 |
|
|
|
October 2nd, 2012
04:04 PM ET
Your Take: Author who calls 'spiritual but not religious' a cop-out responds to comments
Editor’s note: Alan Miller is director of The New York Salon and co-founder of London's Old Truman Brewery. He is speaking at The Battle of Ideas at London's Barbican in October. By Alan Miller, Special to CNN I wrote a Belief Blog piece on Sunday called "My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out," which has received more than 8,000 comments, many taking up key points I raised. My assessment is that the wider disorientation of Western society, the decreasing respect for many institutions and the disdain for humans alongside what Christopher Lasch has termed a "culture of narcissism" has played out both among the "spiritual but not religious" identifiers as well as among many "new atheists." Lots of the comments bear that out. Some commenters accused me of outdated and dangerous dogmatism in sticking up for traditional religion. A commenter whose handle is spectraprism spoke to this view:
I don't happen to believe in a religious "one true way" and in fact am not religious myself. My comments and observations are based on an increasingly common phenomenon in the past 20 years. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter 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." In recent decades, the demise of the notion that there can be universal truths and the ascendancy of relativism and the new preaching of "many truths" and the idea that "all truths are equally valid" has clearly had significant impact on that identity. The disenchantment with belief and a commitment to some wider authority has also had an impact on the self-described new atheists, who are furious that anyone could have the audacity to believe in something bigger than themselves. The end of the big ideas of liberalism and socialism left a vacuum in society. Atheism used to be a small component of bigger movements in society. Ironically, today what defines many new atheists is a shared outlook with “spiritual but not religious” views. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories New atheists define themselves in negative terms, as not believing without any broader sense of a positive alternative, while those identifying with a "spiritual but not religious" outlook define themselves as not religious rather than according to the strong convictions that they do have. This commenter summarized the sentiments that lots of others express on my piece:
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. The therapeutic outlook is of far more concern with regard to human autonomy and freedom than organized religion. The idea is that humans are all "damaged goods" and in need of constant counseling and instruction. These comments take off on that theme:
It is interesting how "spirituality" seems to be thought of as "clean" and unimpeded by problems. Dustin calls religion a "disease" - once again we see the therapeutic language. Striving for an understanding of the world is an important and essential human attribute, yet so many of the comments have reiterated a generality about "spiritualism" and "my choice" that it seems to endorse the point I made that what seems so paramount is in a determination not to be "labeled" or dictated to by an authority. So what is left? The superstition and mysticism of some "oneness" and often a therapeutic notion of being "spiritual." Here’s a comment from someone who identifies as 51yo:
The commenter 51y0 doesn't want to be tied to anyone else's "facts." While we all have to work out our things in life, I am interested to know what “spiritual but not religious" facts are. It can seem that on the one hand there's a reluctance to commit to advocating anything and also that words can end up losing any meaning if one simply says something to the affect of "spiritual means it's right for me." Nick says it can mean a lot of different things to people:
I’ll end with this comment:
This remark will chime with many – the new atheists among them - who believe that being "spiritual" means you don't want to be associated with all the "chaos and destruction." It strikes me that having an opt-out plan should have something more than simply a negative, whether it's a "spiritual" one or a "new atheist" negative. We live in an age where many are disillusioned with institutions and humans generally, yet not so evident is a positive alternative. Thank you for the comments. The event we held last night, "I'm Not Religious – I'm Spiritual" benefited from some of them. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Alan Miller. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
By Alan Miller, Special to CNN
Faith is not a con game. It is actual experiences that some people experience that others obviously don't. Religion isn't a disease, being a human is a disease. And don't give me the bit about how many people have died because of "religion." Have we forgotten the 20th century so soon? 80 million in the Soviet Union, who knows how many in China, the pol pot regime, Chouchesque (sp), WWII Germany. All of these leaders were completely Godless! And I am sick of people saying their religion ruined their childhood. As per the occult were they forced to murder their own brother or sister? I think sitting in a pew is not that bad. Our problem isn't that we are wising up by dumping God and then wanting him in death. Our problem is that we are narcissistic fools who believe anyone who says what we want to hear.
You are forgetting the fact that in those totalitarian regimes you mentioned, the dictator was worshipped as a god, and the political system became the religion. So they were far from 'godless'.
Is there ever a more disingenuous game than when the fundamentalists try to point to these political movements as "proof" of the inherent evils of atheism while blatantly (and shamelessly) ignoring things like witch trials, the horrors of the Reformation, the Inquisition, mass murders of those who refused to convert, the burning of heretics, etc.?
Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that Hitler identified Christianity as his religion, that Nazi Germany was 94% Christian, etc. They ignore the trappings of religion found within Communism, such as how EVERYONE must carry the dictator's book around, how the portraits of said dictator are hung everywhere and are extremely reminiscent of holy icons, how millions flock to the tomb of Lenin, who is mummified like a revered saint. Indeed, Communism is a religion disguised as a political system, and they try to portray it as atheism run amok. Far from being pro-atheism however, if you were an atheist who had ANY quarrels with the philosophy of Communism, you'd meet the same fate of any other political enemy. Most Buddhists are atheists but they've still met a horrible fate in China and Tibet because Buddhism and Maoist Communism clash.
Alan, why do you care so passionately about this issue? What does it mean to you? Why does it matter to you if people claim to be this way versus that way? In what way does this affect you?
Spiritual but not religious works when you believe there are forces outside of our understanding worth remaming open to but you don't wish to define them as religion does.
Organized religion is on its way out the door, thank god.
I have to say, there are many ways to approach "Spiritual But Not Religious", which from my extensive experience with that crowd, I think opening up a discussion on the subject is a good idea. A lot of the way this ideology spreads, is not based on new ideas, but old fashioned bashing of others – the "But Not Religious" aspect – it's ugly.
It's good old fashioned hate, and it's pervasive in this group. Now, that's not to say, it's limited to that. Then there is the positive they offer – you won't find that mentioned a lot, because that's not how they recruit.
Recruitment is generally negative – stick to bashing religion, you can find agreement on that. You won't find it's very effective to recruit by starting on day one talking about time travelling or astral projection.
But ultimately, you will get to some of those beliefs – as a debate tactic, sure, force them out of their anti-religious hate speech and into what they believe on positive terms. But as academic comment – yes they have a belief set, it isn't all anti-religion.
In fact, their religious ideas rival those of any religious group – this is hardly a group of scientists.
But I'm tired of this author, he can't fully engage the debate, limited as he is, by his own rigid thinking.
Mr Miller,
You say you would be interested to know what "spiritual but not religious" facts are, huh?
Well I'm not religious AT ALL but I do consider myself spiritual based entirely on my constant effort to SIMPLY PRACTICE THE GOLDEN RULE (i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Following the golden rule ensures that I remain ethical and if I'm confident that I'm an ethical individual that's all the "spirituality" I need to sleep well at night without any fear of some distopian afterlife.
"stupid" that's the golden rule, you follow? Deluded much?
Whether you're spiritual, or simply believe in cause and effect as I do, the fact that humans are social creatures makes the golden rule seem like the best "positive alternative" out there.
I still don't buy that the absence of belief in a god is somehow 'faithful devotion'. That brings up a common fallacy, as the burden of proof lies with those who say there is a god, just as it would if someone said there is a Santa Claus. Faith is belief DESPITE the absence of proof. I'm an atheist BECAUSE I observed the absence of proof that there is a god, and don't yet have a reason to consider that there is one in the first place. Simply lacking faith in something is not automatically faith in something else.
you are also an atheist despite the absence f proof that there is no god. you chose a side, neither of which can offer proof. both of which are based on an absence of proof
Not so much choosing a side as it is wondering why the argument happened in the first place due to lack of evidence. As I said, the burden of proof lies with someone who suggests an idea, not with someone who observes no reason for why it should have been suggested.
BTW, I also don't believe in Santa Claus, despite the lack of evidence that there is not one of those either.
Lemmings swarm on a story when it is posted front page.
Wow, congratulations Allan Miller for perpetuating the age-old behavior of arrogantly dismissing everyone's beliefs while imposing your own as self-evident...Just like everyone else has done for years.
So people didn't like this guys first article, so he writes another article about how everyone who disagrees with him, even people he haven't met, all are wrong and all fall into the same category. GOD FORBID he just accept that people have their own thoughts and ideas that are different than his own and he just leave it at that. Or he can bad mouth them in another piece.
And last time I checked, I'm pretty sure the RELIGIOUS people telling me I'm wrong, and I'm going to hell, and I worship Satan, and Gays are immoral, was a lot more negative than myself or anyone non religious people. But I guess this goes along with "The Crusaders were actually killing in the name of peace".
Guile nobody is making you stay.
Well, you also think "being a human is a disease", so please forgive me for not taking your advice.
There is no need for an 'alternative' unless you define religiosity as the default. Many of us simply never 'opted-in' to religion of any sort, and do not define ourselves in relation to religion at all. You do not have to have an alternative laid out, nor define having 'opted-out'. The language is biased toward using negative terms to define 'not religious', but that doesn't mean anyone necesarily of their own beliefs through that particular lens. You just don't think that way, and you don't need to define the way you do think simply because other people think the relgious view is the standard and lump all other views as 'the alternative'.
So, is he saying he didn't believe what he wrote the first time? He didn't refute anything in the follow up or provide more facts to substantiate his first article.
He even claims he isn't religious !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Correct, he is not religious, but he is spiritual.
I check the "Spiritual but not religious" box because I consider myself a deist and a humanist. I do not fall into the "normal" religious categories of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. For those of us whose religious beliefs don't fall into a particular structure (or organized assessment for that matter), where else are we supposed to classify ourselves? And why does this make us lesser people or anything else negative?
Because we don't support the authors views, and since we don't support the authors views, and we are wrong because we didn't pick a specific club. Because religious people like Miller don't seem to understand that WE ALL DON'T THINK LIKE THIS PERSON, AND THATS JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BE OK.
"It is so interesting how so many people now use the thera'peutic language of recovery – "recovering" from organized religion. The group American Atheists describes anguish and toil as the "first step" of "coming out," making the an'alogy with gays coming out the "closet," as though somehow atheists are oppressed today in America."
Are atheists not oppressed? It may not be inst'itutionalized oppression, but it is still oppression. Everywhere we look religious propaganda is forced upon us. We're told that we're waging a war against Christianity (or Christmas, or Easter, etc., etc. – you'd think Christians were the ones being oppressed), though nothing could be farther from the truth. Even if we were, it would be a war of defense, not aggression. Studies show that we atheists are mistrusted as much as rap'ists (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1), though nothing has been done to deserve this.
And yes, religion is a disease. One that the whole of modern society needs to recover from. If you compare historically the amount of good that has been done by religion (charity, scientific advancement, art, etc.) to the amount of harm (war, hate, terror, oppression, etc.) the scales will tip definitively toward the latter. Christopher Hitchens stated that religion is child abuse, and I have no reason to disagree with him. Exposure to religion, especially Christianity, creates an undue burden of mental anguish on a child by making them believe that unless they behave in a certain way they are doomed to eternal torture. At other times, children are raised in an environment of religious extremism leading to intolerance, hate, terror and oppression. Therapy is need to allay the effects of other types of disease and abuse, why not religion?
I agree with you, completely. Also, of note, while campaigning for president, George H.W. Bush said in an interview, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." There is only ONE politician at the national congressional level who identifies himself as an atheist. There are countless instances of discrimination against atheists in jobs, the military, schools, etc. In one particular instance a man, Spc. Jose Ramirez of the U.S. Army, was murdered simply because he did not believe in god.
Atheism is not a religion. Not believing in something for which there is no concrete evidence does not make you religious. It isn't even a good term.
If you don't believe in Santa coming down in a sleigh and giving good christian children toys are you anti-Santaite?
Atheists, by whatever name, are just people searching for answers, but not defaulting those answers to magic sky being like some others do.
Look up the word., You can do anything religiously, brush your teeth, go to bed, etc.
Keith
You are using a different definition of the word "religion".
CNN, rather than actually providing 'our' take on the issue, instead allows this one-sided argument to continue as the original author is allowed to cherry-pick his straw man arguments to further support his position. You had 8,000 other responders out there but instead chose to go with the one that we've already heard from? That's not 'our take' at all, that's just continuing the argument for the sake of page views...
What this author has done is, when he realized he wrote a very negative article the first time around and people didn't like it, he decides to call them out and explain why he thinks they're wrong. Basically it's his way of throwing a temper tantrum, but this is what CNN has been serving us for the last few months. They don't get that we all don't need to think like them.
He just said a whole lotta nothing. Again.
I'm really wondering what the point of these articles is other than to antagonize seemingly everyone. The author claims be not religious, is critical of those who also aren't religious but espouse some personal type of spirituality, and then goes on to criticize some cherry-picked responses to his initial article.
Seems like trolling has gone mainstream during slow news days...
AGAIN, CNN puts out an article where people who are not atheist like to tell others how atheists think. Keep bashing people who aren't religious, CNN, clearly it's working for you.
All the spirits that I have ever encountered have been found in botttles. People who think they are spiritual are probably afraid of admitting that faith is just a congame.
Whoa, whoa, whoa....are you saying you found a genie?
Jake – I won't go the same route and lump all atheists in the same category as you have done with religious/spiritual people, but this is what drives me crazy about the ones that post like this. You complain that religion is being forced upon you and people should be able to freely believe what they will and then you turn around in your condescending tone and make light of their beliefs. It goes both ways, I respect your decision to not believe in a higher being, so why is it so difficult for you to do the same for me?
Alan – As a christian, I understand the importance of gathering regularly, but you we cannot deny the existence of the periods in time when the Bible (and organized religion) used (rather abused) their authority. From the Crusades to modern day hate filled messages, it seems that organized religion (Christianity in particular) preaches tolerance until someone disagrees with you. When they do, you are taught to "pray for that person, but not interact with them or worse." How is that biblical?