Natureligion: Does Christianity Resist Nature?

The usual phrase here is “Science versus Religion.” Let’s translate it.

I have always felt that this phrase is an inaccurate and misleading way of posing the real problem.

“Science versus Religion” uses over-broad, blanket terms and focuses on the method of thinking, not the actual objects or realities being argued.

One element is really about the reality of Nature, which has always been there. It is not really about “science,” which is a relatively recent and specific method of thinking that tends to dominate modern Western culture. Science is a form of secular philosophy (Physics) that goes back to the Greeks.

The other half of the question is “Religion,” which often tends to be simply a synonym for some form of Christianity when discussed within Western culture. For some, it may just mean “the Bible,” or the “Law.” That is to say, it may refer to one religion only, not all religions of the world.

Alternatively, the word “Religion” gets used as a blanket term for any or all formal, often widespread philosophical systems with one or more levels of deities, and/or a concept of “sin” or “karma,” and especially a strong belief in some kind of Afterlife or other “Elsewhere” location.

Such beliefs and practices are most often characterized by formal scriptures, an office of priesthood/ sage/ shaman/ holy man, music, prayer/ meditation, holy days and other rituals.

What is called Religion does try to promote Ethics in a given community. It also causes problems.

Some societies (Chinese, Greeks, Hebrews) have had a well-known ethical philosophy or tradition without requiring a formal religion to do its work.

(Such a secular tradition may later morph into or become associated with a religion.)

“Religion” may or may not be theistic (e.g. Buddhism) but will usually focus on immortality

It may deal with the beauties of Nature/ Creation in different ways, but ultimately Nature is bypassed when death is denied in favor of a living Afterlife.

The secular philosophies or Wisdom traditions, by contrast, tend to accept all of Nature including the reality of death. Note: This is a critical difference.

The late S.J. Gould tried to reconcile these two mindsets by declaring them complementary and “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA) with the Religion orientation representing Ethics, and the Science view representing only the physical world.

Very neat, very plausible, an easy way to dismiss the conflict. The way things “should” be, perhaps.

But real people get in the way and mess it up with too much Bible literalism (what I call “ill-” literacy with three L’s.). Some folks learn how to read but they don’t know how to interpret what they read. (We are talking about the Bible book of Genesis.)

I used to think that this misreading of scripture was the sole and superficial problem, easily corrected.

Unfortunately, the schism between “secular wisdom” and “religion” goes far deeper into history than that … Thus my personal search and this resulting web site.

I do believe that a fusion of these terms – a true “Natureligion” – is possible in the future under certain conditions. In the minds of some people, both past and present, this fusion has already occurred.

The dated posts shown below are for my own benefit, not to entice the public into reading “more.” These updates are like Notes to Self, an actual old-fashioned web log.