Religious Naturalism - Varieties

Varieties

The literature related to religious naturalism includes many variations in conceptual framing. This reflects individual takes on various issues, to some extent various schools of thought, such as basic naturalism, religious humanism, pantheism, panentheism, and spiritual naturalism that have had time on the conceptual stage, and to some extent differing ways of characterizing Nature.

Current discussion often relates to the issue of whether belief in a God or God-language and associated concepts have any place in a framework that treats the physical universe as its essential frame of reference and the methods of science as providing the preeminent means for determining what Nature is. There are at least three varieties of religious naturalism, and three similar but somewhat different ways to categorize them. They are:

Michael Cavanaugh – God-language

• A kind of naturalism that does use God-language but fundamentally treats God metaphorically.

• A commitment to naturalism using God-language, but as either (1) a faith statement or supported by philosophical arguments, or (2) both, usually leaving open the question of whether that usage as metaphor or refers to the ultimate answer that Nature can be.

• Neo-theistic (process theology, progressive religions) – Gordon Kaufman, Karl E. Peters, Ralph Wendell Burhoe, Edmund Robinson

• Non-theistic (agnostic, naturalistic concepts of god) - Robertson himself, Stanley Klein, Stuart Kauffman

• Not-theistic (no God concept, some modern naturalisms, non-militant atheism) – Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh, Donald A. Crosby, Ursula Goodenough

• A hodgepodge of individual perspectives - Philip Hefner

The first category has as many sub-groups as there are distinct definitions for god. Believers in a supernatural entity (transcendent) are by definition not religious naturalists however the matter of a naturalistic concept of God (Immanence) is currently debated. Strong atheists are not considered Religious Naturalists in this differentiation. Some individuals call themselves religious naturalists but refuse to be categorized. The unique theories of religious naturalists Loyal Rue, Donald A. Crosby, Jerome A. Stone, and Ursula Goodenough are discussed by Michael Hogue in his 2010 book The Promise of Religious Naturalism.

Jerome A. Stone – God concepts

• Those who conceive of God as the creative process within the universe – example, Henry Nelson Wieman

• Those who think of God as the totality of the universe considered religiously – Bernard Loomer.

• A third type of religious naturalism sees no need to use the concept or terminology of God, Stone himself and Ursula Goodenough

Stone emphasizes that some Religious Naturalists do not reject the concept of God, but if they use the concept, it involves a radical alteration of the idea such as Gordon Kaufman who defines God as creativity.

Ignatowski divides RN into only two types – theistic and non-theistic.