Other Pagan: Pagan religious naturalism

[wild fox]

I am interested in any thoughts on pagan religious naturalism. Found some postings on the internet on some who have adopted this description on their belief and became interested but looking to know more. I saw the topic of agnosticism /atheism and paganism and some others in reference to pantheism but pagan religious naturalism/pagan spiritual naturalism appears to be a slightly different approach and wanted to know who more.

I tried but cannot see the pre-christian gods and goddesses other than symbolic ( not to mean without important importance to belief or ritual I just cant see them in as personal entities) and the more I have researched the origins of Christianity and its "evolution" to its diversity today it became clear that I could no longer identify with it. I also love to read about what we have been able to learn of the pre-christian religions but feel we may use aspect but reconstruction of them to their former beliefs appears to be out of reach for me.

This left me without a direction I could feel comfortable and so if anyone is familiar with this way of religious practice I would like to know more about it.

 

[EclecticWheel]

I am interested in any thoughts on pagan religious naturalism. Found some postings on the internet on some who have adopted this description on their belief and became interested but looking to know more. I saw the topic of agnosticism /atheism and paganism and some others in reference to pantheism but pagan religious naturalism/pagan spiritual naturalism appears to be a slightly different approach and wanted to know who more.

I tried but cannot see the pre-christian gods and goddesses other than symbolic ( not to mean without important importance to belief or ritual I just cant see them in as personal entities) and the more I have researched the origins of Christianity and its "evolution" to its diversity today it became clear that I could no longer identify with it. I also love to read about what we have been able to learn of the pre-christian religions but feel we may use aspect but reconstruction of them to their former beliefs appears to be out of reach for me.

This left me without a direction I could feel comfortable and so if anyone is familiar with this way of religious practice I would like to know more about it.

There is not only one way to go about it.  Some skeptics still practice traditional religions or reconstructionist paths.  Others take an archetypal approach to deities or follow paths not involving any supernatural entities whatsoever.

You may enjoy these sites:

https://humanisticpaganism.com

https://atheopaganism.wordpress.com

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allergicpagan/about-john-halstead/

I particularly like this article on why a skeptic may still pray to God(s): https://humanisticpaganism.com/deity/

[wild fox]

There is not only one way to go about it.  Some skeptics still practice traditional religions or reconstructionist paths.  Others take an archetypal approach to deities or follow paths not involving any supernatural entities whatsoever.

You may enjoy these sites:

https://humanisticpaganism.com

https://atheopaganism.wordpress.com

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allergicpagan/about-john-halstead/

I particularly like this article on why a skeptic may still pray to God(s): https://humanisticpaganism.com/deity/

I appreciate the references and am familiar with two of the sites. From others sources there seems to be an attempt to give more definition to the religion as if to get come consensus what at least religious naturalism is yet even as some are trying in seems to be diversifying itself. This is where it becomes more complicated when someone considers themselves as a religious naturalist since like other religions it appears to be developing increasing diversity.

I am trying to understand what a religious naturalist is and am looking for some insight. What does seem to be the main stance is that their is only the natural world - Nature inclusive of all aspects of man - and no supernatural belief. It seems that there would be no personal beings or entities such as God or other deities that are outside of the natural world yet it does not exclude the use of god or goddesses as long as they are within the natural world. I am interested if this is a reasonable conclusion so far.

The other issue is there seems to be a variation on the use of the terms humanistic vs naturalistic which from my reading are not entirely identical. There are also some different emphasis on a human vs animal vs ecosystem vs biosphere viewpoint. Any clarity to this would be appreciated although most of what I read seems to give equality to all. In addition there appears to be some that see the religion explained almost entirely through scientific investigation while others believe that scientific findings are an important aspect but that there are other equally important aspects such as sensory experience, poetic description, symbolic description and other non-scientific ways of belief. I would appreciate any comments or insight to  better understand this religious view and how one can approach a better understanding.

[EclecticWheel]

I appreciate the references and am familiar with two of the sites. From others sources there seems to be an attempt to give more definition to the religion as if to get come consensus what at least religious naturalism is yet even as some are trying in seems to be diversifying itself. This is where it becomes more complicated when someone considers themselves as a religious naturalist since like other religions it appears to be developing increasing diversity.

I am trying to understand what a religious naturalist is and am looking for some insight. What does seem to be the main stance is that their is only the natural world - Nature inclusive of all aspects of man - and no supernatural belief. It seems that there would be no personal beings or entities such as God or other deities that are outside of the natural world yet it does not exclude the use of god or goddesses as long as they are within the natural world. I am interested if this is a reasonable conclusion so far.

The other issue is there seems to be a variation on the use of the terms humanistic vs naturalistic which from my reading are not entirely identical. There are also some different emphasis on a human vs animal vs ecosystem vs biosphere viewpoint. Any clarity to this would be appreciated although most of what I read seems to give equality to all. In addition there appears to be some that see the religion explained almost entirely through scientific investigation while others believe that scientific findings are an important aspect but that there are other equally important aspects such as sensory experience, poetic description, symbolic description and other non-scientific ways of belief. I would appreciate any comments or insight to  better understand this religious view and how one can approach a better understanding.

There are spiritual naturalists on all sorts of paths including traditional religions, even Abrahamic ones.  There is going to be diversity in how each naturalist approaches spirituality.  Even defining naturalism is tricky.  There is an explanation and other articles here: http://spiritualnaturalistsociety.org

[wild fox]

There are spiritual naturalists on all sorts of paths including traditional religions, even Abrahamic ones.  There is going to be diversity in how each naturalist approaches spirituality.  Even defining naturalism is tricky.  There is an explanation and other articles here: http://spiritualnaturalistsociety.org

I understand the diversity which seems to be the natural development of all religions. Rome tried to keep Christianity under complete control through a very powerful hierarchy yet as we see today Christianity has become as diverse as any religion. But do you agree the difference is for a religions or spiritual naturalist and other especially theistic religions is that the religious or spiritual naturalist sees Nature as the ultimate and there is no supernatural world and that there may be metaphorical gods or goddesses or one might equate god and nature as the same thing but ( this being what I have read so far) there is not a higher deity/god that overlooks or intervenes in the natural world from a supernatural space. Does this description sound at least as a reasonable description of this religious view.

[wild fox]

There are spiritual naturalists on all sorts of paths including traditional religions, even Abrahamic ones.  There is going to be diversity in how each naturalist approaches spirituality.  Even defining naturalism is tricky.  There is an explanation and other articles here: http://spiritualnaturalistsociety.org

I read several of the articles in the spiritualnaturalistsociety.org but first want to focus on the definition given for naturalism. The definition of naturalism seems far to restricted to only what science can show. "Naturalism is a view of the world that includes those things which we can observe or directly conclude from observations. Naturalists’ conception of reality consists of the natural world as outlined by the latest scientific understanding. As for claims for which we have no evidence, we do not hold any beliefs in these and do not make any other claims about them. It is quite possible, even likely, that many things exist which we cannot detect, but we believe in a humble approach to knowledge...Therefore, we are careful to limit our claims about reality to what we can experience and measure, as well as reproduce and show to others. On all else, we are content to admit “we don’t know”.
 Our understanding of out world and the growth of our understanding through scientific method is truly amazing yet this would ignore other ways of experiencing nature that have meaning also. It has been very successful in areas as physics but run into serious problems with more complex topics such as ecosystems. I found the first description in this sight flawed and to limited.

I am not sure I agree with the second definition of spirituality. This too was presented in a too limited presentation. I found far more open and better presented use of these term in the writings of Donald Crosby starting with his book " A Religion of Nature".