Religious Naturalism and Science

Abstract

Religious belief seems to be about the conviction that there is more than nature. Naturalism is perceived as the claim that there is nothing but nature. Is naturalism therefore an atheistic position, that which should be disproved in ‘religion and science’? That seems to be the religious agenda of quite a few in ‘religion and science’. This article holds that it may well be more fruitful to accept ‘naturalism’ as an understanding of reality with which people have to live, and to explore religious options within the context of naturalism. It considers some reasons for and against a naturalistic position. Subsequent sections explore some of the religious and theological options in association with naturalism. Basically, these are treated as pertaining to two kinds of naturalism: namely, theistic naturalism and religious naturalism.

“Landscape Plotted and Pieced”: Exploring the Contours of Engagement Between (Neuro)science and Theology

“…The disjunction here is essentially that between a discourse “in the key of knowledge” and one “in the key of mystery.” For the sciences the world is, in principle, completely knowable and understandable given time and appropriate application. Well‐honed empirical methods with an emphasis on testability, repeatability, and shared third‐person description and consensus have progressively expanded the boundaries of knowledge about the material world, providing an increasingly integrated and successful applied understanding of reality (Drees , 109). Moreover, the sciences are seen by many as being not only unrestricted in their scope but also sufficient for a total understanding of the world, with all “why?” questions being essentially reducible to “how?” ones (Atkins , 124, 127).…”

Religious naturalism: The current debate

“…From a naturalistic point of view, “there is no need for some kind of disembodied spirit or God to have brought the present creative universe into being …” (Crosby, , p. 91). Furthermore, the idea of God acting in nature leads to theological incoherency, as God has to go against God's own laws (Drees, , p. 110).…”

“…Others have used the label for me. I am not sure that I like the label, as it seems to constrain, whereas I want to explore” (Drees, , p. 121). Indeed, in some respects, Drees' offered naturalism seems to align itself with a version of religious agnosticism, and perhaps even the apophatic strands of Christian theology.…”

Panentheism and Natural Science: A Good Match?

“…A more recent title that resonates with such a position is the one used by cell biologist Ursula Goodenough, The Sacred Depths of Nature (). She advocates a contemporary articulation of such a position, ‘religious naturalism’ (for her work and related voices see the website of the Religious Naturalist Association, http://religious-naturalist-association.org/, and studies such as those of Jerome Stone [] and Donald Crosby []; see Drees ).…”