Controversies in Early Religious Naturalism

Within the last several decades religious naturalism has become an increasingly important theological perspective, and it is therefore instructive to examine the major disagreements among its early proponents. From the 1920s to the 1950s there were a number of published exchanges between exponents of religious naturalism. These exchanges represent important differences which continue to shape discussion. Some readers who admire harmony may see these points of disagreement as questions which should be resolved. Others, including myself, view these as continuing issues, grappling with which can be sources of continuing creativity. Let me propose a quick definition. Naturalism is a set of beliefs and attitudes that focuses on this world. It involves the assertion that there seems to be no ontologically distinct and superior realm (such as God, soul, or heaven) to ground, explain, or give meaning to this world. While this world does not provide by itself all of the meaning that we would like, it provides enough meaning for us to cope. Religious naturalism is the type of naturalism which affirms that there are some events or processes in the world that elicit responses that can appropriately be called religious. The major topics and writers to be treated here are: the meaning of naturalism (Santayana and Dewey), the relationship between human good and the object of religious orientation (Bernhardt and Wieman), the unity of the object of religious orientation (Dewey and Wieman), the theistic question within naturalism (naturalistic theists and religious humanists), and the nature of empirical inquiry (Wieman and Meland)