What does "sacred" mean if we reject the supernatural?
Pantheists often describe nature or the universe as sacred, yet reject supernatural claims. Critics say this empties the word of meaning—that sacred necessarily implies something beyond the natural. Can we reclaim "sacred" for a naturalistic worldview?
How would you respond to this contemplation?
Sacred means "set apart, worthy of reverence." Nothing in that definition requires supernatural. We can hold things sacred because of their intrinsic value, their role in the web of existence, their capacity to evoke awe. The sacred is about how we relate to things, not about their metaphysical status.
Exactly. When I stand before an ancient redwood or watch the Milky Way emerge at dusk, the experience is sacred. Not because something supernatural is present, but because I'm encountering something that transcends my small concerns and connects me to vast scales of time and space.
But if sacred just means "awe-inspiring" or "deeply valued," haven't we lost something? Traditional sacred implied obligations, boundaries, things that must not be violated. Does naturalistic sacred carry that moral weight?
Perhaps the question is backwards. What if the supernatural was always a way of pointing to experiences that are natural but extraordinary? The sacred was never really "out there"—it was always about certain qualities of experience and relationship.
Contemplation Guidelines
500 characters max - Brevity encourages clarity
Steel-man - Present opposing views at their strongest
Seek understanding - Ask before assuming
Embrace uncertainty - "I wonder" over "I know"
