Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Spiritual But Not Religious
I’m tired of people describing their spiritual lives as “spiritual but not religious.” I have little respect for people who wear the spiritual label to show how enlightened they are, and how they have freed themselves from the archaic practices of religion.
I know there are many people who have had painful experiences with religion and thus have chosen this narrow journey of spirituality. Many people have had difficult, emotionally wounding experiences with organized religion. They have been betrayed by a spiritual leader or were taught as a child a fearful or hateful version of religions. They were expected to follow rituals they didn’t understand or resented. All in all, early experiences left them empty, without filling their hearts and souls. Even my own mother felt rejected; she had wanted to join a synagogue, but we had limited funds. She left hurt and embarrassed after visiting the synagogue, when they told her they couldn’t adjust the fees for her poor financial situation.
There are also many people who, for one reason or another, never felt connected to their religion. A plethora of people and entities could be blamed for this lack of fulfillment. In many cases, parents didn’t know how to communicate the depth and meaning of the religion; often they themselves had been poorly educated, so that the religious observation was a perplexing combination of ritual, holy days, and practices to which they couldn’t relate. The mix of observances just seemed to interfere with everyday life and didn’t seem to provide a meaningful purpose.
And yet there are many people who have felt that “something was missing” in their lives; it didn’t occur to them that their earlier experiences had to do not just with particular churches or synagogues, or with certain religious leaders, or even with their families, and that their generalizations about religion might be incomplete. Instead, they may have asked themselves why they should go back to something that had already failed them. And there are others who feel moved to “try something” outside of religion. I describe those efforts as “dabbling,” “trial efforts,” or “just spiritual,” or a mixture of all three.
“Dabbling” describes” trying out different practices they’ve heard of or read about. These efforts are often superficial, like trying on a new dress to see how it fits. When a woman dabbles in clothing styles, she often puts a value on whether the color suits her, whether the outfit complements her body type, or whether it’s a practical addition to her wardrobe. If she doesn’t like it, she can always return it. Unfortunately, that’s how some people explore religion: what looks good, which things “feel” right, which make the fewest demands. They move in and out of belief systems as if they are changing outfits. They may assume that they may find something that suits them, but underneath, they are too reticent, too wounded, or too disillusioned to take a risk to make a serious religious commitment. So they spend a lifetime dabbling and call it spiritual.
Trial efforts are made by people who aren’t quite satisfied with their lives but feel they are willing to try something else; this description described me at one time, although at the time, I didn’t see it as a trial effort. I had never deeply connected to Judaism and I liked Zen Buddhism, liked many of the teachings, appreciated meditation and even enjoyed most of the rituals. I felt that it deepened my spiritual life, especially since I felt it brought me closer to G-d. I didn’t go into Zen with that intention, since Zen is not a theistic practice, but it doesn’t forbid believing in G-d; ironically I felt G-d’s presence more deeply when I practiced Zen, and I know that meditation contributed to my experience.
But life was determined to move me away from Zen and in some ways, I sabotaged my own practice. Left bereft with no religious framework and no community, I questioned where to go next. Eventually, as many of you know, I returned to and embraced my original faith of Judaism.
Others who engage in “trial efforts” often try more than one faith. This decision is deeper than dabbling, but it often is fairly limited in the way it works upon the soul of an individual. That result could be due to the ambivalence of the practitioner, or due to a mismatch with a religion, or due to the person expecting the perfect practice and finding problems with it over time. When disillusionment sets in, a person can muddle along indefinitely, or move on to a new religion.
Finally, there are those who want to be “just spiritual.” They’ve had little exposure to formal religion, and what they’ve learned has been critical of religion. They’ve been told that people of faith just believe in a “big man in the sky,” and they perceive religion as primitive and restrictive.
People who want to be just spiritual often don’t even dabble They experience spirituality through a beautiful landscape, brilliant sunset or some other part of nature. They see no need for ritual, for a framework of values and beliefs to build on. They want to be free to be spiritual when the moment moves them.
* * * * *
It’s occurred to me that one of the greatest barriers to others embracing a religion is that it is often filled with paradoxes. How do those of us who are religious explain that the deepest experiences can come from the limits we set in our lives? How do we describe the freedom and satisfaction that comes from following a belief system that seems to restrict us and is even difficult? How do we show people that we grow through spiritual questioning and examination? How do we demonstrate that believing in and opening ourselves up to a divine being can be some of the most intimate and rewarding times of our lives?
* * * * *
The spiritual choices that people reject or embrace not only affect themselves, but affect their families, their communities, even this country. Unless they transcend their self-centered views, they will have restricted their own lives and their ability to influence this country in a wholesome, positive way. Everyone loses.
* * * * *
To understand these factors is more than an intellectual exercise; these are not ideas you can read about in a book to determine that they are true. Study is invaluable, but study without experience will rarely fulfill one’s spiritual hopes. But if one studies religion, asks oneself the toughest questions and requests divine guidance, practices with devotion, and an open heart, all things are possible.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Of the few true-believer proselytizing “atheists” I have known, it seems to me it is not that they don’t believe in Gd, so much as they are angry with Him and those who dare to follow Him. “Something bad happened, so I don’t believe in Gd.”
That is opposed to the logical and dispositional atheist agnostics, probably like Cato and Heavywater. They have found that there is a genetic component to belief and non-belief, which is why I say dispositional. John Derbyshire thought/thinks of himself as such.
Interesting observations. Even so, when I see someone with a long beard I instinctively feel a distance not experienced with other people. However, maybe that’s just my problem, not theirs.
It is a truism that people who reject God make a god of something lesser. One atheist I knew worshiped Science and Technology. Another, a guy I once worked with made music his object of worship. Specifically, he looked on Prince as a god. I couldn’t help thinking of him when his god died. The militant atheists have made atheism their religion. Eco-warriors are clearly in the grip of religious zeal.
I prefer my religion straight-up, but we all need to recognize what we worship and keep a reserve of kindness and forbearance for others. Fortunately for me, my religion teaches exactly that.
Nicely said, @suspira.
“Spirituality” is religion-lite.
That is the philosophy that I have had. It is a response to the hyper-spirituality of the 60’s and 70’s. We see a very stark contrast between lower-case “spiritual” which is based on self-expression and emotionalism and other more humanist expressions of piousness and upper-case “Spirituality” based on traditional expressions of Biblical fruit-bearing faith based on the empowerment by the Holy Spirit as it is described in the New Testament.
You are correct that many make a connection between Biblical warnings against shallow faith in ritual as well. It isn’t a blanket condemnation of ritual as we have our rituals and traditions as well. We believe in being very self-critical about getting too wrapped up in it though. This has often caused some tension between us and Catholic, Jewish and Orthodox folks.
After reading some Russian literature, I realized that nothing is new.
Gotta disagree there, I think Islam is a bad religion. I don’t hate Muslims. In fact, most of the Muslims I’ve met are nicer than the average person. But as far as I can reason, Islam leads to a bad society.
Take solace that irreligious people rarely breed.
Religion is, in my mind, an interesting, almost tribal phenomena. It places people in a tribe of sorts, where beliefs, stories, cultures, rituals and morals are shared, along with insights into the keys to a good and fruitful life. Formal religions are also economic entities and to survive, they must be supported by adherents. All religions, to some degree, rely on an ability to absolve, save or at least describe the penalties for failure to follow and support the teachings of the faith. Some have the power to save or reject the unfaithful. All more or less present their faith as a way to transcend life and achieve an eternal reward. Since religions can be so intimately tribal, ejection can be quite painful, especially if one is then shunned by close relatives and friends. Even the most charitable religious groups can be quite cruel when protecting their faith from apostates.
Religions have no monopoly on ethics or morality. There were good and righteous people on earth before the birth of Christ, the rise of Mohammed or the contemplation of Buddha. That’s not to say that as an organizing philosophy, as a means for informing people of what is moral and good, religions have not been effective. No doubt, Judaeo-Christian morality has done much good in the world, providing a framework for Western morality. This influence is good and ongoing, an example: abortion. But it is not alone in determining what is good and moral; it just exerts a strong influence.
If I could get past the idea of God, I would choose to be a Jew, not a Christian, but with a strong affinity for the moral lessons of the New Testament as an extension of Judaism. But alas, my mind can’t get there, so I remain, at best, agnostic but appreciative.
That’s the best I got.
I usually identify myself as both an atheist and an agnostic.
The reason why I identify with both is because if you asked me the question:
My response would be “No.” But how certain am I?
I could certainly imagine a God who created the universe 100 billion years ago and then got stoned and has remained stoned for the last 100 billion years. This would explain why, for example, 2 year old babies get cancer and God doesn’t intervene or why some people who swindle people out of their retirement sometimes get a way with it.
However, I can’t prove that this version of God exists.
Perhaps God will toss people into hell if they subscribe to organized religion and will allow people into heaven if they don’t subscribe to organized religion.
I can’t prove that version of God exists either.
Even if we all agreed that God exists, we would still have to describe his personality and we would not agree.
Did God inspire the Eagles to write, “Take it to the Limit” or did God inspire the Rolling Stones to write, “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking?” Or maybe God inspired the song, “Angels we have heard on high.”
We can debate which books are “the word of God” and we will disagree. But even if we agreed that God wrote the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, we will disagree on how it is to be interpreted.
We might all agree that there are right ways and wrongs way to interpret the Bible. But we would disagree on which are the right ways and which are the wrong ways.
I have my own opinion on issues like morality, free will, the theory of evolution, anti-discrimination law, what constitutes a just war, abortion, same sex marriage, divorce, the death penalty, the minimum wage and so on. But not everyone agrees with me on these issues. Even my wife and I might disagree.
I believe that my wife exists. I believe that Barack Obama exists. I believe Donald Trump exists. I don’t think God exists. But even if God does exist, God could be completely different than what our major religions describe.
When someone says that they are spiritual and not religious, I think what they mean is that they are reflective and curious but not dogmatic. Or maybe not.
I think all of us know of certain religions that seem strange or dangerous or just a waste of time.
For example, I think Astrology is good for a laugh. “Are you a Leo? Are you a Gemini?”
I think the Jehovah’s Witness belief that one must not accept a blood transfusion for oneself or one’s children is dangerous and is an example of child abuse.
I think teaching young children that Jews “killed God” is a horrible thing to teach children. Hitler grabbed on to that “lesson” and ran with it, with disastrous results.
Tarot cards are silly. Belief that one has been abducted by aliens is bizzare.
I take exception to a few things you’ve said, @elcolonel. First, I think in the context of religion (or maybe anywhere), “tribal” is a pejorative. It suggests a certain primitiveness that I think for many religions today is unfair. At least for Judaism, it’s origins are tribal, but even many Orthodox have moved far beyond the tribal. You mention “penalties for failure”; I would think you’d appreciate that since we’ve moved beyond stoning. In these times, it’s called consequences. Since in our culture, punishment appears mostly if you don’t adhere to the Leftist agenda, I think you’ll find few communities (except perhaps for Islam) rarely using punishment. Jews don’t absolve or save people either, nor is there communal rejection. The last sentence has me baffled.
I appreciate your weighing in, but I think your description suffers from generalizations.
You’re description is too convoluted for me to try to respond to it. I think you spend a lot of time analyzing and looking for differences, rather than seeing what has meaning for you. I find your preoccupation with “agreement” or disagreement interesting. Jews work toward some level of agreement, but you will find that there are tons of opinions in the Talmud, for example. Even today, many different groups practice differently from each other, and for the most part, I sense their attitudes toward each other are live and let live. I believe that what G-d cares about is being good, and serving the good. You can make it more complicated than that, but everything I choose to do serves those goals.
P.S.–I don’t feel compelled or obligated to prove anything.
I have attended lots of different churches over the past several decades. The ones I attended with some consistency for six months to a few years are Methodist, Baptist, non-Denominational and Presbyterian.
I once attended a Pentecostal church because a woman I was interested in invited me to attend with her. It was such a bizarre experience that I think my face turned sheet white. Even though I tried to hide my true opinion about the church service from her, I think she could tell that I thought her church was nuts, just crazy. And I think she was offended.
In some ways, I find Judaism more appealing than Christianity, even though I have no direct experience with Judaism, whereas I do have direct experience visiting Christian churches and attending Christian bible studies.
The reason why I find Judaism more appealing to some extent was, surprisingly enough, explained by Sam Harris, a well-known atheist, when he was debating the Christian apologist William Lane Craig.
Harris explained that under Christianity a mass murderer who accepts Jesus as his lord and savior the night before his execution after a meal of fried chicken will go to heaven while a non-Christian who was a kind person will end up in hell. Harris said that this removes all moral accountability.
Now, many Christian churches I attended were pretty liberal theologically (and unfortunately, politically too, darn). So, they didn’t give us sermons about how accepting Jesus is the only path to heaven (and the rest of humanity roasts in hell).
The reason why I talk about disagreement so much is because we are all so aware of these disagreements and to some extent one must choose, though we can change our mind too.
I changed my mind about same sex marriage. In 2004, when George W Bush was running for reelection and campaigning for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, I supported it. But if I were to vote on the issue now, in a referendum, I would vote for same sex marriage. But religious people are split on this too.
Interesting point. What has meaning for me, when it comes to religion?
There are some sermons that have resonated with me to some extent. But so do lectures by public intellectuals like Steven Pinker and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an interesting case. She loudly spoke about how awful Islam is and she had credibility because she was raised Muslim and suffered under it. Her father tried to force her to marry a distant cousin of hers. She fled to the Netherlands. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now a non-religous person.
I told the story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to a friend of mine who is a very religious conservative Protestant Christian, thinking he would see Ayaan as a heroic advocate for freedom and human rights. Instead he criticized Ayaan for not believing in God.
But if he had suffered under a religion as Ayaan had under Islam, would he be so willing to jump out of one religion into another? Or would he be skeptical about religion generally? My friend seemed unable to put himself in Ayaan’s shoes.
Granted, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been harshly criticized by many on the Left because she is criticizing a religion that has supposedly been oppressed by the West. It’s nonsense, but that is what has happened. So it falls to people like Sam Harris and lowly people like me to be Ayaan’s fan base.
I think I like you @heavywater.
I’m a big fan of hers, too! We have that much in common! ;-)
Believers: Faith in Human Nature
Konner mentions at the 34 minute mark that religion in hunter gatherer societies was used as a means of explaining the world.
If someone lost something, they might attribute the fact that they couldn’t find it to “spirits.”
At the 39 minute mark Shermer and Konner talk about the excesses of the “New Atheists” and Konner explains that religion is more than just a scientific explanation of how things operate in the world.
Michael Shermer with Melvin Konner
I think there’s a lot of blurring between the behaviors of adherents and the teachings of institutions by religious-phobes.
EDIT: I had more to say here, but I had to run to Bible study! ;-) True story.
—————
And the blurring is often intentional because we don’t like the teachings that don’t comport with want we want to be true, especially when it comes to sins we’re attached to. Either the teaching is true or it isn’t. And the only reason to believe anything is because it’s true.
Unfortunately, with postmodernism, we’ve decided to reject truth and reality for how we feel about things. This is very appealing to the “spiritual” who prefer not to believe in a God who makes moral demands.
Yes, there is.
Of course I generalize. The “tribal” analogy is not meant to be perfect. Folks gather around folklore, history, moral lessons, shared culture, rites of passage, music, fellowship and beneath all this there is an assumption of shared faith. This faith is fragile and protected, and rightly so, and often dressed in ritual. Nothing wrong with that. I never mentioned punishment per se, other than excommunication or a refusal of sacrament. Religion is inherently primitive, in the historical sense. It evolves slowly. None of this is pejorative, so don’t take offense. And, you are right. Jews do not save people, which is one of the reasons I’m so fond of Judaeism. Jews strive to consider their own shortcomings and become better, more charitable and gracious people. I like that. It’s personal. We judge ourselves.
Atheism, like everything else, can be utilized for a holy purpose. When someone needs your help, you should assume that there is no G-d and that only you can help him.
When someone makes the claim that God spoke to them, as St. Paul claimed, it’s impossible for someone living nearly 2,000 years later to conclusively determine if St. Paul actually did receive a revelation from God or if St. Paul was mistaken or if St. Paul was deliberately lying.
Jews believe in God but do not accept St. Paul’s writings as authoritative. But even the claim that Moses received a revelation from God can not be empirically tested.
So, when you write, “Either the teaching is true or it isn’t,” you seem to be implying that there is some laboratory we can use or some experiment we can run that will tell us if God (Jesus) really did speak to St. Paul.
But here I am going to have to go agnostic and say that there is no way to know.
If someone claims that they were abducted by aliens, I can’t prove that this person is telling the truth or lying. I suspect that he’s either lying or he’s nuts.
Same with St. Paul. I suspect that he was either overcome with intense guilt for persecuting the early Christian movement and, thus, decided to join the movement or that St. Paul wanted to be a leader in the Christian movement or both.
I can’t prove it. But Christians can’t prove that St. Paul actually received word from God.
So, avoiding the moral demands given by God isn’t the only motivation for not accepting Christianity. One could honestly evaluate the claims made by Christianity and conclude that the evidence isn’t strong enough. One could accept these claims on faith. But one could just as easily became a Muslim on faith.
And even if one were to accept the claims of Christianity, one would have to go through the process of interpreting the demands allegedly made by God upon humanity and how one should apply these interpretations to ones daily life.
One Christian decides to give everything to the poor and becomes a pacifist. Another Christian keeps most of his wealth and income but donates 10 percent of his income while joining the National Rifle Association. These two Christians might not recognize each other as true Christians.
The Protestants and the Catholics fought lethal battles over who the real Christians were. In Northern Ireland the Protestants and Catholics fought much more recently.
Maybe God isn’t a very good communicator or perhaps God has not communicated anything at all and what people claim is “the word of God” is actually the word of certain human beings who are just as capable of error as any of us.
You beat me to it HW. But it’s such an obvious objection that I wonder why WC just assumed it away. He has his beliefs and that’s fine. But not sharing his beliefs need not be be a case of “rejecting truth.” In my case, and I assume yours, it’s just a matter of not believing he’s accurately assessed truth.
I do wonder – and have never gotten a straight answer from an evangelical on this – on what basis we should be expected to choose among the various claims of absolute divine truth that are out there. Even if I were a devout theist (and I can understand why some people conclude, on balance, that there’s probably a god or gods) I have no idea which god or gods to choose to believe in or how to decide. And the skeptic in me wonders why I should think one group of humans or another has correctly identified the right (real) deity(ies). The cynic in me answers that claiming direct knowledge of god has served as a source of power and wealth and status throughout human history making an obvious explanation for why these claims of knowledge have so often been made.
It all adds up in my mind to rejecting the religions of man as supremely unlikely, even while remaining uncertain about whether there is a god. I wrote a post about this on like Ricochet 1.0, so long ago that I can no longer access it. Wish I could find it. It was pretty good.
There are things that you believe to be true that cannot be proven in a laboratory.
Yep.
Let’s at least acknowledge that lots of people throughout human history have claimed to have received a revelation from God. We don’t have any way of conclusively determining if any of these people really did receive such a revelation or if they were confused or mistaken in some way or if they were deliberately lying.
There’s no shame in not accepting someone’s claim to have received a revelation from God. There are reasons to dismiss such claims other than simply to ignore certain religious teachings.
By the way, if a religious person is willing to admit that he can’t conclusively prove that an alleged revelation from God actually did come from God, I can respect someone who admits that they believe that this revelation is true based on faith.
But if you are going to accept something on faith, other people can put their faith in some other claim based on faith or refuse to accept anything on faith and wait until sufficient evidence is available.