Read also earlier posts »Intro:About »1:Born Of Lockdown »2:Need For Naturalism »3:Equivalence Of God & Nature »4:Special Role Of Science »5:Right & Wrong Tech »6:Smartphones & Covid Vaccines »7:Irredeemable Tech »8:Tower Of Babel »9:Eden & The Fall »10:Mary Shelley: Prophet? »11:Naturalist Congregation »12:First Three Beliefs »13:Natural Health »14:Trinity & Six Freedoms »15:Importance of Continuity »16:Chicken Little »17:New Fundamentalism
First, let me reassure you about my sanity. I’m not under an illusion that the subject of this substack—Naturalism—is a fully fledged religion. To be that, it would have to have an actual congregation. That might never happen. Still, at least I’m helping to define a recently hatched religion through the thought-experiment of this blog. Perhaps I’ll even invite a few friends over for an experimental service some time soon. In any case, I feel that a movement that is at least very similar to Naturalism will probably one day flourish, with or without my efforts. (If you’re not familiar with it, see Part 1 for an intro to Naturalism.)
In fact, it sometimes seems to me that the whole world is on the edge of a shift to Naturalism. I’ll chat with someone—a friend or a stranger—and when they mention ideas similar to mine about the sanctity of nature, I’ll think to myself, “This person is a Naturalist, too!” However, the couple times when I’ve mention that I’m prototyping a new religion which I think they’d be interested in, the conversation partner shows a twinge of curiosity, then changes the topic. Likewise, recently I often see pundits on news-and-issues webcasts who decry “anti-nature” developments in tech or culture, but they never connect that criticism to a cohesive belief system.
I can’t blame anyone for being uncomfortable about a new belief system, and especially a new religion. It’s extremely uncommon to start one. It certainly might seem presumptuous, self-important, or even maniacal. (“Wahahahaaa!” as I rub my hands together.)
However, I feel confident that I’m approaching this in a very non-maniacal way. The fact is that the basic ethos of Naturalism exists already inside millions of people around the world. I’m not creating it myself. I’m simply describing or defining that ethos, with a few personal insights, quirks, and biases added. (See the links to prior posts at the top of this entry.)
Any observant, caring person can see the need for a wider moral movement like this, given the onslaught in recent decades of obviously anti-democratic and anti-nature tech developments. Human tech has become capable of multi-modal mass destruction. I’m not just speaking of nukes, but also of the modern human ability to engineer viruses, manipulate weather, cause artificial earthquakes, track everyone’s movements and thoughts, and wreak other monstrosities.
In recent years, big pharma is raking in hundreds of billions of dollars in liability-shielded vaccine profits, plus likely ten-times that amount selling medicines to treat vaccine injuries. The RFK Jrs, Del Bigtrees, and Joseph Mercolas of the world —the leaders who are calling attention to this sort of tech over-reach —are enormously needed, but they don’t constitute a movement yet. A true movement happens at the base of the population, not from leaders. The base is currently forming the morality and the belief that will define the movement of Naturalism.
I certainly have a personal conviction that Naturalism is a necessary spiritual movement. In fact, I can’t imagine sustained, large-scale positive change in the world without a moral framework that is something like that of Naturalism. A fully fledged religion—one with a significant following—is, I believe, the only means by which an effective and authentic cultural change can happen. This good change will certainly not happen as a result of advertisement or propaganda. Those are simply top-down tools with which the elite manipulate the commoners by promises of pleasure or warnings of harm. Instead, this good change will happen by answering the innate human need for ethics, belief, and community. The task is to replace a blind and maladaptive dependence on human tech—which has been engendered by advertisement and propaganda—with a positive belief in nature that is instead engendered by real human contact.
So with an eye to that hopeful change, today I’d like to consider what is currently keeping people back from forming a fully fledged Naturalist movement. I can think of four general obstacles to it at this point. I’ll outline them here, along with ways that each obstacle can be addressed.
Obstacle 1: It’s hard being the newbie
Of course, people will look askance at any new religion. That’s probably a healthy reaction because people should be wary of cults. New religions have to gain trust by delivering truth, spiritual sustenance, and social benefit. I have no doubt that Naturalism could do that, as long as it stays grounded in world traditions, ethical science, and common-sense reality.
The aim of Naturalism should be the opposite of that of cults. Cults seek to separate their followers from family and accustomed social ties. They promote odd practices that sharply distinguish devoted followers from mainstream society. In contrast, Naturalism should strive to be the base: very relatable and familiar, not arcane. The entire point of Naturalism is the spreading and normalization of the new, necessary, and sensible ethics.
Another problem with a newbie religion is that it has to build social and material commitment where none existed before. To address this problem, I think Naturalism should initially make special appeals to some types of people who are most likely to join. Even though the aim would be to have a broad membership, the church would have to start with a narrower one.
Of course, some “converts” to Naturalism might recently have been active members of other churches, and accustomed to typical church commitments, but many of today’s proto-Naturalists belong to the unaffiliated “spiritual but not religious” or even agnostic crowds. Unfortunately, people like this are not used to the routines of a church. They might be very comfortable sleeping late on Sunday morning rather than getting up early for a service.
However, I know from personal experience that it is possible to motivate currently non-churchgoing people to attend. I’ll briefly explain my own trajectory.
Although I had church experience as a child, I “lapsed” from attending the mainline Protestant churches my family attended, and became agnostic. Still, I maintained an interest in spirituality as well as in spiritual community. I sometimes came upon research about how regular churchgoers experienced life benefits of one sort or another, including even health or psychological advantages. I still wanted a churchgoing life for those and other reasons, but traditional Christianity just wasn’t providing me the buy-in for that. I think a lot of other people are in a similar situation now.
After I had kids, I felt like it would be a shame if they grew up without any background of spiritual community. That’s one reason I attended the Unitarian church for some years until 2020 (see Part 17 and Intro). Just from my own experience, then, I expect that families with kids may generally be good candidates for a first Naturalist congregation. That’s because they are more concerned about the future direction of the world. Of course, the “Church of Naturalism” should obviously be open to those without children too, but a strong family-and-children program within the church would likely be a practical feature.
Another population that would initially be a much easier fit with Naturalism is people who question the covid vaccines. They are already halfway to Naturalism if they have been able to question the over-reach of tech in such a manner. Some people with strong preference for organic and whole foods may also be “natural Naturalists”.
Obstacle 2: Religion is generally on a downslide
Another obstacle to “spreading the word of Naturalism” is that fewer people believe in any religion in recent decades. According to a 2021 poll, the decline seems to be even accelerating.
It’s not just Christianity that is bleeding members. Proportionally, Islam in the US is losing about as many previous followers as Christianity is, and I suspect for the same reasons. (However, Islam in the US is still managing to grow in numbers due to other factors, such as immigration and birth rates.)
Why are so many people turning their backs on religion? And how could Naturalism counter this?
A 2015 multi-author survey study found that the most compelling correlation with the decline in religion in the US is the rise of individualism. One author of the study, Jean Twenge, writes:
We found that religious involvement was low when individualism was high in the society. Individualism—a cultural system focusing more on the self and less on social rules—has been on the increase in the U.S., with increased self-focus (more positive self-views, more use of “I” and “me” in books and song lyrics), more tolerance and equality (around race, gender, and sexual orientation), less adherence to social rules (with acceptance of premarital sex at an all-time high), less social support (lower empathy), and less interest in large groups and social rules (declines in political and civic participation)…. American society is more focused on individual freedom, and less focused on social rules, than it used to be.
Even among active Christian churchgoers, it’s obvious that many social rules are less observed now than in past decades. Look at the informality of dress in most churches now, compared to the “Sunday best” attire of my childhood. Churches have even resorted to the slogan “Come as you are” to emphasize the new informality. It’s clear that these churches are attempting to cater to the same individualistic cultural shift that Twenge thinks is crumbling their foundation.
On the other hand, I’m not sure if I’d want to return to the prim-and-proper Sunday-best days. The somewhat stifling feeling of mainline Protestant belief is partly what caused me to become an agnostic youth, so I definitely have some understanding for people who have left that fold.
One major turn-off for me personally in the Christian churches of my youth was the preoccupation with sin and guilt, with the concept that people are innately bad. I do not feel comfortable with this idea for the same reason that I don’t feel comfortable with the modern “secular fundamentalist” assertions that people can be innately racist or innately climate-damaging. If there is any innate defect in humans, it’s the fact that we are talented enough to develop technology that meddles with nature. For that reason, a good life in Naturalism primarily means using moderation to limit our potential harms to nature, as well as generally living within the bounds of our social nature as humans (a “natural morality” that is based in part on longstanding ethical traditions and in part on objective biology).
I think one “attractant” to Naturalism might be that it does not regard people as innately sinful, but instead seeks to expand good judgment with regard to the way we live.
With regards to the individualism that Twenge sees, I think one potentially popular advantage of Naturalism over much traditional religion is that Naturalism respects that humans have an animal “side” to them that is naturally egoistic. We should not feel guilty about that side, nor believe that it is “sinful”. We should also respect that human society—which is a natural super-organism—has a very natural role in moderating this egoism. These two aspects of nature—our animal biology and our traditional norms of society—are a special combination that makes us human. Neither aspect is good or bad in itself. Problems happen only when the two are out of balance.
In other words, I think that Naturalism may be appealing to many people who are tired of both religious and secular litanies aimed at guilt, but who realize that positive individual freedom depends on good group ethics. In order to revive spirituality in general, I feel that Naturalism can attract people who understand the hollowness of the widespread radical individuality that has been developing: the culture of individually-defined identity, “do your own thing”, dozens of genders, and too many people spending too much time alone on their devices.
Another special attractant to Naturalism is general health. Naturalism emphasizes practicing natural health, eating natural food, and a lifestyle that emphasizes in-person society and avoids addiction to electronics such as smartphones. Many modern people are seeing the folly of living in a processed world, and they may be interested in joining a community of others with more healthy habits.
Obstacle 3: It’s heresy
Heresy is a sort of spiritual thought-crime in the eyes of the accuser, but socially it is a mechanism of ensuring conformity and continuity of religious groups when faced with competing ideas from other, usually smaller, groups. Existing religions will likely view Naturalism as heretical competition. So will followers of secular fundamentalism (see Part 17), although the latter will use other pejorative terms like “misinformation” instead of “heresy”. Naturalism will certainly receive pushback from both of these camps.
One “fix” for this pushback would be to highlight the common ground that Naturalism has with both camps, in order to minimize alienation. For example, Naturalist ethics are largely rooted in traditional ideas, many of them of biblical origin or otherwise traditional origin. For this reason, many followers of traditional religions will be able to see some kinship or familiarity in Naturalism.
Many people who are currently non-religious may also feel some familiarity. As I first explained in the Intro, Naturalism can be embraced by agnostics, as long as they feel that nature is sacred. Naturalism assumes the equivalence of nature and God, but it does not insist on the existence of a consciousness in nature. For example, occurrences in life or in history, when seen from a Naturalist perspective, can be viewed in an abstract, descriptive sense as “the way nature works” or can be alternatively viewed as “part of God’s plan”. The first view assumes a natural pattern that does not necessarily have conscious intent behind it. The second view assumes some consciousness and intent. Personally, I think it’s a waste of time to argue about the truth of either perspective. Naturalists can see life in either way or both ways, according to choice. A peaceful co-existence of agnostics and spiritualists exists already in the Unitarian church. Naturalism can to some extent emulate that model.
It would be wise to expect that much of the secular fundamentalist pushback against Naturalism would be promoted by government, especially public health departments. Many Naturalists would undoubtedly take a stance critical of some or all vaccines, a stance that runs counter to public health dogma. For this reason, Naturalists must be smart and adamant in using the constitutional legal protections for the practice of religion, and be pro-active in advocating for good law, good government, and medical freedom.
Obstacle 4: Where’s the social engagement?
Currently, Naturalism is an intellectual thought-experiment, a religion of only hypothetical writing. To attract a real congregation, it would have to do more than make sense in an online essay: it would have to attract people into groups that provide social engagement for both the good times of life and the bad.
This task is even more important given the social isolation in modern society. People are spending far less time with in-person social activities compared to even 60 years ago. This was noted before smartphones ever became prevalent, and it has likely only gotten worse since our obsession with phones.
Churches of all types are one of the few means by which many modern people still get together regularly. This means that Naturalism should adopt many of the same social traditions as other religions have: music, singing, theater, social events, coffee times, outings, etc. (I’ve treated this subject somewhat in Part 11.) It also means that when hardship is present, the Naturalist congregation should be a focus for mutual aid among congregants, just as traditional religions do. In events of joy or sorrow, such as births, marriages, or deaths, the Naturalist church can hopefully have an important role in the lives of congregants.
One social role that Naturalism might explore would be matchmaking for younger adults. The decline of marriages and intact families in developed countries is concerning for a number of reasons, and could be called, I suppose, an unnatural development. Perhaps the Naturalist church could help rectify that trend, and in the process, gain the appreciation of a wider following.
To recap all the above, Naturalism faces obstacles related to the gaining of public trust, the overall decline of religion, and the challenge of providing real social benefit to a real congregation. After considering all these obstacles, I’m actually feeling very hopeful. I’m beginning to feel that I should take a chance at inviting a few friends over to share an actual first congregation of Naturalism. If I do, I’ll carefully consider how to make it not only fun and interactive, but also a meaningful shared experience. I’ll let you know how it goes, if it happens.