Religious vs. Supernaturalist
Just one more note in response to the Liberal Jesus post over at Unclaimed Territory:
I want to point out the difference between the religious/non-religious axis and the naturalist/supernaturalist axis. To me, a religious person is someone who spends time thinking about religious questions, takes them seriously, and participates in a church or other practice; while a non-religious person is someone who doesn't particularly care or spend time on these matters. It has nothing to do with actual beliefs. On the other hand, a supernaturalist is someone who believes in a God, set of spirits (e.g. ancestors), or force (e.g. magic) that can break the rules of natural existence, and a naturalist is someone who does not believe in such entities, or believes that they can be explained the way other natural phenomena can be explained. I think one can have all sorts of beliefs about the supernatural (heaven, hell, angels, sin, etc.) and not be particularly religious. I would classify myself as very naturalist (often called materialist, but I don't want to get my beliefs confused with greedy consumerism) and moderately religious.
I want to point out this difference because it seems like people conflate these two things. In popular speech, we describe someone who believes in such things as the Virgin Birth, the literal transformation of a cracker and wine into the flesh and blood of a 2000 year old prophet, and the creation of world 6,000 years ago as "very religious". And we say someone who rejectssuch things is "non-religious". I want to put an end to that. Someone who believes in miracles is not, in my view, more "religious" than someone who is not. They are more supernaturalist. Furthermore, I want to be able to say, "I am a religious person" without implying that I believe a bunch of stuff on faith or that I take cetain texts as the literal truth or that I think angels are watching over me.
I think I have a lot of work to do in order to make this distinction more commonly understood in the public mind. But I hope that this is a start.
Just one more note in response to the Liberal Jesus post over at Unclaimed Territory:
I want to point out the difference between the religious/non-religious axis and the naturalist/supernaturalist axis. To me, a religious person is someone who spends time thinking about religious questions, takes them seriously, and participates in a church or other practice; while a non-religious person is someone who doesn't particularly care or spend time on these matters. It has nothing to do with actual beliefs. On the other hand, a supernaturalist is someone who believes in a God, set of spirits (e.g. ancestors), or force (e.g. magic) that can break the rules of natural existence, and a naturalist is someone who does not believe in such entities, or believes that they can be explained the way other natural phenomena can be explained. I think one can have all sorts of beliefs about the supernatural (heaven, hell, angels, sin, etc.) and not be particularly religious. I would classify myself as very naturalist (often called materialist, but I don't want to get my beliefs confused with greedy consumerism) and moderately religious.
I want to point out this difference because it seems like people conflate these two things. In popular speech, we describe someone who believes in such things as the Virgin Birth, the literal transformation of a cracker and wine into the flesh and blood of a 2000 year old prophet, and the creation of world 6,000 years ago as "very religious". And we say someone who rejectssuch things is "non-religious". I want to put an end to that. Someone who believes in miracles is not, in my view, more "religious" than someone who is not. They are more supernaturalist. Furthermore, I want to be able to say, "I am a religious person" without implying that I believe a bunch of stuff on faith or that I take cetain texts as the literal truth or that I think angels are watching over me.
I think I have a lot of work to do in order to make this distinction more commonly understood in the public mind. But I hope that this is a start.
Comments