Naturalistic Theism

Many of the new theological approaches attempt to distance themselves from the supernaturalistic interpretations in the traditions. They try to “naturalize” their theology. I believe there is some merit to this with a few caveats. Many people today are abandoning traditional religious systems because they are unable to accept the supernatural claims inherent in them. This can have various effects. Some become so disillusioned with religion, per se, that the religious dimension of their lives disappears or is diminished in its potentially beneficial impact. However, many others still have religious longings and forge out on their own outside the traditions to find a religious bearing that does not offend their intellect. What a noble adventure! These folks may then explore new “naturalized” religious frameworks that are being offered. Whether or not these new theological perspectives will fill their needs is an open question.

What I would like to explore in this post is what “naturalism” could mean for a theistic system. If supernaturalism is rejected then it is important to understand in what way theology can be naturalized and still maintain its eternal substance. Typically naturalism is thought to be a rejection of either God or the ongoing providential activity of God in the world. This finds a happy home in atheism and deism but not in theism. The foundation of theism is belief in a personal God. If God is personal then God relates to the world. This means that the divine intentionality is eternally at work in creation. In other words God acts in the world. A God who does not participate intentionally in creation is not a theistic God. Now the idea that God acts is also found in supernaturalistic interpretations. This can create a quandary for those who reject supernaturalism but also believe in divine action. Why should one accept divine providence and still reject supernaturalism? Or to put it more broadly how can one approach the various extraordinary claims found in religion, parapsychology, New Age, etc. Many of these claims challenge the “naturalistic” worldviews found today. Can one be a theist and still embrace a worldview that is emerging in our day? The first thing to consider is the ontology that is to be utilized. This entails deciding on a model of how reality is constituted. I’ve discussed that here. What this model suggests is that both the order and novelty that is found in the cosmos are the result of the intentional activity of God. God creates just the right mix of these two such that life can exist and flourish. What this says with respect to naturalism is that God faithfully maintains the order in the universe. It is because of this that science can characterize much of the structure and dynamics we see. However, what we also find from scientific investigations is that the order that is present does not entail a mechanistic view of reality. Instead it points to an embedded, free intentionality also at work. The mix of order and intentionality does create a challenging situation in evaluating the extraordinary claims made by various systems of thought. Perhaps the best one can do is develop a reasonable approach to this evaluation. This is what I propose. I believe that it is possible and even necessary to do honor both to the worldviews that emerge from science and religion. If truth is the goal, they cannot conflict with each other. To do so will require, however, what I call a faithing fallibilism. If is fallible because no absolute answers will be forthcoming. It is faithing because even with this fallibility, one is warranted in embracing the core belief that God acts in creation. To be a naturalistic theist means first making a strong commitment to forming beliefs based on how we nominally experience reality. I say a strong commitment but not an absolute one. What this means is that claims that go against how we nominally experience reality should be met with some level of skepticism. The farther from the nominal, the more skepticism is warranted. Accordingly, supernaturalistic claims where there is a remarkable divergence from how reality nominally unfolds would be met with strong skepticism. Claims that may seem extraordinary but are closer to the nominal would be met with less skepticism and even possibly embraced as truth. Obviously this requires a judgement call and only the individual can make it. It can, however, be informed by the powerful intuitions one has regarding the depth of reality. It may even be necessary to embrace claims that seem far afield from the nominal if those intuitions are compelling enough. However, if one adopts this approach in good faith, I think it is possible to affirm and do honor to both what science tells us about our world and what our intuitions and religious experience tells us as well.

2 thoughts on “Naturalistic Theism

  1. is this a mystery? all religion entails to human well-being. theology entails relating god to human well-being. except for the idea of god itself, nothing that actually matters about religion changes at all when all other supernatural god-talk is removed.

    for instance, jesus was the way, truth, and life and simply translating the greek appropriately, jesus is not a gatekeeper to some blissful afterlife. in the beginning was the way god intended all men to be in the world (logos), jesus embodied, exemplified that way of being human, and that way of being is the revelation of our full humanity (alethea), and what jesus’ life entailed was service and sacrifice in love (zoe, the mode life takes). jesus’ death was a continuation of his service and sacrifice to his followers.

    as to christian notions of salvation, this was entirely the premise of “natural theology” (in all three abrahamic traditions): that we are icons of god, that grace is god’s presence in the world, that a draw toward the good is the necessary consequence, that atonement is participation with the good because god is goodness itself, that this encounter is transformative, and that this transformation is a process of change that is salvation and the end game is theosis in the fullness of being human; just as christ was. in that mode, all one need do to enter this community jesus named “the kingdom of heaven” is repent and likewise forgive others in the same measure.

    not only is this exactly scriptural and not only does it reflect its development as a direct result of what jesus preached, but it minus all the period language the greeks enjoyed that we no longer do as twenty first century people. too, i have yet to have a single non believer or other religious non christian have any problems with this theology.

    how do we know correct theology? scripture says we only know it by its fruit, and that accord, brotherhood, and human well-being are the result of this sort of theological narrative, it can’t be faulted for being wrong or out of step with the apocalyptic, jewish teacher from galilee.


  2. “nothing that actually matters about religion changes at all when all other supernatural god-talk is removed.”

    Not exactly sure what you are saying but the question is “Does God Act”? Supernaturalism, how ever ill conceived, says that God acts in this world. If God doesn’t act in some way in this world then I would say a lot changes in religion. If God doesn’t act, then prayer is merely a psychological exercise. If all events occur by chance and necessity alone with no ultimate intent then free will is a myth and we are all just automatons doing what we do and can’t do otherwise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s