Is it possible to be a Christian and a "religious naturalist"?

[Hestha]

See religious naturalism.

I don't know, but I have my tendencies toward religious naturalism. Can Christianity be naturalistic?

 

[PureDose]

See religious naturalism.

I don't know, but I have my tendencies toward religious naturalism. Can Christianity be naturalistic?

"Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism."

No, as Christ leads one into a completely different realm people in this material world would call "supernatural".

To close that out is to say, "I will follow a religion that talks about Jesus, doesn't consider what he actually said or did, and not actually believe anything that the faith gives. Like immortality and entrance into the real Kingdom of God."

...


That stance also is very hardened and says, "I am going to keep my heart hardened going in because that is my preference".

People believe what they want to believe based on their preferences. So, if your preferences are wrong, you will never find the truth. To find the truth you must adjust your preferences as you find they are wrong.

That requires an open mind. Not a narrow mind.

 

[Hestha]

Well, what else do you have in mind that is compatible with modern scientific cosmology and makes you feel comfortable about your meaning of life? It seems that "religious naturalism" can be a good religious explanation, without supernatural inferences, for personal and emotional gains and for intellectual gains.

Christianity, on the other hand, as a traditional religion, does not seem to be compatible with modern scientific cosmology (unless you take everything so metaphorically that the word "creation" is essentially meaningless).

 

[hedrick]

Christians have taken just about every conceivable position on the nature of God. The Wikipedia article covers so much ground that it's hard to say much. There are certainly Christians in the liberal churches who accept process theology. Non-theism is harder, since one Jesus' major goals was to teach about God, and I take it for granted that Christianity means following Jesus as an authority in some sense. However folks like Tillich have pushed the concept of God pretty far from the traditional big guy in the sky, while intending to remain Christian.

I think there's a limit to how far you can go from traditional theism and retain Jesus' ideas of God as a Father who cares about us, helps us, and will finally judge us.

There are plenty of Christians for whom the day to day focus of Christianity is living our lives as Jesus taught, and not anything supernatural. But Jesus did say that the ground for behavior should be love of God, and he promoted prayer, so I don't think Christianity can be turned entirely into ethical behavior.

I don't see any problem with modern cosmology. The issue there is literal interpretation of Genesis. That's certainly not needed to follow Jesus, though conservative Christians will disagree. Creation as a doctrine means simply that God is responsible for the universe. It needn't specify a particular mechanism. For Christians to take the creation stories as metaphor is pretty common. But most Christians who do that assume that however the universe originated, God was responsible for it. A much smaller number see God as coeternal with the universe. In that case God isn't creator, but rather persuader. He brings order from chaos. There's reasonable support for this in the Old Testament (including one possible translation of Gen 1:1), and it's a position that is respectable among modern theologians, but I don't think it's common among ordinary Christians.

My personal idea of God is fairly conventional. I just don't see Gen. as a scientific account. But I would define Christian as someone who follows Jesus, and sees him as mediator for God. So I wouldn't reject people with other views of God as fellow Christians as long as their view of God is consistent with Jesus' teachings and with his role as mediator.

 

[bling]

Well, what else do you have in mind that is compatible with modern scientific cosmology and makes you feel comfortable about your meaning of life? It seems that "religious naturalism" can be a good religious explanation, without supernatural inferences, for personal and emotional gains and for intellectual gains.

Christianity, on the other hand, as a traditional religion, does not seem to be compatible with modern scientific cosmology (unless you take everything so metaphorically that the word "creation" is essentially meaningless).

We can differ on how God creates things but that does not mean God did not create it.

 

[Harry3142]

Religious naturalism isn't new. In fact, it's been practised by every society known to us in history. Ancient Egypt gave the earth, the air, the heavens, and all the celestial objects a divine nature. They even had the animals that surrounded them identified as representations of divinities. Religious naturalism is simply another philosophy that would have us replace the worship of the Creator with the worship of the created.

But neither Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam can accept this philosophy as accurate. We do not worship a philosophy; we worship a Being whom we call Adonai, God, or Allah. What we believe as being required of us, being permissible of us, and being forbidden of us proceeds directly from this belief that a Deity really and truly exists, who is the Author of all that does exist, but is Himself seperate and above all that He has brought into existence. It is this Supreme Essence Who has enabled us to form cohesive societies, and Who has taught us what we need to do, and refrain from doing, in order to maintain those cohesive societies.

Being a Christian myself, i also accept that God did indeed set into motion the process which His justice required in order for imperfect human beings (us) to be seen as truly righteous. It was through His effort on our behalf that the chasm between us was bridged, so that we who could never earn the righteousness needed for eternal life could obtain that righteousness via accepting that God Himself had earned that righteousness for us, and now willingly bestows it on all who are willing to accept it (Romans 3:19-5:10).

In other words, the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions are the worship of a Being whom we identify as both real and pertinent to us. Any philosophy which might be proffered must recognize God's existence in this manner, or else be 'shelved' as of no value to those of us who accept the reality of God's existence.

 

[PureDose]

Well, what else do you have in mind that is compatible with modern scientific cosmology and makes you feel comfortable about your meaning of life? It seems that "religious naturalism" can be a good religious explanation, without supernatural inferences, for personal and emotional gains and for intellectual gains.

Christianity, on the other hand, as a traditional religion, does not seem to be compatible with modern scientific cosmology (unless you take everything so metaphorically that the word "creation" is essentially meaningless).

There are plenty of open questions on the quantum level, and so possibly the cosmological level, as to the possibility of a more flux universe which can be manipulated by observers by their observation.

And that observation has a level of participation in it.

If you have been told or believe that anyone has legitimately disproven the existence of God or disproven the possibility of the supernatural, however, even at this stage of time (heh)... then you have been told a lie.

It is absolutely impossible to disprove the existence of God and absolutely impossible to, as well, disprove the supernatural, or the flux or firm state of reality.

We get proofs, almost everyday, on the "firm" state of reality. Bad things happen which can not be from God and which persuade us reality is very firm as it is.

But these "proofs" are themselves not proofs, either.

We might bleed getting hit with a rock, we might get a bruise hitting our shin against a stone, but those feelings and experiences do not prove the absolute firmness of reality. Just the temporary firmness of reality at that point in time.

We might argue, "reality is not as a dream", but there is also no way to actually prove that. In dreams, if one ever remembers them, we find that there is logic. That there are rules. That we believe what we are seeing when we see it and at the time accept it as reality.

We are, therefore, thoroughly proven to be absolutely gullible with every dream, so who is to say we are not thoroughly gullible in the waking world as well.

Beyond all these things, such scientists work from the subjective viewpoint they have. They do not usually have direct, explicit experience with the supernatural in a way which has proven to them that it exists. So, they are operating entirely from within their own container of experience, where, for them, it is a natural assumption that the supernatural does not exist - as some claim it does.

That is not my own container at all, I deal with the supernatural routinely and those dealings have proven to me that no one's viewpoint of reality is solid nor sure.

Further, I have found that people are intrinsically deceptive, and there are matters they truly believe deep in the core of their bones, in their heart... and then matters they do not truly believe but simply state that they believe.

They are very often not conscious of this divide, living, as it were, in their own subjective dream world of denial.

So, if anyone says, "I believe this because..." I doubt, if I do not also have evidence for this.

One can have evidence for a great many things which are untrue. We have even had calculations of the movement of the heavenly bodies which accurately predicted and described their movement... but turned out later to be wrong despite the very apparent and long seen proofs.

So, it even further goes to say, that what we believe we believe subjectively, even if it truly, genuinely seems to us to be absolutely objective.

There are, I have found many criteria for this which aid our belief in things which patently are simply not true:

- We tend to believe more matters if we have come to our own conclusions about them, as opposed to someone else flat out telling us
- We tend to believe matters if it requires work on our behalf to prove these matters out where
- Where we believe we have no preferences and so no bias, we tend to believe the outcome
- Where matters have taken a long time to sink in, we tend to believe the outcome
- Where many agree with our observation, we tend to believe the outcome
- "time tells truth", where we see a long period of time has passed, or many events, we tend to believe what we have seen or heard
- where matters fit our subjective view of reality, we tend to believe matters
- and above all, where matters fit our preferences we tend to believe matters

There are many other criteria then the above where we tend to believe matters which are untrue, just as a secret agent has a huge bag of tricks to persuade someone of their cover story -- when, in fact, their cover story is not true.

Looking again over your response, you state "supernatural inference", but the word "supernatural" its' self is a loaded term. It is simply a word. It just means "beyond our current understanding of what is natural". To rephrase Arthur C Clarke's famous quote as some have done it, "magic may merely be science not yet understood".


As for absolute proof of anything in the cosmos, there is none. Where scientists truly are at today is seeing the universe is so improbable, so vastly improbable, especially for life on earth -- and even moreso for life on earth to have come from inorganic matter to organic matter and to be evolved... that short of saying there is a "creator", they have no explanation for even their current theories.

For instance, I just stumbled on this article yesterday, though it in no way goes into the truly improbable circumstance of life on earth:

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine


These things all said, it would not matter to me what observations are made anywhere, I am thoroughly persuaded people are subjective, dishonest in their observations, deeply dishonest to their own selves, and that the "universe" will provide them anything they want to see or believe.

 

[Episcoboi]

See religious naturalism.

I don't know, but I have my tendencies toward religious naturalism. Can Christianity be naturalistic?

Of course it can. Many faithful Christians (though many would not consider them such) are religious naturalists. Bishop Emeritus John Shelby Spong, Fr. Diarmud O'Murchu has religious naturalistic leanings, many liberal christians, etc.

 

[food4thought]

Bottom line: Biblically, in order to be saved one must confess (assuming you believe it) that Jesus is Lord (meaning that He was God incarnate and the rightfull ruler and authority in your life), and BELIEVE THAT GOD ROSE HIM FROM THE DEAD (an inherently supernatural act). See Romans 10:9-11 and 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 for Biblical confirmation.

So Biblically, you could not be a religious naturalist in the strictest sense and be a true Christian (although some may still call themselves one). Of course one could lean that way... many Christians live their lives in a relatively naturalistic way and have a love for the sciences and our environment... but all Christians must believe in the basics of Jesus being God incarnate, Jesus dieing in our place to pay for our sins, Jesus rising from the dead, Jesus being rightfull ruler over their lives, and Jesus returning to judge all, and accept the idea that in some way God's Spirit dwells within them and is able to interact with them.

Hope this helps;
Mike