 |
|
|
|
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 Some commenters accused me of outdated and dangerous dogmatism in sticking up for traditional religion.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
Interesting to me how the author continues to dance right passed some realities. What I find disturbing is that he claims to not be religious while showing some ignorance about what a freethinker or even atheist really is. Yes, there are
The author cannot seem to acknowledge that there are honest (and yes, positive) people who have simply chosen to let go of the super-natural in favor of the natural cosmos. When he quotes the comment on the "faith" and the "devotion" of non-believers, he simply plays into the hand of those who want to make everything about faith. As a freethinker who used to be a Christian Minister, it seems most reasonable to accept that some believe and some do not. Now, what do we do about it? How do we build communities and do what needs to be done? I may be a non-believer but that doesn't mean I am "anti" reasonable collaboration.
I am failing to see how Mr. Miller responded intelligently to any of the BS people called him out on. To boil this down, he simply prefaces his argument with the fact that he isn't religious, but that people still need to be "held accountable" for their religious beliefs. And he seems to think that this can only be accomplished by adhering to dogma.
Then he proceeds to go into some unrelated tangent about religion being conveyed in medical terms (completely unrelated to the more substantive critique of his close-minded) to try and throw us off the scent.
Am I missing something more profound from his statements?
Nope, Snoop I think you're right on track. What I got from his second post is "Awww, I think it's cute how people interpret this information that I've presented" A person can't present such pointed statements, then back off and say "cmon man, I'm totally unbiased. I'm just saying"
Dogma?...
I identify myself as an athiest. My father tried to bring me into his goup; the Born Again Xians, but I never truly believed anything that they did. So what do I believe in then? I do believe in human nature, in human psychology, and in the idea that most people are pretty decent people. I am sort of spiritual, but not in the xian sense of a "spirit" that resides in each of us. I dont think that anyone needs to take a side because I dont think there are any sides to take in the first place. No one on earth can say for sure that there is one god, or no god or anything of that nature. I think the author is just trying to provoke thought but I feel his logic is off. Why must someone take a side? Why must anyone take a stand? That doesnt make somene less of a person nor does it mean that you dont know who you are.
Religion = The Ultimate WMD
Created by hindu Jew's, criminal self centered, deniers of truth absolute, children of hindu Lucifer, filthy self centered by hinduism, corruption of truth absolute to make humanity their gentile, slaves.
I still don't understand what the author is trying to convey here; he seems to be generalizing that if you're "spiritual and not religious" the you are an "atheist"? And a cultural movement of narcissm?..I don't believe the majority of people who you are classifying in your article(s) are turning away from their fellow human beings and religious backgrounds for their own selfish needs. It's about trying a different path–by looking inside yourself and understanding yourself on a deeper level of introspection which in turn shows one how we are very much alike. When you come to this realization then you can empathize with others more than you could ever before and that translates into wanting to help others with service. Of course the end result is you feel good about yourself but it comes from a deeper place within. Good for you if found a few comments that make your argument all the more appealing...but what is the point? Or rather, I think you kind of missed understood some of the points people were trying to make.
Subjective much? Stop trying to effectively debate this issue or even shed light on it. Furthermore, organized religion is evil in my opinion, and yes I am a "recovering" Jehovahs witness. Imagine growing up in an environment where no one talks about anything except not messing up in the eyes of God...and oh yeah, the world is gonna end in a few days so don't invest in anyone or anything...oh yeah, and everyone in the world is inherently evil, so don't associate with them or they will corrupt you. Three meetings a week, two hours per meeting, same rhetoric. So yes, recovery is necessary from a religion that imbeds these dangerouos theories into children or even adults.
Bravo!, Paul.
I know from the experiences of a dear friend just how difficult this is.
Best regards to you.
Paul
I never knew how intense JW's were. Bravo for getting out.
Thank you, Mr Miller, for being willing to engage in a discussion that causes people to think about where they stand on this issue. Although I disagree with your generalizations I believe I can understand how you arrived at them. Too often people use 'spiritual' to mean unwilling, unable, or not interested in committing to an organized religion. I do not belong lumped into the category of fence-sitters, nor do many of the other people who took the time to comment on your opinion. But at the same time it perplexes me everyone is measured against organized religion. It's too narrow a perspective.
I chose years ago to define my spiritual-ness in terms that are positive instead of negative precisely because so much of organized religion is negative. I have studied all of the world's major religions and not a few of the minor ones. I have found many commonalities; but I also found that no one religion is the right fit for me. My path is my own, and I alone am responsible for it. Of all the rights fought and died for in this country, this is my personal favorite (freedom of speech is a close second). Thank you for reminding me that I made the right decision.
@Cupcake
" Too often people use 'spiritual' to mean unwilling, unable, or not interested in committing to an organized religion. "
That's o.k. Not everyone wants or needs to 'belong' to "organized religion."
Peace...
@therealpeace2all,
yes, but the point is that belief should mean more than just "not organized religion". So not organized religion, what then?
Yes, there are many people who embark on this journey and work at it. But there is also a group – a large group in my opinion – who on rejecting organized religion don't pursue it much further and just say they are "spiritual but not religious" (because this is very socially acceptable) without trying to decide what it is they really do believe in. This is the cop out.
I suspect many of these people – who if they really examined why they abandoned organized religion would come to the conclusion (like I did) that they don't believe in God. Many of them don't want to consider this possibilty for the following reasons:
1. Death remains an unknown
2. It's not socially acceptable
3. It doesn't address concepts like reason, art, beauty, etc.
I agreed with the premise of Alan Miller's first article. In this follow-up he is very unclear and fails to take up the gauntlet he throws down in the first piece – that is to "take a stand". He is all over the map in his follow-up. It was written quickly and it shows.
@GOPer
" yes, but the point is that belief should mean more than just "not organized religion". So not organized religion, what then?"
Well, as you, myself and others pointed out... *belief* if other than organized religion can *mean* a full spectrum of beliefs for the individual.
" Yes, there are many people who embark on this journey and work at it. But there is also a group – a large group in my opinion – who on rejecting organized religion don't pursue it much further and just say they are "spiritual but not religious" (because this is very socially acceptable) without trying to decide what it is they really do believe in. This is the cop out."
I would agree in that there are certainly some people that may stop pursuit or exploration. I think where I'm not quite sure where you are coming from is where you are basically saying that they..."should" (is inferred) in your statement, "without trying to decide what it is they really do believe in. This is the cop out."
On one level of an alysis, I would say... so what ? Not everyone "should" necessarily have to go on and try and find out what they 'believe' 'exactly.' My philosophy is to continually seek. But, that's not everyone's, nor do I think that everyone..."should have to" IMHO.
" I suspect many of these people – who if they really examined why they abandoned organized religion would come to the conclusion (like I did) that they don't believe in God. Many of them don't want to consider this possibilty for the following reasons:
1. Death remains an unknown
2. It's not socially acceptable
3. It doesn't address concepts like reason, art, beauty, etc. "
Your hypothesis'... I don't really have any disagreement with you. I'm sure a lot of people are that way.
" I agreed with the premise of Alan Miller's first article. In this follow-up he is very unclear and fails to take up the gauntlet he throws down in the first piece – that is to "take a stand". He is all over the map in his follow-up. It was written quickly and it shows. "
I agree with your assesment. The only thing, again, we may differ a bit on is the need for everyone..."to take a stand."
Regards,
Peace...
@therealpeace2all,
there's nothing wrong with continually seeking.
It's those who stop seeking without meaningful answers, or were never truly seeking that were being challenged here.
@GOPer
" It's those who stop seeking without meaningful answers, or were never truly seeking that were being challenged here. "
O.K., I understand what you are saying. And... still it may be just fine for someone to stop seeking, without meaningful answers, and have that person live a happy, healthy, productive, fulfilled, etc... life, right ?
Peace...
@therealpeace2all,
I think it's about being intellectually honest with others and yourself. It's a cop out to claim you've found your own 'answer' when you really haven't.
You said: "still it may be just fine for someone to stop seeking, without meaningful answers, and have that person live a happy, healthy, productive, fulfilled, etc... life, right?"
Healthy, productive – certainly; even happy with the right relationships.
If you stop seeking without meaningful answers can you be fulfilled?
This is meant as an open-ended question, but it is not rhetorical. By definition, no one can *know* all the answers, but clearly contentment can be reached with a set of beliefs (or non-beliefs).
I guess it depends on how important belief (or non-belief) is to your comprehension of existence. Presumably this is different for different people. Is it OK to be shallow?
@GOPer
You Wrote: " I think it's about being intellectually honest with others and yourself. It's a cop out to claim you've found your own 'answer' when you really haven't. "
If someone is alright with not having the answer or thinks they have an answer that suits them, I guess I don't really feel the need for them to be..."intellectually honest with themselves" nor with me, in the context of what we are talking about here.
You Wrote: " If you stop seeking without meaningful answers can you be fulfilled?
This is meant as an open-ended question, but it is not rhetorical. By definition, no one can *know* all the answers, but clearly contentment can be reached with a set of beliefs (or non-beliefs). "
Well, 'fulfilled' is what we call in linguistics a 'nominalization' or 'fluffy' word. It is an intangible, and will *mean* different things to different people. So... some would say they are most certainly fulfilled, and... not seeking 'meaningful answers' anymore.
Peace...
It seems that the author of the blog has neglected the fact that most of the religions across the world are based on scriptures which were written by human beings and not by God. Humans created God....so far as I know there are no evidence that suggest otherwise. So if the religious belief system is based on some path created by human so is the new generation spiritual concept.....the difference is the new conceptual path is created by individuals who can think and come to their own conclusions. The new concept is not based on profit-loss system.....so where is the harm??
Not even sure why anyone would bother to argue with this author. Obviously he has the whole universe figured out and knows better than the rest of us. Or he is just an idiot.
I think its both....
The author continues to miss the point. And his philosophical gymnastics only further degrade his argument. This follow-up to his original piece only makes more true my comment to that first piece: his commentary does more to support the "spiritual but not religious" point of view than it does his own.
Belief in religion is the cop out, spirituality, if that means a sense of profound awe at the sheer majesty and wonder of our universe, is something innate in all of us, we can all agree on that. Belief in god(s) is an act of moral and intellectual cowardice.
That's ok, Alan Miller... Even though you have no grasp of why I walk the path I do or what it entails, I will make the conscious choice not to regard you as an idiot just because your opinion differs from mine. I understand that you have seen and experienced certain things in your life, and that these experiences have shaped your perception of the world and your concept of what is true. It's only a shame that you have become so rigid in your notions that you are no longer flexible enough to accept new evidence that may lead you to a different conclusion.
As for me, I will continue being that thing which you hate so much–spiritual.
"as though somehow atheists are oppressed today in America." Sir, Atheists ARE oppressed in America. There are MANY examples, including polls that suggest that Atheists are more 'hated' in American than ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC. Atheists live in the US, in a Christian society, among all the other religions that think we are crazy. We have to see gigantic crosses on public land, are immediately demonized when we advertise (see American Atheists billboards being vandalized, and protested against), and even though we are a larger demographic in the USA than Jews, we are consistently marginalized and dismissed as 'crackpots'. Accusing Atheism of being a religion is also wrong. Most Atheists do not go to 'Atheist church', we do not typically meet up for support groups, nor do we have rituals. Those are the tenets of a religion. Non belief and non action does not mean we put 'faith' in anything. The scientific method is a method that determines facts (which you may call 'truths', but that is a misnomer) in order to gain knowledge and understanding of our world and universe, and the scientific method SPECIFICALLY is 'anti-faith', meaning that you need EVIDENCE, EXPERIMENTS, and RESULTS in order to deem something true or false. Many religious people seem adamant on challenging science as an article of faith. It simply is not.
This entire article, and response to it is silly. You posit the idea that absence of god, or 'light spirituality' is somehow damaging. If it is, it is but a teeny little scratch. I am unaware of anyone who has been so 'pro-science' that they bomb clinics, churches, or what have you in order to get their point across. There are no 'terrorist atheists' out there, no zealot humanists, and to assert that non-religion and/or light spirituality is in any way harming anyone is incredibly naive. Don't take my word for it though.
No they are not, only atheist oppressed are hindu atheist criminal self centered having opted to commit hindu atheist ism criminal self center ism to commit hinduism, crime against other's and they are found in Jail's.
Ask the gubmint god for a special slot to be included in Affirmative Action for atheists. You are inclusive?
There's a simple answer to "spiritual but not religious", and this is born out generally in eastern philosophies (Hinduism comes to mind)– the idea that you can marry scientific fact with some a priori reverence for life/living things. It doesn't matter what custom you do to prove the relevance of that fact (is it tied to a higher power? a sacrifice? a prophet? an energy force? simply a moral truth?) - it's just simply a unifying part of virtually all moral systems.
In other words, most people, "religious", "spiritual", atheist or agnostic would save a sentient or semi-sentient organism over an inanimate object, should both be in simultaneous harm's way. The reason why they each would do that and thusly elevate life over non-life is a basic underpinning of all philosophies. "Spiritual, but not religious" is, in effect, a philosophy that often strips away all of the customs of religiosity while simultaneously acknowledging that the notion that life is better and more worthy of saving than non-life is a matter of faith (which atheists would explain in a more utilitarian way).
It's actually not that hard to understand, and has nothing to do with a culture of narcissism, or whatever the author is suggesting.
Please correct, hindu's pagans do not believe in spirit, truth but soul, desire by hindu ignorant faith, called hinduism, denial of truth absolute. Only a hindu, criminal can call denial of truth as some thing of holy nature. Please visit limitisthetruth.com to learn more.
To me, "spiritual but not religious" sounds like "I'm as afraid of the unknown as the next guy, but I'm not going to commit to a belief system." Perhaps it means something else to those who espouse it, but it sounds like ignorant indifference to me.
I'm an atheist, but not one of the so-called "new atheists"; I believe nothing supernatural exists, but at the same time, I remain open to the possibility that I may be wrong. Absolute denial and absolute faith are the same thing: they close the door to possibility, and to discussion. Show me compelling evidence of the existence of the supernatural, and I'll consider it. Until then, I will stick with the compelling evidence of science. The universe around us is wondrous enough as it is without us adding magic into it.
Let me add before it's pointed out to me: the Bible is no more compelling evidence for the existence of the supernatural than "The Lord of the Rings" is compelling evidence for the existence of orcs, trolls, and hobbits.
here are some of my general impressions of how people here view one another's views.
The impression is that
Atheists think: There is no god but NO god.
Agnostics: There is no god? I don't care. There is a god? I still don't care.
Belibers: Dude! He threw up and kept going! Our Bebier reigns!
Mormons: There is a God. There are three of them, and I'm gonna, kinda sorta be one too someday. ish.
Christians: There is One God. He loves us and that means we can hate you for not loving Him.
Muslims: Pretty much the same as Christians except we think their guy is only a prophet like our guy.
Siritual/non-religious: Religion is for hypocrits. The only wars that are ever fought are religious. I wish I had fought in WWII just to show them all how dumb it is to fight. Peace man. I'm a good person so I can believe what ever I want to believe and don't need to be taught anything by anyone.
Religious/non-spiritual: I believe but I dont actually act like I believe.
You missed, Religions are hinduism, corruption of truth absolute by hindu Jew's, criminal secular s.
There have been more individuals killed in wars under secular regimes in the 20th century (think Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot) than non-secular ones. The idea that wars are caused solely by religion is false.
yeah. i know N. The goal was to point out the irony that each of these religions/beliefs often displays.
@N,
you messed this up badly: "killed in wars under secular regimes in the 20th century (think Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot),"
Arguably Pol Pot's was a civil wars under secular regimes. The vast majority of 20th century deaths by communism were the result of famine caused by gross incompetence and negligence. Most of the Soviet excess deaths in the 20th century occured in the second world war. If you recall, they were on our side.
Notwithstanding that, I agree with the premise that not all wars are religious.
@Advin,
Atheists don't believe in God.
This is semantically quite different to: "Atheists think: There is no god but NO god"
N – considering the use of modern weaponry and contemporary populations, that is not much of a statement.
"The vast majority of 20th century deaths by communism were the result of famine caused by gross incompetence and negligence."
The vast majority of 20th century deaths by communism were the result of the state having no use for these people. FTFY
I'm neither religious or spiritual.. Just follow a simple rule:
Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.
If there's a big guy(or gal) upstairs, hopefully, he'll forgive me for having doubts he/she exists, and knows that I left his/her house in better shape then when I found it (actually, that's my mother's rule)
I am someone who defines myself as "spiritual but not religious". I choose to purposefully separate my belief in God from the hypocrisy, misogyny and corruption that has traditionally shrouded organized religion. I believe in a higher power but do not condone the way it has been used by the Church to manipulate, enslave and suppress. To me religion = church, Spirituality = personal faith in God.
You are frustrated and gone coco by watching hinduism, absurdity of hinduism corruption of truth absolute, called religions.
The author is iinterested to know what “spiritual but not religious" facts are.
What about:
* the fact that these people dont fly planes into buildings or commit violence when offended? (vs islam)
* the fact that these people are not forced to go door to door trying to sell their ideas. (vs jehovah's witness)
* the fact that these people dont see contraceptives as abortion. (vs catholicism)
* the fact that these people dont promote ethnic superiority (vs judaism)
yes "spiritual but not religious" has no explicit positive expositions. but the good thing is that it has no negative exposition either.
the author's problem is his choice to see it negatively when in fact it is but a NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVE.
Wow, do you truly believe these things? You know when the American Medical Association releases information on a new drug and says something like "May cause stroke. In studies, .X percent of participants suffered serious side effects" that you're still probably ok to take it & the FDA passes it, right? Now when a similar percentage of Muslims behave badly you're ready to throw the whole lot of them off the bus? Your statements about these religious groups are just way removed from reality here Ron.
* the fact that Hitler was spiritual but not religious.
@Avdin
Good grief... "Godwin's Law" already on this thread ?
And... your example is highly debatable.
Peace...
Again, many deadly dictators were agnostic or even atheists. There's no one philosophy that will cause irrational behavior to ceases - each person has a propensity to do good or evil and that's a choice.
Well peace it is no more debatable than ron's examples. Especially the one about Jews. I am not Jewish but i find the idea highly offensive that someone actually beieves that the Jews believe they are a superior race. While they believe they are chosen for a purpose they do not believe they are in anyway superior. Historically it has been the other way around. The Slavs, the Arians, the Arabs all viewed (and in some cases still do) themselves as racially superior to the Jews and spread hate towards them.
David, you want reality? look at saudi arabia. Thats an entire nation that oppresses women.
Reality is that major religions all have NEGATIVE expositions in them.
@Avdin
Hi -Avdin...
" Well peace it is no more debatable than ron's examples. Especially the one about Jews. "
I'm not commenting on -ron's examples, nor necessarily agree with him. Was just pointing out 1)Godwin's Law sprouted pretty *quickly* on this thread by your comment. 2)Hitler as 'spiritual' vs. 'religious' is debatable.
Peace...
discussion thread?
@ron
Hi -ron...
Yes, your response to -Avdin was posted under the wrong discussion thread. You hit 'reply' to the wrong person.
So... I have reposted your comment under the 'right' discussion thread.
If I'm wrong... my apologies.
Peace...
------------------------------------------–
@ron
Avdin, hitler was a catholic who was raised in an environment that hated jews. thanks to religion.
Tax the indians!
Avdin, hitler was a catholic who was raised in an environment that hated jews. thanks to religion.
@ron
You might want to post this response... I discussion thread up ?
Peace...
*one* discussion thread up ?
Peace...