Naturalistic Christianity

[khalimirov]

The purpose of this post is to propose a fusion between Naturalism and Christianity, a theology that might be appealing to those who respect certain aspects of Christianity, but, being enlightened as so many of us think we are, have philosophical, psychological or scientific objections to the so-called supernatural. It is in fact a theology that I have been practicing: I go to Church, read and study Biblical texts, pray, and have developed a relationship with the God of Christianity, aka the Trinity. At the same time I do not believe in anything supernatural; I do not believe there is anything akin to a supernatural Being in the objective world, hence I do not believe Jesus was literally the Son of God and I do not take a single miracle as a supernatural intervention into the natural world.

Although I have not searched this forum for similar theologies, my assumption is that most on this forum would see a conflict between Naturalism and Christianity. In a sense that is absolutely correct. The set of beliefs that typically go along with Christianity preclude Naturalism. However, it is my contention that Christianity can be practiced by a skeptic of the supernatural. Indeed, it is practice of Christianity that I am most concerned with. My feelings are much like Kierkegaard who, in response to the philosophical developments of the enlightenment, focused on the pragmatism of Christianity. Being a Christian means living as a Christian. This is where the strength of Christianity (and religion in general, for those who will object to my subjective focus on Christianity) lies. Indeed, I consider myself to be living a Christian life, while I do not believe anything supernatural. I will try to explain my non-supernatural Christian beliefs in the remainder of this post.

What better place to start my discussion than with Jesus? No, I do not believe Jesus was divine, my naturalism precludes that. However, as a Christian I have a mental representation of the person Jesus. It is a mental model of a person who preaches about the Kingdom of God. Being part of the Kingdom of God simply means following God, living one’s life in accordance with the moral guidance provided by God. In the Gospels Jesus says many things about the Kingdom of God, what it means to be in the Kingdom of God, from the Golden Rule, to the Good Samaritan. It is not my purpose to provide a detailed discussion of what it is like to be part of the Kingdom of God, for that one can simply study the Gospels. However, I take critical New Testament scholarship very serious. My view of Jesus and the Kingdom of God is not merely based on the Jesus as presented by the Gospel authors (although that inevitably plays a major role), but also on historical Jesus research. There have been many excellent studies that have attempted to distinguish between what Jesus might have actually said and done and what later Christians attribute to Jesus that is not historical. In the end we can never really be very confident about our knowledge concerning the real historical Jesus. Much of that is simply lost and will never be retrieved. Perhaps, as some extreme skeptics have claimed, Jesus really never existed (although I think there are good reasons to believe Jesus actually existed and the historical Jesus presented by John Dominic Crossan is likely to be a reasonable approximation of the actual historical person), it really doesn’t matter for one’s theology. What matters is the mental representation that we have of Jesus, preaching about the Kingdom of God. We can color this up with critical scholarship, but all this does is add some mystery and it emphasizes that what we really have is a mental representation, of which the link with history is unknown and unimportant. The bottom line is that this mental representation of Jesus can inspire us to think about what it means to be part of the Kingdom of God. Moreover, the more one works with this mental representation, the more one lets it inspire, the more one takes it as a religious starting point, the more one develops a personal relationship with this mental representation. Despite not knowing the true historical Jesus one can love Jesus in this sense, just as one can love any other person with whom one does not have any actual direct historical contact. Perhaps some of you are trekkies and feel a personal relationship with James T Kirk. Perhaps some of you feel something similar concerning actual historical persons like Martin Luther King. The only difference is what one does with this mental representation of a person. In Christianity the relationship with Jesus is taken as a basis for religion.

What does it mean to take a relationship with Jesus as a basis for religion? Well, what I mean with this phrase is that this relationship, or this mental representation, does not remain merely something cognitive, something internal. No, it is packaged, it is built upon, and, most importantly, it is acted upon. Let me start with the packaging. As you will probably be aware in Christianity the God is said to be a Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, it will probably not come as a surprise that I will build open my mental model to include the Father and the Holy Spirit, although the meaning of these terms is not what you would expect. The Father, or (let me use the more common term) God is not some supernatural, supreme being. No, God is a mental representation of a perfect loving moral Agent. It is not something or someone of (or above) our actual objective natural world, it is simply a mental model. It is a mental model of what it would be like to be perfectly loving and to be perfectly moral. It is as if we are saying “Okay, so what would a perfect loving moral agent do?” Not for a second do I believe there are objective moral laws, but this mental model of God, a perfect loving moral agent, helps one think about morality and it does so in the context of love (for in the Gospels and in the New Testament in general morality and love go hand in hand). So, when the Gospels have Jesus talk about the Kingdom of God, what he really is talking about is morality. Being in the Kingdom of God means doing what a perfect loving moral agent would do. Of course I don’t think that Jesus really saw the Father merely as a mental representation of a perfect loving moral agent. Obviously he (assuming for the moment that Jesus really existed; otherwise the same argument would apply to those early Christians who attributed the sayings concerning the Kingdom of God to Jesus) believed that the Father really existed in some supernatural sense, but so did any other person (with the possible exception of some skeptical philosophers) in the first Century. However, the point here is that we can make sense of Jesus’ words and deeds relating to the Kingdom of God from a non-supernatural perspective.

What about the Holy Spirit? Once again, obviously that is not an actual entity in the natural or supernatural word. However, when one reads about what it is that the Holy Spirit is supposed to be doing, when we notice the way in which the Holy Spirit affects a person’s mental and emotional life, we can see that what the early Christians are talking about is simply a subjective, personal religious experience. It is the way in which a person’s religion can fundamentally change a person’s internal essence. It is simply being affected in a dramatic way by the mental representation of Jesus and the rest of the religious packaging. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the internal mental interface whereupon the subjective religious experiences take place. It is not an external entity, but an internal property of the Christian subject.

In this way I can make perfect sense of the Christian Trinity. I understand the way in which a person’s mental representation of the Son and the Father, as they exist within a person’s internal Holy Spirit, can affect a person’s life, can inspire a person to think about morality and to act with love.

How then does this view of the Trinity compare with the standard Christian belief system (if there is such a thing given the diversity of subjective religious experiences)? It is clear that there are similarities and differences. My Christian Naturalist views of the Trinity share with the traditional views a mental representation of Jesus, preaching about the Kingdom of God, a mental representation of God the Father as a perfect loving moral Agent, and a Holy Spirit as something that interacts with a person’s internal processes in such a way as to cause subjective religious experiences. Together these three form a basis for the rest of the Christian religious packaging. The differences amount to the difference between a naturalistic worldview and a theistic worldview. Thus, for the theistic Christian Jesus is also divine, God the Father is an actual supernatural Being, not merely a mental model, and the Holy Spirit is also a real external entity (something akin to a ghost and a Holy one at that). All of these supernatural elements simply do not fit in a post-enlightenment world and a Naturalistic Christianity can do perfectly well without them.

The next part of this post will discuss what it means to be a practicing Naturalistic Christian. As I mentioned above being a Christian is living as a Christian. Simply having some weird beliefs about Jesus or God or the Holy Spirit and not acting on them will not do. In discussing practicing Naturalistic Christianity I need to address scripture, prayer, church, and morality.

Let’s start with scripture. The traditional Christian view is that scripture, aka the bible, is the Word of God. Since the Naturalistic Christian does not share the view that God is an actual being (natural or supernatural) it would seem like there can be no God to inspire the Biblical writings and there can thus be no Word of God in the Bible. Well, in a sense this is true. However, the Naturalistic Christian sees the Biblical writings (of the New Testament) as the product of subjective religious experiences by early Christians. That is, early Christians, within a religious context, put to word their religious ideas for some religious purpose. In doing this they were obviously influenced by their own subjective mental representations of Jesus, God and/or the Holy Spirit. In a sense it was thus these subjective religious models that inspired the writings. Therefore, there is no real problem in maintaining the concept of the Word of God, as long as this is not meant as some supernatural intervention. Also, the Word of God in this sense can be applied to any writing inspired by a religious model. Within Christianity this is therefore not limited to the Biblical writings. Nevertheless, the biblical writings have inspired Christians for almost two millennia and it is these writings (some more than others) that will have the greatest effect on the mental representations of Jesus for most people. I have no problem with anybody who prefers a noncanonical text to a canonical text. This is of course a subjective judgment. I, however, find some of the New Testament writings to be wonderful pieces of religious literature and I especially love the four canonical Gospels and some of the authentic (according to a scholarly consensus) letters of Paul. I have read noncanonical texts, but, to put it subjectively, they just don’t do it for me. Therefore, my mental representations of Jesus and his theology will be predominantly affected by those writings I prefer. Let me reiterate here that I do not presume these writings to be historically accurate. That is not important. It is not about what actually happened in the first century, it is about what these stories tell us and how they can inspire us. It is quite likely that Matthew’s Gospel is closer to some historical events than John’s Gospel. Nevertheless, John’s Gospel inspires me more than Matthew’s does. The bottom line is that I read scripture much like I read any other stories. The only difference being that scripture is part of my religious system and will therefore have a greater practical effect on my life than, say the Lord of the Rings. Specifically, it will affect my mental representations of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.

The next element of any practicing Christian, whether Naturalistic or Theistic is prayer. Obviously, according to the Naturalistic Christian prayer is not an interaction with some supernatural being, asking for some intervention and then hoping it happens. No, it is an internal mental interaction with a person’s religious model. It is similar to meditation. It is thinking about one’s wishes, one’s worries, one’s experiences, one’s emotion’s, bringing these things into the personal thought processes and letting them interact with the subjective religious model. It is about thinking (or talking if one wishes to do it out loud) about one’s personal life within the subjective religious framework. The difference with traditional Christian prayer is obvious: there is no expectation or hope of intervention. It is more like going to a shrink (but a shrink who is very dear to you) who lets you do the talking. (Perhaps best friend is a better analogy, but then a best friend who actually lets you do the talking.)

The next important discussion point is church. Going to church is an important aspect of any Christianity. It provides our own religious model with the necessary nourishment. It allows us to interact with other like-minded (and not so like-minded) Christians in a setting where religion is the main issue. It reminds us that we are not alone in our own peculiar religious world, but that we are part of a community. Praying together, singing together and reading scripture together are all part of this community feeling that strengthens the personal religion. We do not always need to agree with others on certain religious matters, but this diversity is something to be cherished. It is the obvious consequence of religious experiences being subjective that there cannot be agreement on all issues. For example, the Naturalistic Christian will often have to accept the fact that most Christians talk about supernatural stuff. Once the Naturalistic Christian looks past this supernatural stuff he or she will find a lot in common with other Christians.

The final topic I wanted to address in the context of the practicing Naturalistic Christian is morality. It should be clear to everybody that morality is an important aspect of any Christianity. Being a Christian is not just about believing A or B, it is about acting upon A or B. Perhaps you are familiar with the beautiful song “They’ll know we are Christians by our love”? That for me is the essence, being a loving Christian, acting morally out of love. It is also the hardest part. I expect many people on this forum find (at least some) Christians hypocritical, because they do not seem to practice what they preach. Of course this is true. If you knew me you might well consider me to be hypocritical as well. Again, you are probably right. It is one thing to believe that something is the right thing to do, it is another entirely to act upon that. Christians, much like non-Christians, often choose the easy way out. Nevertheless, most Christians I know do act upon their moral views to some extent (some more than others). Whether one acts upon a moral view is not a problem of the religion per se, it is a personal problem, a struggle between the temptation of choosing for oneself (or one community) against another (or another community). The point here is, however, that the morality that one finds in a religious system can motivate a person to do the right thing (however subjective ‘the right thing’ may be; the subjective nature of these moral values does not make them less meaningful). The parable of the Good Samaritan (to give one of my favorite examples) can truly inspire a person to change perspective on somebody considered to be an enemy and to choose for resolution of conflict as opposed to war.

I will leave it at this for now. I look forward to any responses and will do my best to reply.

[RoundGuy]

You talk about a literal God in your third paragraph. If God is not supernatural, what is he? Describe God's nature in your theology.

[khalimirov]

[ QUOTE ]
You talk about a literal God in your third paragraph. If God is not supernatural, what is he? Describe God's nature in your theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

See fourth paragraph

[Phil153]

Instead of jumping through hoops, why not just become a Buddhist?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not something or someone of (or above) our actual objective natural world, it is simply a mental model. It is a mental model of what it would be like to be perfectly loving and to be perfectly moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latest roll-your-own-god promoters on here are now-
-god can be anything you like, even a ham sandwich.
- god is love
- god is a mental model.

Is there a shortage of letters of the alphabet these days as well as oil? Why, when somebody wants to present a new concept don't they come up with a new word instead of using a much overused one? Is Groud spoken for?

luckyme

[khalimirov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not something or someone of (or above) our actual objective natural world, it is simply a mental model. It is a mental model of what it would be like to be perfectly loving and to be perfectly moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latest roll-your-own-god promoters on here are now-
-god can be anything you like, even a ham sandwich.
- god is love
- god is a mental model.

Is there a shortage of letters of the alphabet these days as well as oil? Why, when somebody wants to present a new concept don't they come up with a new word instead of using a much overused one? Is Groud spoken for?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks so much for your comment. Unfortunately you do not appear to understand what is meant by 'mental model'. In fact all it means is that a subject can have this something (whatever this something may be) in his or her mind, an internal psychological representation as it were. It says nothing about whether this something actually exists in the external world. I have mental representations of so many things that do not actually exist, including Frodo, Santa Claus, a unicorn. I also happen to have mental models of things that actually do exist. My mental model of God the Father happens to be a mental model of something that I think actually doesn't exist. But if you read carefully that is not the point I am making. Perhaps you would prefer to call it an imaginary God.

[khalimirov]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of jumping through hoops, why not just become a Buddhist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say I'm jumping through hoops? I love Christianity and Naturalism so I prefer my own theology to Buddhism. I'm sure I could have potentially fallen in love with Buddhism, but that just did not happen. I have fallen in love with the Gospels and their portrayal of Jesus.

[luckyme]

It appears you enjoy arguing with yourself -

[ QUOTE ]
The Father, or (let me use the more common term) God is not some supernatural, supreme being. No, God is a mental representation of a perfect loving moral Agent. It is not something or someone of (or above) our actual objective natural world, it is SIMPLY mental model. It is a mental model of what it would be like to be perfectly loving and to be perfectly moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately you do not appear to understand what is meant by 'mental model'. In fact all it means is that a subject can have this something (whatever this something may be) in his or her mind, an internal psychological representation as it were. It says nothing about whether this something actually exists in the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, which is it? It sounds like you did say something about whether this model exists in the external world and I think you even covered off the 'or beyond' part.

It may make your ham sandwich easier to discuss if you would pick a set of attributes for it and stick to them for more than one post.

luckyme

[khalimirov]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears you enjoy arguing with yourself -

[ QUOTE ]
The Father, or (let me use the more common term) God is not some supernatural, supreme being. No, God is a mental representation of a perfect loving moral Agent. It is not something or someone of (or above) our actual objective natural world, it is SIMPLY mental model. It is a mental model of what it would be like to be perfectly loving and to be perfectly moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately you do not appear to understand what is meant by 'mental model'. In fact all it means is that a subject can have this something (whatever this something may be) in his or her mind, an internal psychological representation as it were. It says nothing about whether this something actually exists in the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, which is it? It sounds like you did say something about whether this model exists in the external world and I think you even covered off the 'or beyond' part.

It may make your ham sandwich easier to discuss if you would pick a set of attributes for it and stick to them for more than one post.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

No, a mental model does not exist in the external world (although some things that are internally represented in a human mind may be represented in the external world as well; god the Father does not seem to be like one of those). It exists in the internal mind. That is simply what a mental model is. Those two quotes are perfectly coherent.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears you enjoy arguing with yourself -

[ QUOTE ]
The Father, or (let me use the more common term) God is not some supernatural, supreme being. No, God is a mental representation of a perfect loving moral Agent. It is not something or someone of (or above) our actual objective natural world, it is SIMPLY mental model. It is a mental model of what it would be like to be perfectly loving and to be perfectly moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately you do not appear to understand what is meant by 'mental model'. In fact all it means is that a subject can have this something (whatever this something may be) in his or her mind, an internal psychological representation as it were. It says nothing about whether this something actually exists in the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, which is it? It sounds like you did say something about whether this model exists in the external world and I think you even covered off the 'or beyond' part.

It may make your ham sandwich easier to discuss if you would pick a set of attributes for it and stick to them for more than one post.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

No, a mental model does not exist in the external world (although some things that are internally represented in a human mind may be represented in the external world as well; god the Father does not seem to be like one of those). It exists in the internal mind. That is simply what a mental model is. Those two quotes are perfectly coherent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're hopping between a generic meaning for mental model ( np, natch) and the specific one yeu laid out in your first post which appears to clearly state that it didn't have a external representation.

does it or doesn't it? If it doesn't, then what was all that about 'mental models' that can have. It it does, then what was that in your first post about your creation not having one.

I don't care what attributes you want to claim for Groud, but pick a few and stick to them so us newbies to the concept can follow along.

luckyme