At any rate, our approach is simply that the terms ‘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 that we are usually if not always atheistic naturalists, and yet the qualifier distinguishes us from other varieties of naturalists with whom we have much in common. (See Internet Links for related groups.)

Back to Top

How do Religious Naturalists handle diversity of opinions in the presentation of this emerging paradigm?

Primarily by respecting all opinions presented in a pleasant, rational manner. We do not focus on the differences of interpretation elicited by the religious quest but rather use both science and religion to enrich understanding and appreciation of being. We are a “Big Tent” group which enjoys the comradeship that can come out of friendly debate. (For more see the Perspectives pages.)

Back to Top

What makes a Religious Naturalist religious?

Our attitude makes us religious. Being religious is not about rituals and churches, but about how we feel and address our philosophy of life. Theologian Loyal Rue expresses this well in his book "Religion is not about God", where religion is depicted as an attitude toward life (see our book store). Most naturalistic groups do not express the importance of this attitude as strongly as we do. For more see Goals of RN - Spirituality.

Back to Top

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

The Latin root of legere (as in ligament) means to bind together, and thus ‘religion’ is a fine word to describe the holding together of the components that make up a personal philosophy and way of life.

1. Interpretive religious responses address the big questions asked by humans such as : Why is there anything at all rather than nothing? Where did everything come from? Does the universe/my life have a purpose? How do I think about death?

2. Inward or spiritual religious responses include such emotions as gratitude, awe, humility, and reverence, where some of these feelings are best accessed in a social community with others.

3. Outward, communal religious responses often called ethical or moral, include compassion, 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 – nor do we limit our focus to one facet of religious orientation —e.g. spirituality. 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 rehabilitate it.

Back to Top

What about God?

1. We are not enthusiastic about a traditional god-concepts 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 metaphor, perhaps as a synonym for mystery, for creatfor love or for some other psychological dynamics. Each of us tries to be clear about his/her own use.

Back to Top

On what do Religious Naturalists base their morality?

Reasonable people have a good idea of what is good and right behavior. Ethical excellence and moral decency are well known. There is no mystery to them. They are the consequences of the civilizing of humanity. As such, they are naturally derived by societies rather than handed out by revelation. RN advocates a consensus composite of human virtues that have evolved over the milenia many of which are manifest in the social structures of our primate cousins. We have attempted, on our Tenets page and our Ecology page, to list specific ethical principals that Religious Naturalists have a tendency to affirm. See them for more depth on this question.

Back to Top

Can you be considered humanistic?

Many RN's are humanistic but not all would say so, some find the term 'humanism' to be to centered on our species. RN supplements Humanism with a spirituality and reverence for the mystery of existence that results in a basis for environmentalism and stewardship of the Earth. RN and Religious Humanism are very similar in their outlook (see Murry's Perspective).

Back to Top

What are the qualifications for calling one’s self a Religious Naturalist?

We cannot dictate who is and who is not a Religious Naturalist – we are all persons who self -identify as RNs. It is up to each individual person to articulate his/her viewpoint and then decide if they belong in the Big Tent worldview of RN. Reading the material presented here and in our referenced literature will aid a person in making that determination. The perspective of Walt Mandell sums up well the basic beliefs of many RNs

Back to Top

How long has your group been active? What is the history of RN?

ReligiousNaturalism.org was founded in 2004 but the discussions prompting it have been going on vigorously for over 50 years, and the philosopher Benedict de Spinoza articulated many of our orientations long before that (see the Wikipedia article on Religious Naturalism). Modern Pantheism, a non-theistic branch of Religious Naturalism despite “theism” in its name, is perhaps the world's oldest naturalistic philosophy (See Robertson's Perspective for more on pantheism).

Back to Top

Where do you meet? How do I join up?

There are no annual conferences of Religious Naturalists, but a large number of Religious Naturalists belong to the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science and have a “Religious Naturalism Interest Group” within that organization. As many as can go to the annual conferences of IRAS, where we plan for the next year's activities and get to meet one another face to face. The Interest Group also sponsors a very active email listserv for Religious Naturalists, but one has to be a member of IRAS to join. It is not hard to join IRAS as can be seen at its website (IRAS.org), and you can join the RN group as part of your IRAS membership.

Back to Top

Any more questions?

Go to our Email Contact page for a reply form to ask us additional questions. If we get the same question often enough we'll add it to our FAQ, and in the meantime we’ll try to answer you personally.

Thanks for spending time with us.

Back to Top