"Spiritual but not Religious"

It is an opinion post from someone whose blog has generated over 8,000 responses as suggesting many people are using a cop-out argument that making themselves feel good by saying they are “spiritual” but not so big on organized religion which has led to

a “culture of narcissism” has played out both among the “spiritual but not religious” identifiers as well as among many “new atheists.”

I don’t know where to start.

Recognizing that Alan MIller, the writer, supposedly is ‘not religious’ — his own claim — his position really is more that the position of atheism and anti-religion is just as dogmatic and inflexible as religion. There is some truth to this. I, too, find that people seem to be just as dogmatic in the negative on religion as those who are pushing it. The Middle Way is all about not being ‘all-or-nothing’.

But that is where the validity of his argument ends.

Claiming to be spiritual is not moral relativism nor is it “anything goes”. It means a recognition of something ‘out there’ or ‘in there’ that seems real and tangible, but one cannot fully define it. To say that I am spiritual and not religious also means something — it means a rejection of the idea that someone can package up this spiritual experience and have an organized framework to teach it. “Religious” more or less implies a “religion”. The idea that this is somehow related to a culture of narcissim or a cop-out is deeply offensive. I find Gandhi, for example, to be deeply spiritual, but I reject his religion. I can relate to Gandhi-ji deeply on spiritual terms, but not in nature of hindu gods.

There were some interesting ideas that some people in today’s world want “freedom” from religion…meaning very different things than what the founding fathers were talking about with “freedom of religion”.

No. The founding fathers included both freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. The founders who established the “wall of separation” adamantly condemned religion, swearing on the altar of god (lower case, for a very important reason) eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man, and in so doing, explicitly were referring to religion. Those who say that we were founded as a Christian nation have not studied even the basics of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, or Franklin. They were enlightenment Deists, in some cases completely rejecting the divinity of Christ.

Some comments that struck me:

It is telling, though, that this and many other comments converge on dogmatism and extremism and juxtapose them with the notion that an individual choice is immune to any of that. These comments speak to my point that not wanting to be held accountable to any set of ideas or principles is a very popular position among the “spiritual but not religious.”

If we are honest with ourselves, is this part of our “middle way” thinking, our cafeteria approach? We don’t like accountability?

Here is where Miller is constructing a strawman of what the “spiritual but not religious” believe. It’s the same accusation against atheists: that atheists and the spiritually non-religious do not want to be held accountable to any set of ideas or principles. Most Atheists are deeply principled, and spiritually-attuned people are as well: it’s just they don’t buy into the set of principles of organized religion and its fanciful dogma.

Ideas and principles to live by ought to be testable propositions, and most ethical priniciples are. If I treat others with respect, I tend to be respected as well. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and its negative version, are universal, ethical principles, because they are obvious and work. As with Alma 32, principles can and should be tested, and if there is evidence that they work, then we can ‘know they work’. this is exactly what the middle way is about, discovering for one’s own self a testimony of truth through practical application. Atheist and spiritually-minded should have no issue with this, for most atheists are such because they have found that critical thinking is a good thing.

Rather than thinking of a selective, cafeteria belief system, we should be thinking in terms of applying Alma 32. We test principles. We test beliefs. If they provide good fruit, we keep them. If they’re false or harmful, we discard them. There are going to be things we cannot test, and we can have faith in those things, recognizing that we don’t know.

Like this site, many people are looking for support for their feelings, which doesn’t seem to be provided well enough in the brick and mortar church buildings and social groups. Is this viral thinking, where the more we hear about this in our culture, the more we think, “Hey, ya…I’m a victim too!” ? Besides being over prescribed with depression meds, is our culture over prescribed with therapy and “recovery” thinking?

most of what Miller is quoting andd saying isn’t worth replying to.

Religion, by itself, does not offer the authenticity of an examined life, but it doesn’t prevent it either. Those who use religion as a drug, and many do, are harming themselves in the process. Religionists that use religion as a drug of power over people to justify their own narcissism — that, to me, is far more harmful than the principled atheist who, lacking evidence, simply doesn’t believe.

I think Miller’s article is a lot of projection.

If we are honest with ourselves, is this part of our “middle way” thinking, our cafeteria approach? We don’t like accountability?

My wife would give a big Amen to that! And perhaps she has a point. My current religious mental framework is built to serve my life and not that my life is built to serve my theology. This is not to say that I don’t do religious things. I comply with most of the LDS trappings but I do so for the most part because they are established community norms. I receive earthly benefits from them and therefore they are sort of an investment for me, an investment in community involvement.

I see that statement in the subject line as a rejection of organized religion given the scandals, the judgmentalism, the hypocrisy, and the negative experiences people have had with such organized religion. At the same time, keeping the goodness that comes from being connected to God.

I agree SD. I could have easily come down on the side of rejecting organized religion and I understand the desire to do so – that’s just not where I am right now. I have almost completely severed my spirituality and compartmentalized it from my religiosity but I still enjoy both for different reasons. The spiritual is more personal and solitary. The religious is more communal. They both serve a purpose in my life, just different purposes.

As a small example to this, I recently attended a family get together and a cousin that is my age has recently suffered a brain injury from a concussion. The Uncles and cousins gathered to give him a blessing. There was such a feeling and power of love in that circle. Everyone present had a real connection to him. I didn’t even agree with all the words that were spoken but that didn’t matter because it was the Love and the Support that I was confirming as tears welled up in the corners of my eyes and I said Amen.

I believe that a similar experience would have been difficult to have with a spiritual and not religious upbringing. So for me this experience was a validation of the value of the religious in my life.

To answer the questions…

Spiritual is my own path as dictated by the promptings of the spirit, my own thoughts and the ideas of others that I have co-opted and made my own, and personal revelation. This is separate from my religious life.

I’m sure that I would be labeled as prideful. My personal line of revelation has assumed veto power over the priesthood line of revelation…at least in my own head.

I still feel that I contribute to the ward, even though I don’t know that I will ever be fully integrated/welcomed into the ward. It’s almost like the ward or ward leadership can sense that I am not fully loyal to the church and therefore keep me at arm’s length. This wouldn’t necessarily require any “discernment” for them to deduce as I don’t have a TR, a calling, or a home teaching assignment. I am somewhat jealous as another family recently moved into the ward and has been so immediately fellowshipped and integrated. But in order to be in this position we would both need to give a lot more in almost every way and act the part, neither of which we are currently inclined to do. We also participate heavily in the community and in other church’s social programs. For me this lessens the sting of any potential ward rejection as we have diversified our social network.

I think that the viewpoint of me justifying my shifting loyalties (more to spiritual, less to religious, more to personal journey, less to communal loyalty) is overly simplistic but certainly valid from that perspective. I would tend to frame my current position as more of a “spiritual hero’s journey” – but from the perspective of the religious loyalist that just becomes flowery language to describe disloyalty or even that I am being deceived by darkness. Funny how everything changes as the perspective swivels. I would think that the perspective that I should adhere to would be the perspective of the dictates of my conscience – but once again that could easily be seen as Satan’s coaxings. 😈

I agree and fully support what SD, WF, and Ray have said – but to the black and white, all or nothing thinkers all of that is the flaxen cords of Satan or the slippery slope to hell. Indeed some may say that coming to sites like this is just massaging our own consciences and itchy ears. We can’t argue with them or take the position that our individual spirituality trumps their communal religiosity. We don’t seek to supplant them as the holders of a truer perspective, just to gain the space to travel our own path within Mormonism.

Maybe I’m not passionate enough to take a side and fight for it, but I just see a bunch of people on all sides of every isle doing their best in a confusing and uncertain world.

I was interested by an article I read on CNN.com this morning…Some comments that struck me:

It is telling, though, that this and many other comments converge on dogmatism and extremism and juxtapose them with the notion that an individual choice is immune to any of that. These comments speak to my point that not wanting to be held accountable to any set of ideas or principles is a very popular position among the “spiritual but not religious.”

If we are honest with ourselves, is this part of our “middle way” thinking, our cafeteria approach? We don’t like accountability?

It is so interesting how so many people now use the therapeutic language of recovery – “recovering” from organized religion. The group American Atheists describes anguish and toil as the “first step” of “coming out,” making the analogy with gays coming out the “closet,” as though somehow atheists are oppressed today in America.

Like this site, many people are looking for support for their feelings, which doesn’t seem to be provided well enough in the brick and mortar church buildings and social groups. Is this viral thinking, where the more we hear about this in our culture, the more we think, “Hey, ya…I’m a victim too!” ? Besides being over prescribed with depression meds, is our culture over prescribed with therapy and “recovery” thinking?

Are we, ourselves, becoming part of a “narcissistic” culture (translate to bishop interview talk: “Prideful”)?

Does that mean we can or cannot really fit into the general population of our ward as a piccolo in the orchestra?

Are we “justifying” our desire to be spiritual to feel good about ourselves, but not really want to own up to the religion we have been part of, and be accountable to an authority?

I have my ideas in response to this…but want to generate a discussion to hear thoughts from others. Thoughts?

I used to think people claiming they were “spiritual but not religious” was a cop-out and that most of the ones that said this were lazy and hedonistic hippie types generally lacking in character and discipline. It is a prejudiced stereotype not unlike the way many TBMs will typically dismiss ex-Mormons and NOMs as whiners that were mostly looking for an excuse to avoid responsibility, justify their sins, and basically take the easy way out. Downgrading others and questioning their motives is one easy self-serving way to make ourselves feel reassured that we are right and superior by comparison so it’s a hard tendency to resist sometimes.

I’m sure many people would see me watching football on Sunday while all the “good” people are at church and jump to the conclusion that I’m not very religious and a lazy slacker as well. In all honesty I feel that in reality I am actually more religious than average, it just turned out that I was born into an uncompromising church that asked me to believe and do so many things that didn’t make much sense that it was hard to stomach it all anymore. I’m honestly not a particularly rebellious person either; I haven’t had many problems with authority figures, rules, and accountability at work, school, home, or anywhere else except for in the LDS Church culture. Why should church be so much more difficult to deal with and find time for than everything else? I’m clearly not the only one that thinks so; if you look at the numbers without ignoring all the inactive members then disregarding church is actually the norm, not the exception.

The way I see it, religion should ideally add value and serve the greater good and if certain religious groups are not doing that very well then it’s not necessarily their followers’ fault if they don’t really see the point. Why not focus on trying to provide a positive environment, giving people hope, and limiting what you ask people to believe or do to what most of them can honestly feel fairly comfortable with? Instead we have some religious groups that get around what is remotely reasonable and fair using fear, shame, peer pressure, and other manipulative tactics to get people to go along with their agenda mostly at their own expense and there is also a strong tendency in many traditional religious groups to devalue this life way more than they should in my opinion while looking forward to some heavenly future that we don’t really know exists for sure.