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
So your view is that no form of evidence would be sufficient?
When it comes to a claim that someone received a revelation from God, I can’t think of any way we could conclusively determine if this person is lying to us, actually did receive such revelation or is confused or mistaken.
I object to Western Chauvinist’s implication that people who are not Christian are rejecting Christianity because they don’t want to accept Christianity’s teachings.
But this seems clearly false. If someone actually believed that Christianity’s teachings were true, they would have a strong incentive to become a Christian in order to get into heaven and avoid hell.
Not even some darn good miracles?
How would we know if the source of the miracle was God rather than some highly gifted human being?
Let’s say I have the ability to fly by flapping my arms. One might think that I am God’s messenger based on this ability. But maybe I am just an extremely rare individual.
But also, if I read a book about someone who claimed to see someone fly by flapping their arms, I don’t know if this actually happened or if the person is lying or if the person was confused about what they saw.
So you’re a skeptic about science.
We know that humans can’t fly. We lack that ability. On this planet, we don’t fly by arm-flapping without wings, strings, or weird machines. (I’d like to try on the moon myself.)
If he says “I and my 11 friends checked thoroughly for strings,” he’s lying, or telling the truth; you can at least rule out confusion.
Or, you can rule out that he used strings. Maybe. And yet I have seen women levitate on stage and magicians use a hoop to show there were no strings. The only thing one can say for certain is that the twelve aver that there were no strings and that the flying man says he was flying. Unless the flying man passes on how he does it, you do not know much.
Ok, rephrase:
If he says “I and my 11 friends, who were all experts on levitation stage illusions, confirmed that it was not a trick,” then you can rule out mere confusion; he is lying, or telling the truth.
The point is that it’s possible for a witness to claim that he witnessed a miracle in circumstances such that an eyewitness could easily establish whether the event had occurred.
We are talking about a situation where someone claimed to have been spoken to by God almost 2,000 years ago.
There is just no way to know whether this actually happened. And it’s not like St. Paul is the only person who ever claimed to have spoken to God.
Jews do not believe that St. Paul actually spoke to God. So, it isn’t as though one must be an atheist to be unconvinced.
Lots of people believe in God but do not believe that Jesus was God.
Was it Arthur Clarke who said, “Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic”? A miracle is something we cannot explain. That does not imply it does not have an explanation beyond, “God did it!” God does everything. The question is , “How?” God has created a multitude of species on this Earth. How? Using a genetic code and transcription errors. Mutations lead to speciation in varying environments.
I don’t doubt that people have witnessed miracles. I’ve witnessed a few myself. But what that means to me is that I have no current explanation for how God or nearer natural forces caused something to happen. It also does not mean that I would expect you to believe me if I told you those miracles, because you were not there. To believe in something, even with eyewitness testimony, takes a leap of faith. The harder the thing is to believe, the more of a leap of faith it is.
If I tell you it’s night in Michigan right now, based on your knowledge, you can probably accept it without too much of a leap of faith, because it should be night-time in this part of the world right now. If I told you the Northern Lights were visible to me right now, it’s possible, although not a common occurrence, and you might want verification. If I told you the sun was shining on me right now, you would need a whole lot of verification. At the least, you should ask questions. “Is the sun literally shining on you, or are you being figurative?” “Are you somewhere other than Michigan?” Etc.
I watch videos on Youtube where objects move by themselves in “haunted” places. Now, I happen to believe in ghosts. I have experienced ghosts. I have had a ghost cat jump up on my bed and walk across it. But I look at those videos and think, “Yeah, here’s how I could fake that…” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and then they still might not be believed. I don’t know the people who created those videos. I don’t know if they had some purpose other than to share what they had seen. Now, remove that by 2,000 years. Or by 2,500 years. Did Lao Tzu really exist?
Thus, it’s not quite so easy to establish to everyone’s satisfaction that a miracle occurred. That is the problem with so many of these arguments. There is a leap of faith that someone has already made, and they often don’t even see all of the leaps of faith they have made. They ask, “Jump this small ravine,” and don’t see the thirty larger ravines before that small ravine can be reached.
Nor, perhaps, whether Socrates died from hemlock.
But if we can know that, then the difference in knowing a miracle happened is just a difference in probabilities.
No; what we think is a miracle is something we cannot explain. If it’s not actually a divinely arranged suspension of the laws of physics, it’s not a miracle, but something we thought was a miracle.
And as far as sci-fi goes, of course any putative miracle could have the starship Enterprise behind it, or whatever–the Resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah included. So one must occasionally rephrase, as in: The point is that it’s possible for a witness to claim that he witnessed a miracle in circumstances such that an eyewitness could easily establish beyond reasonable doubt whether the event had occurred. After all, the Enterprise might be the reason I got the job at HKBU, too. But it probably wasn’t.
And of course there is a leap from such testimony to trust in the Messiah. Of course there is. Whoever denied it? I’ve affirmed it myself on Ricochet. Look for an essay on that in a book next year–inshallah–drawing from Kierkegaard, Kant, James, and Augustine.
Beware all ye who enter here.
I’m religious but not spiritual.
Let’s say I don’t have a PhD in ancient history (and I don’t). I might just decide, as a default, to accept the general consensus among the experts in ancient history and accept that Socrates died from hemlock.
But with St. Paul being spoken to by God, there is no consensus among the experts in ancient history that this claim is true.
If you say that you have taken a leap of faith to accept Christianity, we agree.
I was responding to Western Chauvinist’s apparent implication that when someone says, “I am spiritual, not religious,” they are indicating that they are intentionally denying the truth of Christianity even while knowing that Christianity is true because they don’t want to be bound by Christian teachings.
My response to that is that just as one can be justified in not accepting someone’s claim of being abducted by aliens as true, one can be justified in not accepting the claims of Christianity as true.
Human beings frequently say things that are not true, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. Eyewitness testimony is imperfect enough to where many people have been convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony only to be found innocent based on DNA evidence.
Again, one need not be an atheist to think that Christianity is bunk. One can be Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Jain or a believer in Zeus and not believe that Jesus was anything more than a 1st century preacher who got executed by the Romans just like thousands of others.
Let’s go back to my hypothetical about a man who flaps his arms and is able to fly like a bird.
If one saw that one might think,
However, the scientific consensus currently is that a human being can not fly by flapping his arms and human beings can not walk on water, turn water into wine or rise from the dead.
So, many stories in the Bible appear entertaining but not factual. That’s okay. Even I as an atheist-agnostic sometimes enjoy attending church where these stories are told.
Here is an ex-Muslim explaining how he finally told his parents that he no longer believes that Islam is true.
I imagine it’s isn’t easy risking losing ones relationships. Thus, I can see why many ex-Muslims pretend they are still Muslim.
Maybe this guy would describe himself as spiritual but not religious?
Heh, one can also find those who worship aliens or who think Jesus was an alien or, well, just about anything that ties the two together.
For the record, I’m not concerned whether people believe in, criticize, or discount religion. As long as they are good people, I’m not interested in changing their minds, or convincing them otherwise. I assume they prefer to argue rather than learn or understand. That is their right .
Takes two to argue. Also, from whom are they to learn? Perhaps they have studied the issues and evidence and come to different conclusions? Perhaps the people who think they have all the answers actually know less than those arguing against them? Perhaps it annoys folks when people say they are not open to learning because they have come to different conclusions?
Sorry I’m late in getting back to you–I was out of town. So let me address your worthy comments.
It does take two to argue. In a sense I should have directed my comment to all those engaged in the discussion. Those criticizing @catorand and @heavywater– at least from the latter, I can’t imagine any kind of convincing arguments or information to provide either. I guess some people like the back and forth regardless, but it’s not one I pursue.
How did I get in this?
I’m sorry, @catorand. I noticed that you agreed with most of what HeavyWater said, so I assumed you agreed with his writing and point of view. My bad.
What’s your point here: that a miracle requires more than merely human effort?
I already knew that.
You may deny (and apparently have, in earlier threads) that we can have any knowledge of Socrates, although you very properly trust enough at least to believe it.
My view in #s 95 and 97 and 100 is different, and pretty simple:
–we can have knowledge of ancient historical events,
–and it is possible for a witness to claim that he witnessed a miracle in circumstances such that an eyewitness could easily establish beyond reasonable doubt whether the event had occurred.
There’s only one other crucial question: whether the witness is likely honest.
The rest is merely a matter of probabilities and, of course, the vital decision whether to trust if the probabilities should turn out to be good.
Well, yes: from evidence to total commitment (which is also the title of the paper mentioned in # 101).
My point was that our scientific understanding of how the world works is often being updated in the light of new discoveries.
So, if we saw someone fly by flapping his arms, we would have to change our views on whether human beings are capable of flying. We could no longer say that human beings can’t fly. Scientists might then attempt to analyze the muscles and anatomy of this flying man to determine how he can fly.
The consensus of scholars of ancient history seems to be that Socrates drank hemlock. Since I am not a scholar of ancient history, I might just punt and accept the consensus.
With respect to St. Paul, there is no consensus that he actually did get word from God, only that St. Paul wrote that he got word from God.
Not exactly. If we saw someone fly thus we would have occasion to reconsider our theories.
If there were no plausible physical explanation, a supernatural one would be much better than abandoning our scientific knowledge on the subject.
In other words, the consensus of scholars does not create knowledge out of thin air or out of the magic powers of scholars (who are often incredibly silly). The consensus of scholars on the death of Socrates is built on the evidence by which we gain historical knowledge–the first point of my view in #s [etc.].
The second point is that historical evidence for a miracle is logically possible.
I think a natural explanation would be better because it we would be able to make testable predictions upon a natural explanation.
For example, let’s say that this flying man had webbed arms and hands, capable of trapping air. We might conclude that if we could find other human beings with webbed arms and hands, they could also fly by flapping their arms.
So, we would not just observe that a man could fly by flapping his arms. We would also understand the mechanism that allows him to fly.
It’s sort of like in our study of cardiology. We first learned that ingesting certain foods raised blood cholesterol. But later we learned how the body metabolizes cholesterol and why certain foods inhibit cholesterol metabolism.
There are lots of things that are logically possible that most of us do not believe.
It is logically possible that the prophet Mohammed flew on a winged horse.
It is logically possible that aliens are abducting human beings for short periods of time and then releasing them back to Earth so that they can give us their testimony.