I don’t really have anything to add to this. Watch these videos.
(H/T Greta Christina)
I don’t really have anything to add to this. Watch these videos.
(H/T Greta Christina)
You know how when you are talking to someone about religion and they make some comment about how they agree that religion has been a problem, then they follow-up with saying that’s why they aren’t religious. Then you smile, and when they continue to say something like “I just have a personal relationship with Jesus” or “I’m just spiritual” you throw up in your mouth, right?
Why are you looking at me like that? That has never happened to you?
Well, nevermind then…
Here’s the thing; religious institutions are not inherently good or bad. The scandal about the cover-up of child molestation, rape, etc by the Catholic Church is one example of bad, and the civil rights activity of many churches is an example of good. But inherently, religions are not the problem (nor are they a solution, but I’ll let that go for now).
Now, religion includes many things, and not always belief in gods or spiritual things. The community, rituals, traditions, architecture, etc that comes with religions are often good things on a social scale, and I freely recognize this and rarely have an issue with the whole religious institution itself. Hell, even the Catholic Church has some nice things going for it.
But spiritual? That’s another thing altogether. First, what the hell does it mean? I have heard all sorts of rationalizations, fumbling definitions about experiences through meditation, prayer, etc. I know. I’ve had those experiences myself (some of them, anyway). It is supposed to be about direct relationships with gods, spirits, powers, or perhaps magick. But there is no good reason to believe any of it. None of it survives scrutiny. It’s all personal experience and anecdote, just like all paranormal woo-woo out there.
Why, if there is anything to spirituality, hasn’t anyone won James Randi’s million dollars?
So when someone says to me that they are not religious, but they are spiritual, I wince because they are admitting that they are trying to disassociate themselves from religious institutions and claim belief in these silly, nebulous, and vague ideas of spirituality. They are clinging to the part of religion that often is the problem; faith, credulity, and the belief that they are in connection with the powers of the universe. It’s worse when they claim that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but are not religious. I just want to slap the old forehead when I hear that one.
(Yes, I mean my forehead)
The idea seems to be that our personal “spiritual” paths are somehow superior to religious tradition. But spirituality is part of the many religious traditions, people! Those who started new religions, sects, etc were doing similar activities as those who claim they are not religious today. And, of course, only a few of them did so in any significant way. Many others were probably often killed or otherwise socially ostracized due to their heresy.
Example: The Buddha was not following the religion of his time and place, he was seeking his own path and created a new one. His meditation and subsequent ‘enlightenment’ was a personal spiritual exercise outside of the dominant religious tradition, even though it was influenced by it. He might have said, if he were as unaware as many I’m talking about in this piece, that he was spiritual but not religious.
And that’s why Buddhism is not considered to be a religion today.
(My forehead us really starting to hurt)
It just seems that every schmuck out there who is “spiritual but not religious” is thinking of himself (or herself) as some unique person not going with the mainstream.
Just like everyone else.
(ouch! Why is my palm so hard?)
If you are doing spirituality, you are doing religion. If you are doing religion, you are probably doing spirituality, of some sort. Spirituality without religion makes no sense.
I’ll make that simpler.
Spirituality makes no sense. At least religion gives you community. And I’ll bet many of you spiritual-but-not-religious people have your own community somewhere, don’t you?
(Seriously, my forehead is red and sore)
Why do people associate their personal experiences as spiritual experience to be interpreted through their religious community? This may seem like an odd question, but I think it is worthy of consideration. It seems that when people associate their personal experiences–especially when they consider them spiritual experiences–with religious traditions they are in fact doing the exact same thing that people did to create religious doctrines in the first place; establishing human opinions as the will of gods.
What are we talking about here? I’m talking about that little voice we here that tells us when something is wrong. I’m also talking about that sudden and apparently out-of-nowhere idea that motivates us. I’m talking about those moments in prayer, meditation, or possibly while reading something that inspires us (the concept is in the word ‘inspire’) toward understanding. In other words, I’m talking about things that happen to many people every day and are called by many people “spiritual experiences.”
In some cases the experience will demonstrate an idea that may not sit well with the established doctrine of religious communities, even the religious community that said person is a part of. This will often lead to some cognitive dissonance, undesired questions, and possibly conflict. If the situation continues, it might lead to a person looking for a different community that fits better with their own understanding and experience.
But wait, there is something there to consider. If a person can simply look for a congregation that fits their spiritual experiences, doesn’t that imply that somehow their previous congregation was inconsistent with their views?
So, if the experience they had was truly spiritual, as in a revelation from some god, or even if they just think that it seems true (we do tend to think that our ideas are true, which is why we tend to keep them), that must imply that their previous religious institution was in error?
We all have experiences, some similar and some dissimilar, that help make up our worldview. And we find ways to associate these experiences with the greater view of the universe; we will try and plug them into the larger picture of our beliefs. And as this process continues and people find others that agree with their view, communities form with similar worldviews, most who think that their views are somehow the result of communication with divine powers in the universe.
Most Christians will call this the Holy Spirit. Most congregations will tend to think that the interpretation they have of how things like communion, baptism, divorce, the role of faith v. works, etc are superior to other sects. And why? Because the congregation they choose will, in most cases, agree with their experiences.
I should not ignore the fact that being a member of a certain group will tend to color how one will interpret experiences as well. A certain view, whether it be doctrinal or cultural, will tend to give a bias in how we interpret experiences. Thus, there is an interplay going on here between bias informing interpretation and conflicts of interpretation dividing up communities, the details of which are too complex to deal with sufficiently here.
What about conflicts? When someone, whether they are homosexual or not, has some experience that compels them to see being homosexual as being as natural to a person as heterosexuality to another person, what do they do when their religious institution says otherwise? If they join a new church that is gay/lesbian friendly, do they conclude that their previous church was wrong? And if so, what about the previous experiences that they had in association with that institution? Were those other experiences invalid because they do not conflict with that doctrine or was that doctrine somehow accidentally right about that one thing while wrong about others?
How reliable are these subjective experiences that make up the various doctrines of various religions and their sects? Why do we continue to associate our creative powers, experiences, and insights with religion? Why do we think that they are, in fact, spiritual experiences? What are our bases for making this claim?
It is clear that the larger cultural context a person is placed within will color their experiences. It is clear that people create associations with certain kinds of experiences–emotions, inspiration, etc–within their religious community early in life. These associations stick, and as adults most people will continue to associate certain sets of feelings with their church, temple, etc. Thus, the reason why many people think our the every day experiences they have are spiritual seems to be because they were placed in situations that induce these feelings while young while hearing about religious ideas and stories.
But what about non-religious people? How do they deal with these experiences. First of all, non-religious and non-spiritual people have these experiences too. Some, especially those who grew up religious, will still have these emotional associations even though they do not believe in the religious ideas anymore. Others, like myself, simply look at them as a natural part of life, and attach no divine or metaphysical significance to these experiences. As far as I am concerned, I am lacking in nothing as a result of this. as my own personal experiences are deeply meaningful to me.
I challenge others out there to ask themselves, if they associate their personal experience with something spiritual or religious, if this is the only way to look at it?