As my title states, I want to attempt here a Christian defense of “natural religion” – or at least the beginnings of an attempt at a defense, since one that treats the subject completely and with justice would be book length, at least. To be clear, since the term has several definitions, by “natural religion” I mean the idea and study of religion as a naturally occurring phenomenon in man, one subject to critical analysis. This can include anthropological, sociological, psychological, and philosophical approaches. Though sometimes “natural religion” gets narrowed to a look at the so-called (though not by me) “primitive religions” of prehistoric times, I use it to mean any religion at any time, so long as it is understood from the standpoint of human social organization.
If I were an alarmist, which I only am on occasion, I would lead with some sort of wide-sweeping accusation about the current state of Christian thought and how nobody accepts the study of natural religion. But I don’t think that’s actually true – in fact I know it is not. I assume that most Christians who work in an academic setting teaching religion have a good grasp on the field (indeed, much better than my own). And I’m sure there are plenty of amateurs out there like me who enjoy reading anthropology or sociology of religion. But I do think there’s a healthy section of lay people for whom the prospect of reading studies in natural religion feels intimidating or somehow wrong for people of faith. I want, therefore, to dispel some misconceptions about the field and also offer some positive reasons for pursuing the study of natural religion.
Myth #1: Natural Religion Is Essentially Irreligious and Denies the Power of God
This cuts a few different ways for Christians. When confronted with arguments about Christianity itself, the fear in Christian’s eyes is sometimes palpable. Some have the idea that if we subject the development of Christianity to critical scrutiny we are denying the intervention of God into history. Others object especially when Christianity is lumped in with other religions to observe the similarity of impulse and development across space and time, as if the natural desires of humans are somehow in tension with the power of God. To dispel this myth I present:
Truth #1: Natural Religion Can Be a Helpful Exercise in Understanding Causation
The error that people who fear natural religion make (and, it should be noted, people on the other end of the spectrum, who see natural religion as the explanation for religion period) is failing to understand the idea of multiple causation. In brief, multiple causation suggests that events have complex causes, that causality is not a simple game of numbers but a blending of different elements. This seems patently true in the case of natural religion. Just because we can investigate the idea of how, say, purity laws work in a religion on the purely human level of social organization, that in no way implies that such a phenomenon has no divine rooting. Studying natural religion, then, can be a useful way of exploring multiple causalities, which can do us nothing but good.
Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that denying multiple causations in God’s work in history veers dangerously close to gnosticism. What I mean is this: unless we acknowledge the incarnational quality of God’s work in history we are outside the limits of orthodoxy. And what is more incarnational than God working in the midst of human action, restoring where things go awry but also letting certain tendencies and ideas take their course?
Myth #2: Studying Christianity in a Natural Context Devalues It
This is a related but slightly different objection. Here the story goes: if we compare Christianity to other religions and notice the similarities we risk making it seem trivial or just as earth bound as others. For example, if we acknowledge the similarities between stories in the Old Testament and other ancient sources, this will lead to people abandoning Christianity as just another option among many.
This is again something believed not only by Christians but by vocal opponents of Christianity and religion in general. BUT FLOOD MYTHS they cry, as if this somehow settles the matter.
Truth #2: Studying Christianity in the Context of Natural Religion Helps Us Better Appreciate Its Similarities and Differences to Other Religions
Myth is tricky business, especially given the huge connotation the word has in our society of something being untrue. But a myth is just an explanation, a vessel for carrying understanding to a particular culture. The preponderance of myths in human society (yes, we have ours as well, even our untrue ones) tells us something vital about human existence. The Bible makes multiple references to the idea that humans have an ingrained spirituality – as St. Augustine says, man is not primarily a rational animal but a worshiping one. We should not be surprised then when the myths of the Bible bump up against those of other cultures. Even if we accept a literal reading of Genesis (for myself, I prefer the view, held by eminents such as C.S. Lewis, that, though providing truths in an essential sense, these earlier texts do not fall under the genre of history and need not be taken as such), there’s no reason that doing so precludes acknowledging the similar concerns that text has with the ideas of other religions.
At the same time, studying natural religion helps clear up differences as well, and does make the story of the Bible’s narrative that much more compelling. Those other stories are in some sense shadows, forerunners, pictures of the fulfillment that would come in Christ.
Myth #3: Natural Religion Is a Scary Waste of Time, and Will Take Our Children Away From Us
I’ve condensed a few objections here for the sake of space, but the core here has to do with the uselessness and or dangerousness of studying natural religion. If Christianity is true, then why bother looking at its nuts and bolts, or the stories and patterns of another religion. What’s the point? There’s also a shameful tendency among some Christians to be afraid of confronting things that may challenge our faith, or the faith of those around us. I argue instead that…
Truth #3: We Need Faithful, Thoughtful Christians to Study Natural Religion, for the Sake of the Discipline but Also the Faith
God calls us not to a spirit of timidity but one of boldness. Anchored in Christ, we need not fear academic knowledge and how it informs our faith. Furthermore we must teach our children and others the importance of critically separating truth and lies.
And let’s be honest: as fascinating as the study of natural religion is, it can also be full of crap and very asinine. This holds true especially when it falls under the influence of evolutionary psychology, the most useless discipline this side of management theory. There are lots of otherwise thoughtful people out there who have a lot of stupid things to say about religion as it is humanly organized.
That’s why we need Christians there as a corrective. One of my favorite passages from G.K. Chesterton comes at the beginning of his book The Everlasting Man, where he spends a good few pages poking fun at the outlandish claims some make about prehistoric man based on scant evidence. We need our own Chestertons to deflate the excesses of pseudo-scientific overreach. But we also need thoughtful Christians working within the discipline to help refine the craft. That’s why the work of such Christians as Mary Douglas in anthropology and Rene Girard in philosophy/cultural criticism is so important. They’re both Catholics, by the way – they seem to be better at this sort of thing than Protestants. Regardless, we need people of this caliber consistently working in the field, both to counteract some of the sillier things that others come up with AND because the work enriches the Christian community. It’s never a bad idea to critically understand our own faith, and see it as something that does the amazing work of marrying the mundane and the divine. We need to start remembering that that mundane part is worthy of study too.
