American Gods: Debunking the Symbolic Dimension of Early American Naturalism

An issue that is usually overlooked when discussing early American naturalism concerns its relationship with religion. By “naturalism” I broadly mean that specific philosophical movement which spread in the United States towards the second half of the nineteenth century, following the early reception of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species (1859), and which flourished in the first half of the twentieth century, producing conferences, debates, and philosophical manifestos.1There is in fact a longstanding and unfortunate tendency to construe naturalism and religion as inherently antithetical terms and modes of thinking. Naturalism, we know, is a philosophical movement that liberates from supernatural symbols, denies the existence of a supersensible reality, and becomes, par excellence, the fulcrum of a contrast between a properly secular culture and a traditional religious society. On the one hand, we thus have the progressive development of a “scientific philosophy” that draws its first impulses from the reception of Darwinian evolutionary theories, whereas, on the other hand, we have a system of symbols, made up of faith, dogmatism, and beliefs in supernatural entities. Not that this juxtaposition is wrong by itself, but it only tells part of a more complex story, which only recently have some interpreters begun to unravel.2The problem with such a contraposition is that it aseptically assumes that naturalism conveys a constellation of meaning radically heterogeneous from that of revealed religions. But this is an abstract view, which quickly vanishes as soon as one takes care to analyze the historical context within which naturalism spread throughout America. Admittedly, if we leave aside the disciplinary fences that artificially separate philosophy from the history of ideas, we become immediately aware of the fact that early American naturalism entertained symbiotic ties with the Unitarian Church, namely with the most radical wing of liberal Christianity. That early naturalism is a form of “humanism” is sometimes underestimated. Its first interpreters were humanists (Frederick J. E. Woodbridge, Roy Wood Sellars, John Dewey, John Herman Randall Jr.) and the first “Humanist Manifesto” (1933) was mostly drafted by a humanist philosopher (R.W. Sellars). But humanism—and this is an aspect that many scholars appear to forget—was a social movement that blossomed within the Unitarian Church. As Stephen Weldon notes, one point to keep in mind is that most religious conflicts of the time “were not between science and religion, or between atheists and believers, but rather between radicals and conservatives, all of whom thought they were defending religion.”3In one sense, Unitarianism is a strange type of religion, because its ministers delivered sermons in which there was no mention of God, but which rather glorified the sacredness of reason. Likewise, humanism, but with even greater radicality, is a religion that deifies science, criticizes traditional religion, and puts earthly things like progress and the intelligibility of nature in the place of God (it is a “godless religion” according to the felicitous expression of Stephen Weldon).4 From a traditional denominational perspective, this may seem like heresy, but humanism was a socially and institutionally recognized movement. Admittedly, as the years went by these markedly religious characters would tend to fade and humanism would increasingly become the emblem of a secular rationality. Yet, we should not forget that in its early days the religious aspect was predominant, even in terms of the practical behavior of its adherents: its ministers celebrated marriages, officiated at baptisms, funerals, and on Sundays they spoke in assembly to all the communities spread throughout the country. Humanism is “the religion of a new coming age,” wrote a young Unitarian believer—in a work entitled The Next Step in Religion.5 It is a philosophy that sums up and overcomes traditional religion: it will be “a religion for an adult and aspiring democracy.”6Analyzing the historical link between naturalism, humanism, and religion is therefore particularly interesting for at least two reasons: because it helps us understand that the opposition between naturalism and religion is shallow (at least in the early development of the movement)because it allows us to appreciate the symbolic power of much naturalistic rhetoric. More specifically, it allows us to understand that the debates on naturalism in the 1930s and in the 1940s (when the dispute between humanists and Christian conservative neo-Thomists became particularly sharp) were imbued with symbolic features that went far beyond the level of a philosophical dispute, but were instead proper to a broader social and cultural battle that concerned the very concept of “civilization.”It was to define a supreme field of values (“freedom,” “science,” “democracy”) that the long list of debates, publications, conferences, and naturalist manifestos that multiplied during the decade of the 1940s were aimed. It was an all-encompassing task for in those years the fate of American democratic society and the future of Western civilization were being called into question. But such an “ultimate” dimension can be appreciated only if we do not lose sight of the symbiotic link that binds together naturalism and religion: it is only then that the full symbolic potential of the naturalist discourse unfolds.In this article, I would therefore like to focus on two things. The first concerns the intertwining of naturalism and religion, namely the fact that early naturalism defined as a expression like an but the of a by God of will us to the concept of “godless which would be up in the following years by all the of the second concerns the power of the symbolic dimension of naturalist in the those naturalism was in a battle for the of and were not only that were on a but they a system of by of which liberal and democratic would a part of its the relationship between naturalism and religion, is a of between the naturalism its and the it was from the point of of its and its a contrast between a liberal and progressive and a much symbolic and dimension the of civilization is a of that is very is the of an religious in by The in to be the from to a in which no will be recognized that of and an in which the beliefs will be by values such as and context is was a Unitarian with a philosophical to a and The of and and it is that as a liberal and that should be and on and not on revealed was one of the first in the United States to Darwin's evolutionary was of it that that the would the of a new and to on the of was the that was called to the of and the most interesting aspect of the that we will The is quickly religion far as its is on the of religion to some become namely it to from from the of from the that God in this be because this is the meaning of the we made which an religious and the of science in the not of but of an more and more that religion with a faith, into the of of is its as a of It is not that science no but rather that the far on religious It is in to this that have that religious have no place in But with the of namely with a new of religion in the of “a of such a will and and become of the is a of of one that in with the of the intelligibility of is to a of religion is to the of and to instead the of it as a to to to the to by of or in which we a between traditional and is that the to that “the of thought of the very intelligibility of nature and this made because nature is the of the “scientific that from on will the of the traditional religious The in is that the is the to the intelligibility of the that is be to the from the of a God to a on The of the by science therefore in the of the this was the that was by in book entitled beyond the specific of in not particularly it is this of that the of because it is from that a will be in the history of discourse is and is like many other Unitarian on terms such as “scientific and the meaning of these by the context within which they were one the that science the a of then the between and was in when was and but these that be for if God is can no be as a of or On this one of the of is the that or or place in the be within and not of or is of the of more the itself, it is the that is particularly tells is that if we to we to It is the naturalist is the Christian of the the to the new religion will God, that God is supernatural is to the of all to a but other it is that be science it an of which do it in its and its which us for the of the that we will the of the of nature to a traditional the of on is by The of traditional in the that all be to of is not in a wrong for the fact that such a is it some features of such as and the to and on traditional is it to be namely and with interesting a form of because it a of the of of the of the The of science, is a for it that the of should rather be in a no at but is a of a that is and The of the of allows to be in a this a from the evolutionary in which for the of and is thus on to be the two of the of and “the of The first the of the with to the other the of the with to all is in a sense, because this dimension of is to be as the of a on of that the at to the of the and the of the to the of the I very far from that the of throughout the is to the of But this I do that the of this first made the development of a on is this God of it be as a in other should it be The is the as in the that have the should have to in the if by we mean But if we instead that there is a of the is then because “the of be or it is The is therefore that is not but is that the concept of is the by which the nature of God, but as the it was for it to to its to a is but one of the many that can be to this of the of to to the first of the two at the one on the intertwining of naturalism and there two to The first concerns the of The second the in the naturalist at the of the the first we should of is that naturalism is a form of religion. More that it is religion that should a in to as a religion, namely of its and therefore we do not to be we be naturalism is the religion of the the of will therefore be only by naturalism, for naturalism only the between supernatural and form of between and and us to second these would be only interesting if they only in they more they a of that will become in the of The that naturalism “the in for was by Roy Wood Sellars, was a as as one of the most of religion, its of by from a to a that can be as The time is for a for “the of religion be to its religion, and the and of humanism will be the religion an adult and aspiring as it will for a new of science, religion, and social history is a book with an in which the according to which be religion one of Christian and a of “scientific as the new of John Herman Randall together with a book entitled and the in which they that as no to with the of religious in the of the most science and philosophy and with a full of the of if religion can an from the of John a book entitled in which to the religious from the in supernatural and that the far made between religion and the supernatural was That a new of religion, a new in the of was in the of early American naturalism, much that the expression “scientific which to like an was in the of the as as in those of naturalistic That naturalism the most form of religion, with was an that was not very but very in the of the is interesting to this form of religion in the of a will to become the of a new symbolic it is this that we can to the second of the in the Naturalism, or a a of the of to a cultural dimension the of a philosophical takes place in the 1930s and like with I will the by to the of a the on and in to the of which was at the in in It is an by with naturalism and that instead is by those with American was by more many for the to and in the United States there was a that the was being for a The of such and it was in the of the of that some scholars of the of this of a in American thought which is particularly in the of the two civilization is by the of on and the time when those to American thought should an to one as to a is will be the of the would be “the of a It that these concerns were by the of American the of the some at the we can that there was a of for a cultural in American and there was the as that all and were more with with there was the of the of and that “the to science, philosophy and religion, in to traditional values and the democratic of for other the they that the was by cultural the to be on a system of and the that was to science and philosophy to it on the of things and it the of supreme The was because from the point of of the it was that only religion of such a system of it was science and philosophy that up in the we the of the that a society by naturalism, that from an point of view, with to is a place in which naturalism, and the of As one may the was rather From the first there was a the much that the a time the they at least to that the point of was the some of the a is The in the to that were proper not only to the philosophical but that to the of social as The an development in in and one of the they was the very between values and democratic The the of a of was to a link between these two The Admittedly, most social the that science a of The was that values be in an sense, the of discourse values is and is because of this complex of that the as the of a in which naturalism a it or naturalism the most philosophical of the and it the of the American cultural some naturalism become with for it was a of and for it the society in which the values of science and humanism the supernatural system of the was being was no a philosophical The become complex because it to a symbolic the first of the J. in the that part of the American in the the the radical the of and was to in was a complex of at the of in the with the that was by the Church, and became one of the of the American that the only a between and in the or between and in the Its instead of “the of culture to its The is that Western culture is a of to a culture imbued with and the values of the in with the of with with and with the of according to a that is the the of the and a but in some in a very some from the of the new of were the of were thus and the assembly of much that immediately went on to to such is the of of in of the that on these is that was not the only one thought that naturalism was a of The of humanism, of was to have a on religion, to the dimension with a secular religion, of and to the point of with new this cultural that to be if philosophy was to be at the of I list a of is not in the that science is not which science or is to science, and because it is of the being of things science only because philosophy only first of all philosophical and is of and is to the existence of for it can the existence of God, by to the of the and the of the by a that is to the of religion supreme and naturalism for it a form of the issue is is “the most form of but only if it is on a and to the of of a is only or The social in is the of the and to the dimension of the By a of in the United and it is of become a which is being by other religion of is not the religion of is the of as the other is the of to the of the of philosophy and religion, no all these I we have more to from from It is they have made American it in and in an of and in an of as the democratic such radical the to is to of such in those the is was in the and it was not of the as a it was not and to some of which in the naturalistic debates of the it is not from the of the with more a with in which the of and the philosophical and is a it is much more to that naturalism was on the there early the of the The the of the some as and to some of they the in progress to be as as the in rationality. they social for not that were by the of the it was from the field of social that some of the the one of the most American a of naturalism as as It may be to a from to understand the of The point of we of is not only an but is a of the Likewise, the values of and religion and and a a of the values in the of particularly in in the dimension of is by as an or as a is not in an for at least two but was very at this in the specific context of the American its is full of it all but it an of and other it a of the for the and by the and instead to be more and more an or or a of this or that an of and and it and on with a long list of of the of the in the of is a in that should be in because it is in fact a very of the American Humanism of the 1930s as “the in an of the of therefore that we of It is strange that culture become and par is its It “the of all It as the and the not by of by God in but in by of It the religion of for the of It a in the of progress on to to all social and cultural and to an and all these we in an of a of and culture of naturalism a society and in the of a that the of and into that of have in this in the of a that become this is in the in the in not if they into the context of the American which with the of a the that science and society by a was not the only one to On the one hand, we the of secular but on the other we a culture of in which no one is the of an and no even in nature and history The being Naturalism, in of on a that in it the progress of but with the of one not that it is greater to an dimension can be because it a point that as a of most of the we have naturalism and there was a battle on to the of is an of civilization in a sense, is an that a point of no with to society and not to the or of because if this were to it would a point of with to the of society. to of naturalism as as social such a is instead a because the is towards a it the of things and not the of the dispute on is the of the we have It the naturalism religion, with the of its evolutionary the most dimension of the namely the in the existence of an and a which is more But this is the point more an dimension for there is no with to the of civilization by civilization as a that takes place in the of and it is for this very that naturalism to as an becomes, the democratic and that civilization would have to to a civilization from and to But it is that such a a the form that society and in to its the of a new system of symbolic together to to the of the and as a of naturalism the of and this made it even By and with the by the naturalism a new symbolic for it the of a and it rather became the of the values of American democratic and liberal society. Not only but it became the emblem of the and as such it became an scholars tend to this historical I it is of the to such is I have to the link between naturalism and religion, and the battle civilization that a point in the history of two and some a sense, first was to by the Darwinian from the and it in the very of American first of only to the nature of the and not to the of which is made up of cultural social and historical is a because it is a part of the naturalist its many the existence of a in when analyze complex cultural such as the history of the history of philosophy and the history of more and they up on that have a of appreciate such a we to some of the features that have from of the things I have to in is the between naturalism and religion throughout the first of American But is naturalism a in this the is and part of to naturalism a of the the from the religion a of beliefs and some of the instead a of and into a that is religious in for they become the of an and social The in the of a relationship between and and it is this aspect that is religious in is in a Naturalism, takes the place of religion because it its and the from and the of this is one of the to naturalism in the 1940s the of its power and increasingly takes on those that properly with religion in an of beliefs and some of it naturalism from a social and in a it beliefs and social to a more properly and conservative the to which civilization in the of the values of and the of and Not only but the link between the two terms the form of civilization is the to become with to this that not in some to the of and progress a of to the science, and all a new and in and the of reason. to that more a a and like religion, it to these the of the new an to the dimension of is as and the of a society is that the which in its can be and such a not by but in to in the to the and of and such for those understand and to in terms of they a “the point of that American philosophy far immediately that this dimension is in of into an to the that in the for power on a such have become is to the of in is aware of that at the between the liberal in which naturalism and it was instead namely the of an that was rather and more as we have were for it was part and of the naturalist to that the only to and to a democratic of only of and it should be by there is a of at work as that between and for naturalism become with at to be that no one can from on this philosophical issue to be at least a and of the naturalism the very of the to the point that those of naturalism of reason. It is in fact the form of a that the of the namely of a society that liberates from or revealed “the in It is that a the history of there a progressive of the very concept of and it was to this that it was to and The to be by as an it the point of the history of civilization (it the of history of science and of history of philosophy John Herman Randall is no because would and from the of there is a on The form of civilization is a evolutionary and it is that naturalism takes on an symbolic because it a of to a of civilization as to a form of the following there will be the most to understand naturalism and naturalism will increasingly become a But these symbolic will be in those that most with the of the of is usually in is the symbolic power of naturalism and the historical that binds naturalism and religion instead is that the of naturalism were and not only by of in the but because of a naturalism which went beyond the dimension of a philosophical It was the of this that the of naturalist naturalism the on which the very of civilization was to be and in the that an that was not only but rather and in some institutionally From this perspective, it not that it is only the of the the early that naturalism begun to be and that for more were for by scholars all the I to point in is that an to naturalism is by no for it is not to work on the of the I instead is to the and this is the of the most symbolic dimension of naturalism, and the of the historical from which it the American and of the and of the we will not in a of the of this of I that naturalism is to one of the many on a that is no