Talk:Spiritual naturalism

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Metaphysics / Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Philosophy of religion

I have created this article to replace the one on naturalistic spirituality(spiritual naturalism is far more common). It had no references and appears to be the viewpoint of only one person - that has been expanded considerably. The rational for doing this is given in the first paragraph and the reason to keep it separate from religious naturalism later in the article. I have been worked in this paradigm area for 5 years and think I have a good feel for what is needed to clearify it. I think I have put this subject on respectable ground with the references that were needed in the first place.Jlrobertson (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The argument that this article should be merged with 'Religious Naturalism' is a slippery slope. Many Spiritual Naturalists, myself included, do not see this worldview as a religion--a religion being a type of belief system highly reliant on leaps of faith and logic. Rather, it can be argued that this system of thought is grounded in a rational philosophy of natural, or material, reality. A Spiritual Naturalist's reality is describable via the ever-evolving, self-correcting vehicle of science. It is the human perception that nature is what is sacred and spiritual that sets this system of thought apart from other belief systems.*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.91.181 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no difference in religious and spiritual naturalism. If you look at the Spiritual naturalism page, it lists major religions that do not view the religion in a literal manner, but only basic elements for spiritual reasons. It is no different with religious naturalism, since what is listed on the spiritual naturalism page are religions. To the comment above "I have no desire to tell a Baptist and Methodist that they are the same – they are separate but similar beliefs." There are non theistic and theistic Baptist's and Methodist's. You can be a Process Philosopher and attach it to a religion which most do, but some do not as they are called process naturalists. Any kind of Naturalism believes that, either the supernatural or higher power entity, if they believe in one or if one is possible, it does not interfere with the natural laws of the universe. They can draw inspiration from the representation of the universe, or some basic some teachings of a religion without believing that the prophet of that religion was actually of god. 100.10.9.225 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too 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) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Daniel. However, the point can me made that while "spiritual naturalism" and "religious naturalism" may be analogous to denominations within Christianity, there is still an overarching religion--Christianity--and "Christianity" as an overarching religion does have its own Wikipedia page in addition to its denominations. Perhaps the solution isn't to merge "spiritual naturalism" and religious naturalism," but there should probably be a page that describes the overarching philosophy that connects them. Perhaps a new page should be constructed if a term is available to describe that overarching philosophy, or perhaps it would be sufficient to edit the Naturalism_(philosophy) page to highlight the religious and spiritual aspects of naturalism. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this your point on an overall page. I think the best solution would be what you mentioned about linking from the Naturalism page.--Daniel (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]