Religious naturalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that Spiritual Naturalism be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (April 2009)

Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism.

It is religious in that it advocates for a sincere subjective interpretation of, feeling for, and behavior towards life and the world. Those things considered most important are deemed sacred and respected. It is naturalistic in that it uses objective science, evidential truth, and reason in its explanations rather than supernatural explanations. This allows some proponents to preserve a naturalistic god concept (i.e. the universe is God, Nature is God, ultimate reality is God, etc...). Some religious naturalists^[who?] may use cultural sources to form like-minded communities. Religious naturalists often find commonality in their ethical values, spiritual inclinations, and tolerance for diversity of thought.^{[citation needed]}

Religious naturalism, like most religions, is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more human-centric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: "What is the meaning of one's life and does it have a purpose?". Religious naturalism attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is an objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature.^[1],^[2]

Contents 1 Naturalism 2 Religious 3 History 4 Tenets 5 Varieties 6 Shared principles 7 Notable people 7.1 Proponents 7.2 Critics 8 Prominent communities 9 See also 10 Further reading 11 References 12 External links

[edit] Naturalism

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

All forms of religious naturalism, being naturalistic in their basic beliefs, assert that the natural world is the center of our most significant experiences and understandings. Consequently, nature is considered as the ultimate value in assessing one's being. Religious naturalists, despite having followed differing cultural and individual paths, affirm the human need for meaning and value in their lives. They draw on two fundamental convictions in those quests: the sense of Nature's richness, spectacular complexity, and fertility, and the recognition that Nature is the only realm in which people live out their lives. Humans are considered interconnected parts of Nature. ^[3]

Science is a fundamental, indispensable component of the paradigm of religious naturalism. It relies on mainstream science to reinforce religious and spiritual perspectives. Science is the primary interpretive tool for religious naturalism, because, scientific methods are thought to provide the most reliable understanding of Nature and the world, including human nature.^[4]

The scientific method collects and examines data, forms postulates about it, tests those speculations, and retests to verify. The result is most often the development of theories about what is factual and trustworthy. These then undergo challenges and critiques. Only insofar as a theory continues to meet these assessments is it accepted as true, and this truth is seen as the best answer until a better one is found. There is nothing magical or supernatural in this process; it produces factual, believable explanations for forming naturalistic tenets.^{[citation needed]}

Ibn al-Haytham was a key figure in developing the scientific method; his intent was to seek truth. He held that the criticism of existing ancient beliefs (a characteristic of religious naturalism) is necessary for the growth of knowledge.^{[citation needed]}

"Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough."^[5]

Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.^[6]

[edit] Religious

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)

While some adherents, especially those in the sciences, look to those sciences for their approach to nature, many religious naturalists find their analysis of nature as one of spiritual appreciation rather than as objectively perceived. They may incorporate elements of Taoism, Advaita, or Buddhism that are compatible with the naturalist worldview, into their spirituality.^{[citation needed]}

Religious naturalism is religious in a number of aspects. It has a devout attitude toward existence, the environment, morality, and the human epic^{[clarification needed]}. Its proponents honor the experience and expression of the human emotions of awe, reverence, wonder, and gratitude at and for the magnificence of the cosmos. The possibilities for being one with it all can be very spiritual in its practice.^{[citation needed]}

Most religious naturalists, but not all, respect the traditional religious language of others and translate it into their own more objective thinking. There are other naturalistic worldviews (humanism, materialistic naturalism, monism) that are not religious in their approach but are similar to, and compatible with, mainstream interpretations of religious naturalism.^{[citation needed]}

Religious naturalism is religious in its approach to morality which is seen as coming from humans' biological and social evolution rather than divine revelations. Human evolution has produced a brain complex enough both for symbolic contemplation and for participating in unique human forms of social life. Since humans are hardwired for flexibility, morality varies from culture to culture. However, most world cultures adhere to the same basic 24 virtues.^[7]

Added to these evolutionary and socio-developmental dynamics, human beings individually have the ability to contemplate moral principles, modify them, or even reject them. The process is dynamic and entirely natural. Religious naturalists think through, debate, and determine what is right, and where necessary, make policies to implement what is right. This is done with a high regard for individual differences. Thus, rigid dogmatic standards are not canonized. Most Religious Naturalists try to adhere to the same Golden Rule that is common in some form or another to most of the ethical systems of human civilization.^{[citation needed]}

P. Roger Gillette of Meadville Lombard Theology School says that religious naturalism is a religion "in that it is a system of belief and practice that demands and facilitates one's intellectual and emotional reconnection with one's self, one's family, one's local and global community and ecosystem, the universe of which the global ecosystem is a part, and (perhaps) the creative source of this universe". It is also a theology, an ethics, and a “full service’ belief that requires a ‘radical spiritual transformation’.^[8]

Religious naturalism qualifies as a religion in the way the Supreme Court of the United States might judge it. The Court interprets religion to mean a sincere, meaningful worldview that occupies the life of its adherent, a place similar to that held by deity in the lives of other persons. A religion need not include belief in the existence a supreme being nor be stated in traditional religious terms, have rituals or churches to fall within the protection of the First Amendment.^{[citation needed]}

Freedom of religion is regarded as a dynamic guarantee that was written to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of new religious paradigms such as religious naturalism. Buddhism is an example of a major religion that demonstrates these characteristics.^[9] Thus, religious naturalism qualifies as a religion even thought it has no group deity nor traditional practices.^{[citation needed]}

From a less legalistic standpoint, a religion is often described as a way of life or a person’s primary worldview which guides one's ethical thoughts and actions. It may also be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred, esteemed, or uppermost value. Religious naturalism incorporates these attributes into its credo. Religions tend to focus on a limitation of belief. Religious naturalism makes no such claims rather it advocates religious pluralism and religious tolerance. Diversity of naturalistic opinions are welcomed in what it calls a big tent structure.^[10] This approach precludes a single issue litmus test or ideological rigidity, and advocates acceptance of a broad spectrum of viewpoints. It is thus pluralistic.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] History

This article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the article by removing excessive quotations or transferring them to Wikiquote. Help is available. (March 2009)

Religious naturalism is a relatively new religious movement although the term religious naturalism began to find usage in the late 1840’s. The American Whig Review stated in 1846 “there maybe an attempt to disguise the transition under a transcendental pantheism or what may be more appropriate be described as a seeming 'religious naturalism.^[11] In 1869 Epes Sargent wrote “The spiritual philosophy pulls them down, and opens again the fair fields of 'spiritual naturalism' to the contemplation of thinker"^[12] In the same year “Religious naturalism differs from this mainly in the fact that it extends the domain of nature farther outward into space and time. ...It never transcends nature”. was expressed in American Unitarian Association literature.^[13] Ludwig Feuerbach wrote “It is true that 'religious naturalism', or the acknowledgment of the Divine in Nature, is also an element of the Christian religion….but it is by no means the characteristic, the tendency of the Christian religion.”^[14]

In 1864, Pope Pius IX condemned religious naturalism in the first seven articles of the Syllabus of Errors.

In the 1870s J.K. Huysmans was among a rising group of writers ”the so-called Naturalist school, of whom Émile Zola was the acknowledged head…With Là-bas (1891), a novel which reflected the aesthetics of the spiritualist revival and the contemporary interest in the occult, Huysmans formulated for the first time an aesthetic theory which sought to synthesize the mundane and the transcendent: 'spiritual Naturalism'.”^[15]

Many modern religious naturalists find philosophical similarity with ancient philosophers in the stoic or skeptical traditions, for example Zeno (founder of Stoicism) who said:

All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature […] Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.^[16]

Similarity is also found with certain rationalist philosophers beginning with Benedictus de Spinoza. Spinoza proposed that God was the totality of existence rather than external to it ("God, or substance…. is the indwelling, and not the transient cause of all things” ^[17]). Others find both philosophical and religious resonance in certain Eastern traditions, particularly modern schools of Buddhism and Taoism (being one with the'Tao' is not a union with an eternal spirit but rather living in accordance with nature). However, the roots of religious naturalists today are found in thinkers who used the term in the 1940s and 1950s and writers since then.

Mordecai Kaplan (1881-1983) has been considered one of the great rabbis of the 20th century and the founder of the Jewish reconstructionism movement^[18]. He was an early advocate for religious naturalism. He believed that a naturalistic approach to religion and ethics was possible in a desacralizing world. He saw God as the sum of all natural processes ^[19]. In the 1950s one also finds Jack J. Cohen's book The Case for Religious Naturalism: A Philosophy for the Modern Jew.

The earliest currently verified usages were in 1940 by George Perrigo Conger^[20] and Edgar S. Brightman.^[21] Shortly thereafter, H.H. Dubs wrote an article entitled Religious Naturalism – an Evaluation (The Journal of Religion, XXIII: 4, October, 1943), which begins ''Religious naturalism is today one of the outstanding American philosophies of religion…" and discusses ideas developed by Henry Nelson Wieman^[22] in books that predate Dubs's article by 20 years. These articles and books draw not only on Wieman, but also on ideas developed by the Chicago School of theology and by at least the 1950s Wieman and Bernard Meland in Chicago were frequently using the term to designate their own views.

In 1991 Jerome A. Stone wrote “The purpose of this book is to explore the possibility of this alternative, to sketch a philosophy of religious naturalism”^[23] Use of the term was expanded in the 1990s by Loyal Rue, who was familiar with the term from Brightman's book. Rue used the term in conversations with several people before 1994, and subsequent conversations between Rue and Ursula Goodenough [both of whom were active in IRAS (The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science)] led to Goodenough's use in her book "The Sacred Depths of Nature" and by Rue in "Religion is not about god" and other writings. Since 1994 numerous authors have used the phrase or expressed similar thinking. Examples are: Chet Raymo, Stuart Kauffman and Karl Peters.

Mike Ignatowski states that - Religious naturalism has an interesting history. Although there were many religious naturalists in the first half of the 20th century and some even before that, religious naturalism as a movement didn’t really come into its own until about 1990. It took a major leap forward in 2000 when Ursula Goodenough published The Sacred Depths of Nature, which is considered one of the founding texts of this movement. In this book she shows how nature, illuminated by scientific understanding, can generate a sense of awe and inspire an ethic of planetary stewardship.^[24]

Biologist Ursula Goodenough on religious naturalism - “I profess my Faith. For me, the existence of all this complexity and awareness and intent and beauty, and my ability to apprehend it, serves as the ultimate meaning and the ultimate value. The continuation of life reaches around, grabs its own tail, and forms a sacred circle that requires no further justification, no Creator, no super-ordinate meaning of meaning, no purpose other than that the continuation continue until the sun collapses or the final meteor collides. I confess a credo of continuation. And in so doing, I confess as well a credo of human continuation”.^[25][26]

The most recent work on religious naturalism is Donald Crosby’s Living with Ambiguity published in 2008.^[27] His first chapter is titled Religion of Nature as a Form of Religious Naturalism. Also in December 2008, an in depth look at the history of this worldview was published. In addition a few modern theologians with liberal orientations have rejected some of the historical claims of some biblical doctrines and moved to progressive forms of Christianity and Judaism akin to neo-theistic religious naturalism. Examples are: Mordecai Kaplan, John Shelby Spong, Paul Tillich, John A. T. Robinson, William Murry and Gordon D. Kaufman. Some of those into process theology^[28] may also be included in this movement.

Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative is a history by Dr. Jerome A. Stone (Dec. 2008 release) that presents this paradigm as a once-forgotten option in religious thinking that is making a rapid revival. It seeks to explore and encourage religious ways of responding to the world on a completely naturalistic basis without a supreme being or ground of being. This book traces this history and analyzes some of the issues dividing religious naturalists. It covers the birth of religious naturalism, from George Santayana to Henry Nelson Wieman and briefly explores religious naturalism in literature and art. Contested issues are discussed including whether nature’s power or goodness is the focus of attention and also on the appropriateness of using the term "God". The contributions of more than twenty living Religious Naturalists are presented. The last chapter ends the study by exploring what it is like on the inside to live as a religious naturalist.

Author Chet Raymo in his 2008 book, When God is Gone Everything is Holy – The Making of a Religious Naturalist, writes that he had come to the same conclusion as Teilhard de Chardin had: “Grace is everywhere” (page 136). Naturalistic emergence is in everything and far more magical than religion-based miracles. A future humankind religion should be ecumenical, ecological, and embrace the story provided by science as the “most reliable cosmology”.^[29]

As P. Roger Gillette summarizes:

Thus was religious naturalism born. It takes the findings of modern science seriously, and thus is inherently naturalistic. But it also takes the human needs that led to the emergence of religious systems seriously, and thus is also religious. It is religious, or reconnective, in that it seeks and facilitates human reconnection with one's self, family, larger human community, local and global ecosystem, and unitary universe (…) Religious reconnection implies love. And love implies concern, concern for the well-being of the beloved. Religious naturalism thus is marked by concern for the well-being of the whole of nature. This concern provides a basis and drive for ethical behavior toward the whole holy unitary universe.^[30]

[edit] Tenets

Due to the rationality and feelings provided by science and a naturalistic spirituality, some religious naturalists have a strong sense of stewardship for the Earth. Luther College professor Loyal Rue has written:

Religious naturalists will be known for their reverence and awe before Nature, their love for Nature and natural forms, their sympathy for all living things, their guilt for enlarging the ecological footprints, their pride in reducing them, their sense of gratitude directed towards the matrix of life, their contempt for those who abstract themselves from natural values, and their solidarity with those who link their self-esteem to sustainable living.^[31]

Tenets and rules are not an inherent part of the religious naturalist worldview. However, some organizations have suggested different tenets and sets of rules. The principle tenets and ethics of ReligiousNaturalism.org are:^[32]

• To rely on mainstream science to answers questions of being
• To adopt a spiritual attitude towards living and the natural world
• To be benevolent stewards of the earth
• Adherence to devout environmental ethics and personal morality
• A consilience of religious thinking acceptable to most peoples
• Live by the Golden Rule common to most societies
• Respect for the opinion of others

This is not a complete listing of the key goals of religious naturalism but the main consensus ones. Some religious naturalists may disagree with these tenets and different sectors within this worldview also have their own tenets.

[edit] Varieties

The literature related to religious naturalism includes many variations in conceptual framing. This reflects individual takes on various issues, to some extent various schools of thought, such as basic naturalism, religious humanism, pantheism, and spiritual naturalism that have had time on the conceptual stage, and to some extent differing ways of characterizing Nature.

Current discussion often relates to the issue of whether belief in a God or God-language and associated concepts have any place in a framework that treats the physical universe as its essential frame of reference and the methods of science as providing the preeminent means for determining what Nature is. There are at least three varieties of religious naturalism, and three similar but some what different ways to categorize them. They are:

Michael Cavanaugh – God-language^[33]

• A kind of naturalism that does use God-language but fundamentally treats God metaphorically.

• A commitment to naturalism using God-language, but as either (1) a faith statement or supported by philosophical arguments, or (2) both, usually leaving open the question of whether that usage as metaphor or refers to the ultimate answer that Nature can be.

Jerald Robertson – Theistic spectrum^[34]

• neo-theistic ([process theology], progressive religions –Gordon Kaufman, Karl E. Peters, Ralph Wendell Burhoe, Edmund Robinson

• non-theistic (agnostic, naturalistic concepts of god) - Robertson himself, Spinoza, Stanley Klein, Stuart Kauffman

• not-theistic (no God concept, some modern naturalisms, non-militant atheism) – Jerome A. Stone, Michael Cavanaugh,^[35] Donald A. Crosby^[36], Ursula Goodenough

• a hodgepodge of individual perspectives.- Philip Hefner

The first category has as many sub-groups as there are distinct definitions for god. Believers in a supernatural entity (transcendent) are by definition not religious naturalists however the matter of a naturalistic concept of God (Immanence) is currently debated. Hard core militant atheists are not considered Religious Naturalists in this differentiation. Some individuals call themselves religious naturalisms but refuse to be categorized.

Jerome A. Stone – God concepts^[37]

• Those who conceive of God as the creative process within the universe – example, Henry Nelson Wieman

• Those who think of God as the totality of the universe considered religiously - Bernard Loomer.

• A third type of religious naturalism sees no need to use the concept or terminology of God, Stone himself and Ursula Goodenough

Stone emphasizes that some Religious Naturalists do not reject the concept of God, but if they use the concept, it involves a radical alteration of the idea such as Gordon Kaufman who defines God as creativity.

Ignatowski divides RN in to only two types – theistic and non-theistic.^[38]

[edit] Shared principles

There are several principles shared by all the aforementioned varieties of religious naturalism:^[39]

• All varieties of religious naturalism see humans as an interconnected, emergent part of nature.
• Accept the primacy of science with regard to what is measurable via the scientific method.
• Recognize science's limitations in accounting for judgments of value and in providing a full account of human experience. Thus religious naturalism embraces nature's creativity, beauty and mystery and honors many aspects of the artistic, cultural and religious traditions that respond to and attempt to interpret Nature in subjective ways.
• Approach matters of morality, ethics and value with a focus on how the world works, with a deep concern for fairness and the welfare of all humans regardless of their station in life.
• Seek to integrate these interpretative, spiritual and ethical responses in a manner that respects diverse religious and philosophical perspectives, while still subjecting them and itself to rigorous scrutiny.
• The focus on scientific standards of evidence imbues RN with the humility inherent in scientific inquiry and its limited, albeit ever deepening, ability to describe reality (see Epistemology).
• A strong environmental ethic for the welfare of the planet Earth and humanity.
• Belief in the sacredness of life and the evolutionary process

The concept of emergence has grown in popularity with many Religious Naturalists. It helps explain how a complex Universe and life by self-organization have risen out of a multiplicity of relatively simple elements and their interactions. The entire story of emergence is related in the Epic of Evolution - the mythic scientific narrative used to tell the verifiable chronicle of the evolutionary process that is the Universe. Most religious naturalist consider the Epic of Evolution a true story about the historic achievement of Nature.^[40][41][42] “The Epic of Evolution is the 14 billion year narrative of cosmic, planetary, life, and cultural evolution—told in sacred ways. Not only does it bridge mainstream science and a diversity of religious traditions; if skillfully told, it makes the science story memorable and deeply meaningful, while enriching one's religious faith or secular outlook.”^[43]

A number of naturalistic writers have used this theme as a topic for their books using such synonyms as: Cosmic Evolution, Everybody’s Story, Evolutionary Epic, Evolutionary Universe, Great Story, New Story, Universal Story. ‘Epic of evolution’ is a term that, within the past three years(1998), has become the theme and title of a number of gatherings. It seems to have been first used by Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson in 1978. ‘The evolutionary epic,’ Wilson wrote in his book On Human Nature, ‘is probably the best myth we will ever have.’ Myth as falsehood was not the usage intended by Wilson in this statement. Rather, myth as a grand narrative that provides a people with a placement in time—a meaningful placement that celebrates extraordinary moments of a shared heritage. The epic of evolution is science translated into meaningful story.”^[44]

Evolutionary evangelist and Pentecostal Evangelical minister Michael Dowd uses the term to help present his position that science and religious faith are not mutually exclusive (a premise of religious naturalism). He preaches that the epic of cosmic, biological, and human evolution, revealed by science, is a basis for an inspiring and meaningful view of our place in the universe. Evolution is viewed as a spiritual process that it is not meaningless blind chance.^[45] He is joined by a number of other theologians in this position.^[46][47][48]

[edit] Notable people

[edit] Proponents

[edit] Critics

• Daniel Dennett
• John Haught

[edit] Prominent communities

Religious naturalists sometimes use the social practices of traditional religions, including communal gatherings and rituals, to foster a sense of community, and to serve as reinforcement of its participants' efforts to expand the scope of their understandings. Some known examples of religious naturalists groupings are:

• Religious Naturalism Interest Group of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, which usually meets annually on Star Island off the coast of New Hampshire.^[49][50]

• Congregation Beth Or, a Jewish congregation near Chicago led by Rabbi David Oler ^[51]

• Congregation Beth Adam in Loveland, Ohio led by Rabbi Robert Barr, which practices humanistic Judaism ^[52]

• Unitarian Universalist Religious Naturalists (UURN) organized by John Hooper ^[53]

• Local Progressive Christian groups^[54]

• Nontheistic Friends (Quakers) ^[55]

• Organizations with a naturalistic orientation ^[56]

[edit] See also

• The Great Story
• Liberal religion
• Self-organization
• Naturalistic pantheism
• List of new religious movements

[edit] Further reading

• 2008 Jerome A. Stone - Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative, State U. of New York Press (Dec 2008), ISBN 0791475379
• 2008 Chet Raymo - When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy: Making of a Religious Naturalist, Sorin Books (September 2008), ISBN 1933495138
• 2008 Donald A. Crosby - Living with Ambiguity: Religious Naturalism and the Menace of Evil, State University of New York Press (August 7, 2008), ISBN 0791475190
• 2008 Michael Dowd - Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, Viking (June 2008), ISBN 0670020451
• 2006 Loyal Rue - Religion is not About God, Rutgers University Press (September 25, 2006), ISBN 0813539552
• 2006 William R. Murry - Reason and Reverence, Skinner House Books (November 6, 2006), ISBN 1558965181
• 2004 Gordon D. Kaufman - In the Beginning….Creativity, Augsburg Fortress Publishers (July 2004), ISBN 0800660935
• 2002 Karl Peters - Dancing with the Sacred, Trinity Press International (August 2002), ISBN 1563383934
• 2000 Ursula Goodenough - The Sacred Depths of Nature, Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (June 15, 2000), ISBN 0195136292
• 2000 Paul Tillich - The Courage to Be, Yale University Press; 2 Sub edition (July 11, 2000), ISBN 0300084714
• 1997 Connie Barlow - Green Space Green Time: The Way of Science, Springer (September 1997), ISBN 0387947949
• LibraryThing - Religious Naturalism

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Look up religious naturalism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Religious naturalism

• RN at the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (IRAS)
• Naturalism.org
• Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion
• The New Cosmology
• SacredRiver.org

v • d • e Philosophy of religion Related articles: Criticism of religion • Exegesis • History of religion  • Religion • Religious philosophy • Theology • Relationship between religion and science • Religion and politics • Faith and rationality • more... Concepts in religion Afterlife • Euthyphro dilemma • Faith • Intelligent design • Miracle • Problem of evil • Religious belief • Soul • Theodicy Theories of religion Acosmism • Agnosticism • Animism • Antireligion • Atheism • Brights • Dharmism • Deism • Divine command theory • Dualism • Esotericism • Exclusivism • Existentialism (Christian, Agnostic, Atheist) • Feminist theology • Gnosticism • Henotheism • Humanism (Religious, Secular, Christian)  • Inclusivism • Monism • Monotheism • Mysticism • Naturalism (Metaphysical, Religious, Humanistic) • New Age • Nondualism • Nontheism • Pandeism • Pantheism • Polytheism • Process theology • Religious fundamentalism • Spiritualism • Shamanism • Taoic • Theism • Transcendentalism • more ... Philosophers of religion Albrecht Ritschl • Alvin Plantinga • Anselm of Canterbury • Anthony Flew • Augustine of Hippo • Averroes • Baron d'Holbach • Baruch Spinoza • Blaise Pascal • Boethius • David Hume • Desiderius Erasmus • Emil Brunner • Émile Durkheim • Ernst Cassirer • Ernst Haeckel • Ernst Troeltsch • Friedrich Schleiermacher • Gaunilo of Marmoutiers • Georg Hegel • George Santayana • Harald Høffding • Heraclitus • Immanuel Kant • J. L. Mackie • Johann Gottfried Herder • Karl Barth • Ludwig Feuerbach • Maimonides • Paul Tillich • Pico della Mirandola • Ramakrishna • Reinhold Niebuhr • Rene Descartes • Richard Swinburne • Robert Merrihew Adams • Rudolf Otto • Sigmond Freud • Søren Kierkegaard • Thomas Aquinas • Thomas Chubb • William Alston • William James • W.K. Clifford • William L. Rowe • William Whewell • William Wollaston • more ... Existence of god For Cosmological · Ontological · Teleological · Transcendental · Christological · Morality · Consciousness · Love · Beauty · Degree · Desire · Experience · Miracles · Pascal's Wager · Witness · Proper basis Against Evil · Hell · Nonbelief · Inconsistent revelations · Poor design · Transcendental · Noncognitivism · Omnipotence · Free will · Atheist's Wager · 747 Gambit · Occam's Razor · Russell's teapot · God lottery Portal · Category · Task Force · Discussion · Changes