Talk:Religious naturalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neologism?

According to amazon.com the book containing this term was published in 2000. Is is already widely accepted term, or is it just a neologism of one author? --Jan Smolik 22:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase goes back to at least 1958. See this book: Author: Cohen, Jack Joseph. Title: The case for religious naturalism; a philosophy for the modern Jew. Published: New York : Reconstructionist Press, [1958]

The phrase itself is well recongized. However, the terms of the definition need to be reconsidered, since many "religious naturalists" do not endorse naturalism, as the article itself later makes clear. If religious "naturalism" is not necessarily naturalistic, perhaps the word "naturalism" means "nature worship." Wyote2 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I know of no Religious Naturalist that would say its a worship of Nature.Jlrobertson (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Updating article

This is a major revision of this article. Updated and much new stuff added. The original article was the consensus of 14 people. I have been in touch with all of them and gotten their fresh info. There were no references in the original and I have added 17. Most sections have been expanded to present a fuller story of this paradigm. The people referenced in it are ones of considerable standing and merit They are the authorities on the subject.Jlrobertson (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Prose Style 4/7/09

Research has shown that bulleted lists read easier on web pages and thus may be more appropriate for Wiki articles. Reference - How Users Read on the WebJlrobertson (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Julian Huxley, Loren Eiseley, Aldo Leopold

Most religious naturalists consider Julian Huxley, Loren Eiseley, and Aldo Leopold as practically patron saints. Could someone please add them to this article in a WP correct way? Connie Barlow (cbtanager), my wife, doesn't know how to add stuff to the wikipedia in the right way, and I'm not all that great at it myself, which is why I'm making the request here. Thanks! MBDowd (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jlrobertson's repeated removal of legitimate tags

• {{Cleanup}} -- this article is a complete an utter mess. I would emphatically suggest that Jlrobertson spend a very long time reading WP:MOS (and subsidiary guidelines) very carefully, before he attempts any major rewrites, or consider himself qualified to judge whether an article requires cleanup or not.
• {{cleanup-laundry}} -- the material in 'Areas of disagreement' should not be in the form of a list.
• {{Unreferenced section}} -- this has been downgraded to {{unrefsect}}, but the section's referencing still requires work.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of non-aligned "communities"

Most of the communities listed are NOT communities of Religious Naturalists and are not aligned with RN. They either make no mention whatsoever of Religious Naturalism on their websites, or describe it in a way that makes plain they are not even close to this description of religious naturalism. Beth Or uses Religious Naturalism is a completely different way. Beth Adam makes no mention of the term at all on its site. Center for Progressive Christianity mentions it merely in one book review. I suggest that only actual communities that acknowledge their alignment with this term, in the way described in this article, should be covered. Nontheist friends make no mention of RN. --Naturalistic (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to restore these communities and keep them restored you will need to provide direct links that clearly establish that they are aligned with Religious Naturalism or acknowledge belonging to that movement as presented in this article, and that Religious Naturalism is the heart of their activity. In the previous version you did not do that. I followed every one of those links and in the ones I removed I could find no evidence of any alignment or belonging. Do a Google site search to look for Religious Naturalism within each site. Oh and by the way, you should sign and date your messages etc. --Naturalistic (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Note: the following two sections were undated but appear to have been posted 13 February 2010 by User:Jlrobertson

Restoration

I have restored this article, returning vandalized material, keeping all edits of merit, cleaned it up and added new material. J.Stone has published a history on it and I have it and will revise the history section on reading it. I have hundreds of hours on the revision a year ago and now. I have tried to be as even handed as I could be and the over 90 references attest to its worth as an article and objectivity. I believe that what I have done to be a truthful presentation of the story. These articles on religion under go a lot of critique and most editors tend to add their own perspectives. I would appreciate any help to improve it and will keep it updated with new material as it becomes available. Please address any concerns you have on my talk page. For some reason my name is not adding in here see history for talk page.

On expanding this article ...

I am new at this, so please forgive me if I am posting in the wrong place or not following accepted procedures.

As an Associate Professor of English Communication in a Japanese college who has taught writing, rhetoric and public speaking, as well as a wide variety of liberal arts and science courses ... I was a bit disappointed for not seeing a section serving the function of devil's advocate — specific critiques of Religious Naturalism. If one's beliefs can not stand in the withering light of self-criticism, as well as the honest attempt to display more prominently the dissenting opinions of critics in general, the article, though informative, seems to be preaching to only the choir.

I am in fact highly sympathetic with the beliefs and values stated, and as so defined, would consider myself a 'religious naturalist', and it was myself who added Aldo Leopold's name to the list of proponents. I am a bit surprised to not see the names of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, James Lovelock and the Gaia Hypothesis, Jill Bolte Taylor, the emerging sciences of evolutionary anthropology / psychology and their proponents - Frans de Waal and Robin Dunbar, and possibly Freud, definitely Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell.

I also see the potential danger of such an approach as exceeding the intended scope of the article, or trivializing the scope to ephemeral political trends — three simple examples being: 1 - most economists' theories seem to be incognizant of the fact that natural resources are the fundamental ground upon which economies are built, yet representatives of Corporate Capitalist models of economies tend to be anti-global warming, anti-conservationist, etc. 2 - the competing creationist ‘theory’ of evolution and its impact on textbook choice and distribution seems have taken its strongest root in oil-economy based Texas. 3 - the fundamental contradictions between decentralised emergent phenomenon and centralized or bureaucratized views of society such as the conflict between Taoist and Confucian ethics being played out in China at this moment.

I also see there is no section in ‘Religious Naturalism’ for its impact on the arts and culture. I have used ‘Avatar’ as a model in my classroom to point out some differences between Taoism and Confucianism. I could have just as easily used ‘Silent Running’ or any number of cautionary tales in contemporary culture. What about Joni Mitchell and her ‘Big Yellow Taxi’ … the whole ‘flower-child back-to-the-earth counter- culture of the 1960’s? Anyone remember Mother Jones? How about T.E.D. and similar websites?

Can anyone give me any help on this? Is there any agreement on if the article should be expanded in these directions, and if so, how to go about it? Seeing only the names of two critics does not seem help build a better argument for the beliefs and values described in this otherwise excellent introduction to an important mind-set for the contemporary age.

Previous work

The original article a year ago was reviewed by 2 administrators before I posted it and one did some cleanup on it. It was OK by their standards. My Jlrobertson (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC) are still not working.

The article is still completely biassed and merits the tags placed on it. It presents only one view of religious naturalism (the "Big Tent" variety). It is chock full of original research - ie it makes claims and puts stuff together here. You need to read and respect the Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and original research. PS Your signature worked this time. You just have to type two dashes and four tildes and that does everything for you. --Naturalistic (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The 3 main views (varieties) are discussed from 4 sources along with areas of agreement & disagreement--Jlrobertson (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PhD in captions

I strongly suggest removing the "PhD" from the captions of Goodenough and Stone. Such captions strongly suggest bogosity. Erniecohen (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on banners

I have undone some of the disruptive editing and restored some of the prominent communities. They are now doubled referenced. I left out the Quakers because I do not have 2 references. When I did the research last year, I contacted the people referenced to make sure they used the term religious naturalist to describe themselves. Also last year I had an administrator (User talk:Cybercobra- April 1, 2009 ) preview the article. At that time it was OK with s/he and they did extensive editing on it (see April 1).

It has been tagged as needing additional references or sources for verification. I think 86 references is a satisfactory amount and will be adding more as I read Stone’s history of RN. If someone thinks there are peacock terms in it, they should remove them. Also if someone thinks the article may not include all significant viewpoints, they are also free to add them. Note: I did include a section on Areas of Disagreement and moved the critics from one section to another and added 6 more.

There are allegations of original research, unverifiable claims and unpublished synthesis but no prove of them is forth coming. The person making these claims also asked others to add reliable sources about this topic but offers none of their own.

Two statements on neutrality is excessive. I have no objection to one neutrality claim as the reader is warned and can judge for themselves the merits of the article (probably a wise approach for all religious articles). It was cleaned up by administrator Cybercobra on April 1, 2009. I have again asked s/he to review it.

I am of the opinion the article is getting a bit long and am contemplating breaking in to 2 articles – theology and history. Stone’s history will determine that for me.

I have no intention of getting into an editing war on the prominent communities listed but I think their inclusion would be of value for someone researching this subject. For now I also have no intention of removing the critical banners. I will leave them there to represent the disposition of the poster of them.

Note: I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an administrator. I am an experienced user; that's all. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Opps thought you were, certainly a very good user--Jlrobertson (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop using references from websites that you own, copies of websites that you own, websites that are based on wikipedia, or references which are only loosely related. Synthesis and OR must go, wikipedia isn't a place where you can create things or publish your research.

When this is done, the banners can go away as well. Ren ✉ 01:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hardly ever bother getting involved in wikipedia editing anymore, because of this stupid 'I don't like it so I've deleted it' bickering all the time. Ordinary people are aware of the nature of wikipedia, they read it with their critical faculties switched on. I look to wikipedia for a first impression of a topic and some suggestive references, I don't at all expect it to be definitive or 'authoritative'. I'd much rather have more stuff in an article, by all means contradictory sections, I don't even care much if there's some sections which are bordering on 'original research'- I think hardcore in-group wikipedia editors get far too hung-up about stamping out anything which could possibly be bordering on original research. In the nicest possible way, please chill the f*ck out everybody!! It's only a wikipedia article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kester ratcliff (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You might not care, but Wikipedia does. WP:No original research is core policy. If you don't like this you can always create Throweverythingagainstthewallandseewhatsticksapedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Michael Dowd.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Michael Dowd.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Michael Dowd.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Spinoza

There is a picture of Spinoza in this article, but no text describing his contributions to the idea of Religious Naturalism. I think there are some complex relations between Spinoza and religious naturalism, but I'm not expert enough to trace them. Until I have time to do some more research, or someone who knows more than I can put in the relevant relations, I've removed his picture. David s graff (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this Spinoza is the like the father, the Moses or Abraham of Religous naturalism. I am very surprised that he isn't mentioned more in this article. David Hume should be mentioned too, imo.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religious naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060523211715/http://science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=31 to http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Spiritual and Religious

Lumping together variations of religious thought is not an easy task because the proponents see themselves as unique enough to use different terms. Why are not all Christian faiths combined into only one? As noted in the Spiritual Naturalism article - “There is some debate as to the similarity of, and differentiation between, the view of ``spiritual`` naturalism and the related view of ``religious`` naturalism. If the views are seen as separate, the difference may be characterized as the difference between the meanings of the terms ``religious`` and ``spiritual``.”

Most people seem to have different understandings of what spiritual implies and what religious does. Religious Naturalism itself could reasonably be divided into three or four variations (theistic, non-theistic and atheistic) with distinct titles but that has not occurred as yet but may in the future. Until the proponents themselves see themselves as the same, they had best be titled as they are – separate but similar beliefs. I have no desire to tell a Baptist and Methodist that they are the same – they are separate but similar beliefs. The differentiation between Spiritual Naturalism and Religious Naturalism based on the interpretations of spiritual and religious may be greater than that between many Christian faiths that have separate Wiki articles.Jlrobertson (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Religious naturalism" and "Spiritual naturalism" are virtually indistinguishable. The pages should be merged. But I think they should be merged under the title of "Religious naturalism" because that term is more widely used and there are tons of books coming out as of late that advocate for "religious naturalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.119.135.76 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It should not be merged, because this term preceded the term religious naturalism, was initiated by Huysmans in 1891, and has distinctions from it. Cross reference is the way to go. Naturalistic (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say they should not be merged. Reasons: (1) The terms have different histories and origins, (2) "Religion" is a very loaded word for many, and has very different connotations than "spiritual", and (3) those who go by "Spiritual Naturalists" and "Religious Naturalists" do not see them as the same. It is not the place of others to tell them their views are "virtually indistinguishable". Their failure to tell the difference between these terms is not relevant. Otherwise, non-Christians could come along and tell two denominations they believe them to be basically the same thing and merge the topics. --Daniel (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that a similar discussion is happening on the discussion page for the Spiritual Naturalism article, where I've posted similar thoughts against merging the two. However, another user suggested that we think of the Naturalism article as an umbrella and provide links to both the Religious Naturalism and Spiritual Naturalism pages. This would seem to be a fitting solution.--Daniel (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as it has been a few years since this was first brought up, and 7 months since this solution was proposed, and since there seems to be decent consensus on this, I am deleting the tag on merging the two articles and assuming we will not be. I will also add a link to both articles from the article on Naturalism, as has been discussed.--Daniel (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see three Wikipedia pages on this topic so far: Naturalism_(philosophy), Spiritual_naturalism and Religious_naturalism. I hope someone writes a summary more clearly differentiating the three because right now these pages seem redundant and the long articles aren't really helping me determine which I most identify with (especially between "spiritual" and "religious") and I'm confused. Either that or please merge the pages and just have the different types on the main philosophy page. It seems no one has discussed doing this in years. 108.54.107.200 (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Naturalism&Religious: Contains original research and I suspect some nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research AndersHellstrom2 (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Odd Image Up Top

Where did that very odd, unrepresentative image come from? Who thought it was a good representation of Religious Naturalism? There are far better images; almost anything depicting natural beauty in an awe-inspiring or reverent way will do nicely. For example, there are some great images on the website of the Religious Naturalist Association. If there is good reasoning behind what's there, I can be persuaded, but if not, I'll replace it after a while. Sti11w4ter (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Substantial revision

I just completed a fairly substantial series of revisions to the article, working in collaboration with some people who have studied this subject. Editor B (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Order of emergence

Minor edit. In the Tenets section, changed "Due to natural forces and processes, this expansion led over time to the emergence of nuclear particles, light, galaxies, stars, and planets." to switch light and nuclear particles. Light (energy) came first, with nuclear particles condensing from it in the first 10^-35 sec. Sti11w4ter (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Dead References

Reference 87 is obsolete, but I'm not sure if my replacement is kosher as a reference, so I'm posting it here instead of direct-editing.

UURN is now RNUU, and Ref 87 leads to a page at the UUA which says "no such list 'UURN'". RNUU is on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/743702209699364 and has a GoogleGroup: https://groups.google.com/g/rnuu Sti11w4ter (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)