.
I think resolving the cognitive dissonance between relgiious sentiment and the scientific worldview is one of the major cultural tasks and challenges of the current time
.
I myself am in the constructive postmodernist camp.
My primary ontology is process not matter, becoming not being.
My primary epistomology is rationalism not empiricism or sense perception.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I still do not know why humans think they need religion to begin with.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

well you may not, but they apparently do. There has never been a society which was devoid of something answering to the description of religion of some type. Which, ironically, means that the notion that society can exist without religion is actually an idea for which there is no empirical evidence.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;89557 wrote:

well you may not, but they apparently do. There has never been a society which was devoid of something answering to the description of religion of some type. Which, ironically, means that the notion that society can exist without religion is actually an idea for which there is no empirical evidence.

tell me this, did the very first human who came into existence upon earth, or the animals, the non-intellectual one, do they need religion to keep on living?
I think my pet cats is enough evidence for been able to live a healthy and happy life with no need of any religion Smile

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Yes, but they are cats. They don't have the peculiarly human capacity of self-awareness and the concommitant awareness of their own mortality.

'Religious feelings' in the broadest sense, in the form of ritual cave paintings and objects, are amongst the earliest remnants of human activity in existence.

And up until very recently, and still in many traditional cultures, none of this is related to the idea of 'religion' as a separate sphere of activity or understanding. It is simply part of 'the law'.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;89559 wrote:

Yes, but they are cats. They don't have the peculiarly human capacity of self-awareness and the concommitant awareness of their own mortality.

'Religious feelings' in the broadest sense, in the form of ritual cave paintings and objects, are amongst the earliest remnants of human activity in existence.

And up until very recently, and still in many traditional cultures, none of this is related to the idea of 'religion' as a separate sphere of activity or understanding. It is simply part of 'the law'.

The art of the cave men do not tell us about their religion, but only art. I did an undergraduate course in philosophy of language and also a course in psychology where they talked about the art of the cave men and their relation to an autistic child, as they have incredible similarities. The study showed those arts are more closely linked to the very first method of human communication than them been a fact of early organize religion! There drawing have no religion significant what so ever as far I am concerned. Religion as we know realy came alive when human mastered the art of communication.

Once upon a time people used to believe in God and Godess of mount olympus. They no longer ( I hope that is) do, it is only a matter of time that other religion are falsified much like the same way the Gods of Olympus were falsified.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Well it is all a matter of interpretation, isn't it? And I don't believe the existence of the gods was ever a scientific hypothesis, so I don't know if 'falsification' is appropriate.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

^i think we are in the same boat:)

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

it is interesting though how the idea has persisted for so long and people are so willing to fight about it to the death.

the usual reasons guessed are fear of death and oblivion, fear of responsibility, fear of abandonment, fear of change, etc-always fear. i should think we could have imagined something more comforting than what most religions offer to alleviate our fears!

in my own history, i was brought up to be roman catholic, and by the age of 11 saw through all the hype and pitched the whole idea of religion into the dustbin. i didnt give it much thought for about 15 years. i never expected it to creep back into my life but little by little, in a whole new form it did return to co-exist with all my other beliefs and experiential conclusions in a non-threatening and useful way.

spirituality simply means that there is more to everything than what we can observe and measure. there need not be any sense of divinity or deity and in and of itself it is hardly able to provide a moral code. that is something we must work out for ourselves using the faculties we have and the experience we are exposed to.

the only reason i can think of that this intangible leaning exists is that it is a part of human nature, and that towards which we lean is also part of our nature-or we are part of it, doesnt matter which way you want to say it. (technically of course it would matter to a clever philosopher skilled in analysis, but for my purpose of understanding it does not matter). this tends to explain the feeling of not being whole-people often reach out to the opposite sex to complete them, or harmful things like addictions and obsessions, and have depression and loneliness that they cant explain-that feling of being alone in a crowd. i suspect it is because we are denying the better part of our own nature by throwing out all aspects of spirituality.

all that needs to be done is to separate the structure of religion from the experience of spirituality. then start with a blank slate and look at it again...

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

Well I agree with you. That is why I have been trying to make the point that the understanding which is grouped under the heading 'religion and spirituality' does represent a real human need and is not just an anachronism or a delusion.

I certainly feel the need for it, but I can't, on the one hand, cling to the tradition I was given, or, on the other, throw the whole thing away, which seems to be the two antagonistic attitudes of fundamentalism on the one side and anti-religion on the other. I am trying to create a middle path. I think if can study it and understand some of the forces behind it we will come to a much better understanding. But it is a challenge and it does take a lot of self-awareness.

I will post something soon on the sense of lack you refer to. It is a very important insight. Thanks.

0 Replies

@ltdaleadergt,

<daleader>;89558 wrote:

tell me this, did the very first human who came into existence upon earth, or the animals, the non-intellectual one, do they need religion to keep on living?
I think my pet cats is enough evidence for been able to live a healthy and happy life with no need of any religion

I do not know what the first humans were thinking or what cats are feeling.

However, for me spirituality basically represents not living within arbitrary constraints imposed upon me whether it be a religious organization or a scientific organization. Both represent the same thing to me - groups that are placing constraints on thinking in order to create order within the group. The goal is fine. I understand the need for constraints in order to maintain order, but I, like all explorers of the universe, would rather explore without someone else telling me what is or is not acceptable.

So, I observe, piece together the puzzle in my own way, and don't really worry much what others may think. However, I do observe that each one of these groups, both religious and scientific, do want to keep growing (like a virus) and they do very much want to impose their views upon me. This does become a bit of a problem at times. But I deal with it, because I realize that it is all part of the universe, and learning how to deal with those who want to impose their ideas on me is just one of those things I have to learn in this (or subsequent) life.

Rich

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I think religion will ultimately be replaced with science. Because in effect, science and religion are attempting to do the same thing. Science just has a much more neutral outlook where as religion tries to state itself as actual. There are those who hate science for this reason but inevitably they will realize that they can no longer apologize for the ignorance of their former knowledge.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;89699 wrote:

Because in effect, science and religion are attempting to do the same thing.

I agree. For me, it is impose their view of life on other people as being the more correct - the greater truth.

Krumple;89699 wrote:

Science just has a much more neutral outlook where as religion tries to state itself as actual.

This would be great, but it is not my observations. Science has outlined specific parameters and it goes crazy if someone suggests something different outside of these parameters. Educators are drummed out of the profession if they do not tow the line. It is not that much different from excommunication.

Krumple;89699 wrote:

There are those who hate science for this reason but inevitably they will realize that they can no longer apologize for the ignorance of their former knowledge.

Ignorance of their former knowledge? This is precisely the attitude that concerns me. I would not call this neutral. But amazingly, this is exactly how scientists are for the most part. That is decidedly non-neutral but posing as so. Fascinating. Truly fascinating. There should be a whole subject in universities just studying all of the biases in science. I would love to attend such a class.

Anyway, for me secular spirituality is to do my own thing, independent of all of the biases and constraints of formalized group religions of all sorts.

Rich

0 Replies

Secular Spirituality and Religious Naturalism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know