 |
|
|
|
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 Some commenters accused me of outdated and dangerous dogmatism in sticking up for traditional religion.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
Test
My central objection to Miller's characterization of non-religious spirituality as a cop-out rests with the observation that such meditative and "experimental" pursuits of understanding offer perhaps the only modern pathway to fresh, or even novel, insights into the human condition.
If tomorrow, a guy name Yeshiva were to announce to the world that he has written a book that was devinely inspired and is the true word of God...everyone would label him a kook. Yet, we so easily believe that books that were written centuries ago, are somehow so inspired.
Let's call a spade a spade, the bible and koran are just like other great literary works, a little bit of fact mixed with a whole lot of embellishment and drama. We are fools if we live by them.
Unless of course he miraculously raises people from the dead, heals people, changes the weather, transforms in front of us, changes water into wine and ultimately comes back from the dead.
Well said, Susie.
Proverbs 3:5-7
@Susie – when that day arrives, I expect to see squadrons of pigs flying. For more than half a century now, I have extolled those wanting to force feed me their belief system to just PROVE IT without using the terms "faith" or "bible" ... by definition, the supernatural cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. The probelm with that approach is that if you don't believe, you'll never have the required faith. In my mind's eye, it is irrational and illogical. And I agree with a previous poster: quotes from the Bible canot be used to validate the Bible – the book cannot prove itself.
In the first article Miller's main point seemed to be that people can't be good to each other without religion to guide us. There are two problems with this: 1. People are mostly good. For the most part, we do know right from wrong and how to be kind to each other. Yes, even people who grew up without religion. 2. For those of us that are aware of a higher being or feel some sense of guidance in the world but are unwilling to definitively day, "It is (God, Buddha, Allah, etc.) that guides me," guess what – religion doesn't want us either. And it works out okay. The people of the world will continue on being kind to each other and doing the right thing, with or without religion in their lives, and Miller will continue to write articles about problems that don't exist. That's the beauty of free will!
I think your confusion originates in the idea that people are mostly good. In the US, in middle class neighborhoods, people are mostly good due to the long history of religious influence on our culture. Go hang out with a different group or go to parts of Africa that have little organized religious influence. The norm is to ra pe women and make children into soldiers.
Most all religion is inherited; that's to say if you don't rear up a child to believe in God or whatever you thing to be correct, then they won't believe in Him. They won't suddenly "get the picture" or see the light" -once they're grown, indeed once they start school, their worldview will be a hodgepodge of their own and other's ideas and thoughts. Occaisionally, a person will have a moment of clarity, of introspection, of re-birth or whatever you want to call it, and realize there IS a God, and that they have been wrong all along. People DON'T have moments like these and realize that there's NOT a God. ON TOP OF ALL THIS, people generally like to "believe" in whatever makes them comfortable for the moment-not being overtly evil, hurtful, deceitful etc. People don't spontaneously decide to believe in a religion where, if they're not doing service for their fellow man every free moment, feeding the poor, working in homeless shelters etc, and doing NOTHING for themselves in their free time, that they're going to burn in Hell forever. This is a religious stance that has to be handed down personally.
Romans 10:14-15
That's why we are commanded to talk about Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Just wanted to comment on your remark toward the end:
works does not lead to salvation.
"as though somehow atheists are oppressed today in America."
This statement alone says you don't know as much about atheists as you claim.
AS THOUGH?
How many hold public office?
Judging by their behavior, most of them!
You're actually doubling down on this bulls**t???
Better to say, I'm a caring person, but not religious
Do, Dave; you are a caring person, but you don't care about God?
maybe you could just not say anything at all?
smile, look at the sky, look back, and ask them a question about themselves, think, why are they asking?
change the subject – it is none of their business.
tell 'them' your religion is Noneya – it is the latest politically correct religion to belong to.
the grand noneya god of the east and west, north and south – the universal god.
oh hell ye grand noneya of all that exist.
save us from these persecuting lips and non-profits and governments and the war-lord one percent and their puppets.
apeople
I am spiritual not religious for a reason just be glad that I believe in a higher being.......
I think that we're changing as a society and parents of today do not push religion like our grandparents did in the 50's and 60's.
I have been to church and grown up at summer church camps and it shaped how I felt about religion today, I don't believe that one person (God) will strike you down at the end of days because you don't praise him if he does than that's no god I want to warship, I definitely don't want to warship out of fear. I think people are opening their minds and finding their own common ground on how they feel on the issue.... Don't lye, cheat, steal, treat others like you'd like to be treated ect don't need a bible to tell me what is right or wrong we as human beings know what is right and wrong....
You can't expect a human race that has been following the "word of god" for 2000 years to not be confused once we have a better understanding of the world and change views that 200 years ago would have been unheard of.
Just think did our ancestors go to hell for not believing in god? think not...
What ever your opinion if it's right for you it's right for you but religion is not for everyone...
Spiritual but not religious is FAR superior to religious but not spiritual. Examples
The Catholic church responsible for the annihilation of entire nations of peoples in S. America...Religious but not spiritual
The Inquisitions...Religious but not spiritual
Sweat (read: Slave) Shops for unwed mothers in Europe...Religious but not spiritual
The taking of native children from reservations in the Americas to "inculcate" them into white society Religious, not spiritual
Pope Pius XII blessing of the Nazi war machine...Religious, not spiritual
The Southern Baptist Church' involvement with the KKK and lynchings in the southern US...Religious, not spiritual
The Catholic Churches' decades of protection for pedophile priests...Religious, not spiritual
The murder of Jesus Christ for speaking out about the corruption of religious leaders...Religious but not spiritual
Every terrorist act perpetrated by the IRA, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hizballah, Lehi, Keshet...Religious, not spiritual
The Church of England claiming that native Africans "Have no souls" in order to justify slavery...Religious, not spiritual
Every clergyman who claims to be Christian, but runs for public office...Religious, not spiritual
Every church that claims to be "Christian", but dabbles in the affairs of government...Religious, not spiritual (John 18:36, Mark 12:17)
Alan Miller, you are so far off base you cannot even see the ballpark. Your "take" ignores the corruption, hypocrisy and murder that has gone hand-in-hand with organized religion since it's inception. They have been lying about God and what the bible truly says to enrich their own coffers and control the people. Cop out? Give me spiritual ANY day.
Bravo Don! Using facts to fight opinion. Now that's a new concept we should all embrace!
I would love to see your proof that the Catholic Church and not the Spanish Govt was responsible for the destruction of civilizations in South America. As you can see now, govts and people do not always follow what the church teaches. If so there would hav been 50 million less abortions in the US.
Very well stated. Hopefully the cognitive dissonance facts cause in the credulous and willingly ignorant will help them to start thinking, but I am not holding my breath. Superstïtion is strongly ingrained in a surprisingly high number of people.
I don't know what issue to address first but ile start with the excuse people use as of "coming out of religion." could it be that the way you were raised by the church or parents were not teaching you the bible correctly? there are many unorthodox denominations out there (cults) who misinterpret the bible to support their own agenda. I would feel relieved also leaving a church who teaches you must do this that this that and this. F.y.i I'm a calvinist who believes in the doctrine of grace. When I hated god and was a sinner he called me then I called him. He loved me first. Now I love others and forgive and repent of my old ways because I acknowledgethis revelation. Even when I screw up god is there still there to forgive me when I repent. I drink beer occasionally, watch football, and go to work and pay taxes and read my bible. Being a christian is liberating when you understand the doctrine of grace (5 point Calvinism)
Spiritual to me means i belive in God. but go to a church of your choice i have a hard time with churches. but man can't leave things alone. there are ten commanments. rules we can use to have a better life. we allso have free will a God given thing allso.to many people try to read the whole bible and understand all of it . when all you really have to do is try to live by the ten commanments pretty simple but man allways likes to stick his nose into things . the free will was given to us so we could test the commanments and learn from are mistakes. there agin to simple for the human mind
As a minister who is ordained by 3 different church denominations (one since my late teens, I am 50), I see nothing wrong, at all, with seeking God personally...and not depending on another human to tell me what I should believe and how I should believe it! I have no problem with churches, per se, but....just like any human organization, when it becomes too big and too bloated (just like our political masters), it is dangerous. Dangerous, how, you are asking? In the sense that our PERSONAL walk with God becomes too reliant on another PERSON (e.g. the minister) and not on the Almighty! We do not "go to church" on Sunday...we MEET with the church body! A church is not a building or an organization, it is people! The Bible clearly states that "where 2 or more are gathered in my name, I will be with them there"! Religion is mans attempt to make himself acceptable to God...Spirituality is simply God saying "I am here...you don't have to do anything"!
I think that someone else's spiritualism–or lack of it–is none of your business.
Alan Miller's writing just went from horribly condescending to... I don't know, what do you call the next worst step? He hasn't reached demonizing his adversaries just yet.
In my humble opinion, religion was to be a guide to act in a civilized manner towards each other and living things and the earth. The basic rituals were helpful in congregating together to honor our creator as well as the positive things in our lives that help us survive, etc. It set rules for a society to govern itself not in a barbarian way but civilized and balanced. It has many centuries over been misused as a form of control, power, money, deception, oppression, politics, etc,.etc,.etc. Any person may freely believe what they wish as the power of the creator is within us all. However many religions and countries in our current world believe otherwise and either already dominate and oppress or are sure trying to but mostly christianity and islam and in fact they seem to wish to fight to the death over such things which in fact is a danger to us all. It is still a choice (how to believe) however but at your own risk in some places. A shame really as I doubt seriously the true creator of all things ever wished for such things.
Be careful what you assume about religion in history. Early religions actually had little to say about how human relations. They focused on how people should relate to the gods. Hinduism and Judaism began the pivot toward also focusing on how people should relate to one another. Religion has not always been a force for good.
Organized religion is dangerous to people and other living things.
The first thing a self appointed holy man wants to do is control your body, bedroom and life.
Given the power they will kill you to save your soul. Thanks but no thanks.
Organized religion is a joke. Just because one person has a highly subjective experience of the divine by standing on his head, doesn't mean YOU will have an experience of the divine by standing on YOUR head. Religion is not divine. It is a means to the divine if it works for you. Don't confuse the vehicle with the destination.
To me being spiritual means seeking my own unique path to the divine/understanding of the great mysreries of life. Doing my own legwork. Accepting a religion because your family has always done so, is pure laziness.
I whole-heartedly agree with you. Just be careful. Satan does not come to you with horns and a pitch fork. He comes as an angel of light. That's what he used to be, and he is very cunning. This is where we need "guard rails" if you will. Albeit, there is plenty of discernment required there too!
Well, that certainly hurts your chances then, blind as a bat and twice as dumb.
@TTPS.
You want to talk about dumb??? You haven't even figured out yet that you prove all of your adversaries' points whenever you speak/type????
Why are you so angry, anyway???????
Do tell. Is that why you're so compelled to use multiple exclamation points and question marks? Because I'M the one whose statements are challenged?
When you stop being an idiot, alert the media, you fvcktard.
@TTPS
If you ever showed any desire to actually correspond with anybody on this site, I might actually try to educate you. But, obviously that is not the case...
You pompous gasbag. You aren't equipped to educate anyone; you're a brain-dead azzwipe who never had an education that consisted of anything but religious indoctrination. Your knowledge has all the value of 3-day-old tripe and you stink of stupidity.
Still blind but THINKS he sees – You continue to perpetuate every stereotype of believers yourself. You assign all sorts of powers and cunning to 'Satan,' but neglect that Satan is as much a fantasy as god is.
How do you know this, Mr Evil? Where is your evidence for that which you propound with such verasity????
I suspect the real reason that supporters of traditional religion disapprove of "spiritual but not religious" is that fewer butts in the pews mean fewer bucks in the collection plate.
"And in that day seven women (churches/religions) shall take hold of one man (Jesus), saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."
Isaiah 4:1 KJV
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you want Him to take away your reproach, then you have to honor Him and Him alone!
Agree. Him and not some self appointed holy man.
When a person claims to speak to and for God you should grab your wallet, your family and run.
@PaulC "When a person claims to speak to and for God you should grab your wallet, your family and run."
They may or may not have this relationship with God, but you can have it for yourself too. Amen.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
-1 Timothy 2:5
in another statement 'blind ...' you quote scripture that says that satan appears as an angel of light, then you call the man Jesus Christ – Christ Jesus. Are you trying to imply something here ... what bible do you get these quotes from?
i can see why people need examples of people who may be an example of the spiritual with whom to identify as someone to model their lives on to become closer to god. so you have a man who is said to sacrifice himself for everyone (suicidal), heal people (therefore faith healers), walk on water (therefore people who try to learn levitation and more about telsa like tech), ummm ... things that Islams prophet did or didn't do (i don't know – not islam), that make people do some rather frowned on activity in parts of the world – even though illegal in most of the world by all accounts, etc. ....
I mean – this is understandable – many people need role models ...
Was blind and remains stupid has posted much and made little sense. That's not much of a surprise, considering the source is a complete and utter moron.
An amoeba has more sense.
@why
in another statement 'blind ...' you quote scripture that says that satan appears as an angel of light, then you call the man Jesus Christ – Christ Jesus. Are you trying to imply something here ... what bible do you get these quotes from?
Lucifer = Light Bearer (his former office) (see Strongs Concordance H1966) heylel
Satan = Adversary/Accuseer (his current office) (see Strongs Concordance H7854)
Christ = Annointed One / Mesiah (see Strongs Concordance G5547)
Jesus = Yeshua/Jehovah is salvation (see Strongs Concordance G2424)
H means from the original Hebrew manuscripts
G means from the original Greek manuscripts
was blind and is still stupid thinks he's James Bond.
Good night, TTPS. Sleep tight. Hope you feel better in the morning...
I'll feel fine in the morning, just as I do right now, but you'll still be as dumb as a bag of hammers and less attractive and useful than a bag of dead kittens, you moronic fvckwit.
If your history demonstrated any of the things that you espouse, well, never mind. You have no desire to actually communicate with anybody here. See you in the Millenium. Perhaps you will listen then???????
The reason some people are resentful of Christianity in this country is because there is a widely-held belief among Christians that they are "under attack." That other forces are trying to co-opt their "Christian nation." I, however was taught that America was a free nation. Can a "Christian nation" ever truly be a free nation? Can any free nation have a national religion? I find the two terms mutually exclusive, as by setting a national religion, you disenfranchise every other.