Im spiritual but not religious (the young are less religious
JonnyPistachio
Florida Posts: 10,219
This CNN article was interesting:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/2 ... ?hpt=hp_c2
By Alan Miller, Special to CNN
The increasingly common refrain that "I'm spiritual, but not religious," represents some of the most retrogressive aspects of contemporary society. The spiritual but not religious "movement" - an inappropriate term as that would suggest some collective, organizational aspect - highlights the implosion of belief that has struck at the heart of Western society.
Spiritual but not religious people are especially prevalent in the younger population in the United States, although a recent study has argued that it is not so much that people have stopped believing in God, but rather have drifted from formal institutions.
It seems that just being a part of a religious institution is nowadays associated negatively, with everything from the Religious Right to child abuse, back to the Crusades and of course with terrorism today.
Those in the spiritual-but-not-religious camp are peddling the notion that by being independent - by choosing an "individual relationship" to some concept of "higher power", energy, oneness or something-or-other - they are in a deeper, more profound relationship than one that is coerced via a large institution like a church.
That attitude fits with the message we are receiving more and more that "feeling" something somehow is more pure and perhaps, more "true” than having to fit in with the doctrine, practices, rules and observations of a formal institution that are handed down to us.
The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.
What is it, this "spiritual" identity as such? What is practiced? What is believed?
The accusation is often leveled that such questions betray a rigidity of outlook, all a tad doctrinaire and rather old-fashioned.
But when the contemporary fashion is for an abundance of relativist "truths" and what appears to be in the ascendancy is how one "feels" and even governments aim to have a "happiness agenda," desperate to fill a gap at the heart of civic society, then being old-fashioned may not be such a terrible accusation.
It is within the context of today's anti-big, anti-discipline, anti-challenging climate - in combination with a therapeutic turn in which everything can be resolved through addressing my inner existential being - that the spiritual but not religious outlook has flourished.
The boom in megachurches merely reflect this sidelining of serious religious study for networking, drop-in centers and positive feelings.
Those that identify themselves, in our multi-cultural, hyphenated-American world often go for a smorgasbord of pick-and-mix choices.
A bit of Yoga here, a Zen idea there, a quote from Taoism and a Kabbalah class, a bit of Sufism and maybe some Feing Shui but not generally a reading and appreciation of The Bhagavad Gita, the Karma Sutra or the Qur'an, let alone The Old or New Testament.
So what, one may ask?
Christianity has been interwoven and seminal in Western history and culture. As Harold Bloom pointed out in his book on the King James Bible, everything from the visual arts, to Bach and our canon of literature generally would not be possible without this enormously important work.
Indeed, it was through the desire to know and read the Bible that reading became a reality for the masses - an entirely radical moment that had enormous consequences for humanity.
Moreover, the spiritual but not religious reflect the "me" generation of self-obsessed, truth-is-whatever-you-feel-it-to-be thinking, where big, historic, demanding institutions that have expectations about behavior, attitudes and observance and rules are jettisoned yet nothing positive is put in replacement.
The idea of sin has always been accompanied by the sense of what one could do to improve oneself and impact the world.
Yet the spiritual-but-not-religious outlook sees the human as one that simply wants to experience "nice things" and "feel better." There is little of transformation here and nothing that points to any kind of project that can inspire or transform us.
At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position. Influenced by the contribution of modern science, there is a reluctance to advocate a literalist translation of the world.
But these people will not abandon their affiliation to the sense that there is "something out there," so they do not go along with a rationalist and materialistic explanation of the world, in which humans are responsible to themselves and one another for their actions - and for the future.
Theirs is a world of fence-sitting, not-knowingess, but not-trying-ness either. Take a stand, I say. Which one is it? A belief in God and Scripture or a commitment to the Enlightenment ideal of human-based knowledge, reason and action? Being spiritual but not religious avoids having to think too hard about having to decide.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/2 ... ?hpt=hp_c2
By Alan Miller, Special to CNN
The increasingly common refrain that "I'm spiritual, but not religious," represents some of the most retrogressive aspects of contemporary society. The spiritual but not religious "movement" - an inappropriate term as that would suggest some collective, organizational aspect - highlights the implosion of belief that has struck at the heart of Western society.
Spiritual but not religious people are especially prevalent in the younger population in the United States, although a recent study has argued that it is not so much that people have stopped believing in God, but rather have drifted from formal institutions.
It seems that just being a part of a religious institution is nowadays associated negatively, with everything from the Religious Right to child abuse, back to the Crusades and of course with terrorism today.
Those in the spiritual-but-not-religious camp are peddling the notion that by being independent - by choosing an "individual relationship" to some concept of "higher power", energy, oneness or something-or-other - they are in a deeper, more profound relationship than one that is coerced via a large institution like a church.
That attitude fits with the message we are receiving more and more that "feeling" something somehow is more pure and perhaps, more "true” than having to fit in with the doctrine, practices, rules and observations of a formal institution that are handed down to us.
The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.
What is it, this "spiritual" identity as such? What is practiced? What is believed?
The accusation is often leveled that such questions betray a rigidity of outlook, all a tad doctrinaire and rather old-fashioned.
But when the contemporary fashion is for an abundance of relativist "truths" and what appears to be in the ascendancy is how one "feels" and even governments aim to have a "happiness agenda," desperate to fill a gap at the heart of civic society, then being old-fashioned may not be such a terrible accusation.
It is within the context of today's anti-big, anti-discipline, anti-challenging climate - in combination with a therapeutic turn in which everything can be resolved through addressing my inner existential being - that the spiritual but not religious outlook has flourished.
The boom in megachurches merely reflect this sidelining of serious religious study for networking, drop-in centers and positive feelings.
Those that identify themselves, in our multi-cultural, hyphenated-American world often go for a smorgasbord of pick-and-mix choices.
A bit of Yoga here, a Zen idea there, a quote from Taoism and a Kabbalah class, a bit of Sufism and maybe some Feing Shui but not generally a reading and appreciation of The Bhagavad Gita, the Karma Sutra or the Qur'an, let alone The Old or New Testament.
So what, one may ask?
Christianity has been interwoven and seminal in Western history and culture. As Harold Bloom pointed out in his book on the King James Bible, everything from the visual arts, to Bach and our canon of literature generally would not be possible without this enormously important work.
Indeed, it was through the desire to know and read the Bible that reading became a reality for the masses - an entirely radical moment that had enormous consequences for humanity.
Moreover, the spiritual but not religious reflect the "me" generation of self-obsessed, truth-is-whatever-you-feel-it-to-be thinking, where big, historic, demanding institutions that have expectations about behavior, attitudes and observance and rules are jettisoned yet nothing positive is put in replacement.
The idea of sin has always been accompanied by the sense of what one could do to improve oneself and impact the world.
Yet the spiritual-but-not-religious outlook sees the human as one that simply wants to experience "nice things" and "feel better." There is little of transformation here and nothing that points to any kind of project that can inspire or transform us.
At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position. Influenced by the contribution of modern science, there is a reluctance to advocate a literalist translation of the world.
But these people will not abandon their affiliation to the sense that there is "something out there," so they do not go along with a rationalist and materialistic explanation of the world, in which humans are responsible to themselves and one another for their actions - and for the future.
Theirs is a world of fence-sitting, not-knowingess, but not-trying-ness either. Take a stand, I say. Which one is it? A belief in God and Scripture or a commitment to the Enlightenment ideal of human-based knowledge, reason and action? Being spiritual but not religious avoids having to think too hard about having to decide.
Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Am ... nials.aspx
Yet in other ways, Millennials remain fairly traditional in their religious beliefs and practices. Pew Research Center surveys show, for instance, that young adults' beliefs about life after death and the existence of heaven, hell and miracles closely resemble the beliefs of older people today. Though young adults pray less often than their elders do today, the number of young adults who say they pray every day rivals the portion of young people who said the same in prior decades. And though belief in God is lower among young adults than among older adults, Millennials say they believe in God with absolute certainty at rates similar to those seen among Gen Xers a decade ago. This suggests that some of the religious differences between younger and older Americans today are not entirely generational but result in part from people's tendency to place greater emphasis on religion as they age.
That said, I too could be considered a fence-sitter in my agnosticism. I do believe there's something, or somethingS, much greater than myself in this world, but...I just don't KNOW.
I too want to experience "nice things" but know that shit don't come easy or without a price of sorts, and I'm ultimately responsible for my own (sense of) happiness. But WHY do I have to take a stand? For whose benefit? How do my views affect the life of the writer of the article, or anyone else for that matter?
The last paragraph of the article is pretty judgmental. It's a process, for most, and a lifelong one at that - I won't be rushed, dammit!
And nothing wrong with being 'on the fence'. Questioning. Seeking. Much better than the 'I know' when there is no certain knowledge.
I can understand why more and more people are rejecting organised religion(s) and their dictates. But then what is religion? It's just a set of beliefs, isn't it? With some practices? So, if one is 'spiritual' and maybe says a prayer or two or works with the homeless because that's what they believe they need to do, are they not establishing themselves in a 'religion'? OK.. so one can argue my examples, but they were just that a couple of examples - there are loads like this....
Interesting piece but some bits quite harsh!
As for fence sitting... I'll sit in the fence as long as neither side provides me with the answers. When that day arrives... then, maybe... I'll hop onto their side of the fence. Like Hedonist said, the ones on the fence are the ones who actually admit the truth that we just don't know... at this time... in this space.
Hail, Hail!!!
Funny... me too.
Don't get me wrong, I've been to Notre Dame and the great chusrches of England and France and they are breath takingly beautiful structures... but, I'll take the sand pews at the Pacific beach at Sunset or the calm pulpit of a quiet Alpine lake in the Sierras to talk to my God.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah me too i've been to the vatican and yes it's breath taking but where i find the total spiritual world is by the Sea or on top of a mountain or a deep green forest i can even yell at my god
As information becomes less controlled,the young will continue to receive alternative viewpoints to those of their parents and community. As such religions will continue to decline and their archaic beleifs will slowly fade away. Religious leaders will continue to evolve their message to maintane relevance but won't be able to save it.
Just a matter of time.
Peace
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Religious institutions have always confounded me. I was raised Protestant in a mostly Catholic town. I sometimes attended Catholic mass with friends. I remember thinking at a young age that it was all very weird. When I was around the age of ten, I would read encyclopedias and find out about the other religions around the world. I read books of Greek mythology. I found it fascinating, mainly because it is all so very weird. Throughout history, we've attempted to make sense of our feeling that there is 'something out there'. I don't think it makes sense to try to make sense of it.
I have a ten year old daughter who wasn't raised in any church, and was never taught to believe in God. She believes in an afterlife, and I think that's instinctual. About a month ago, I asked her if she knew what a Muslim is, and she didn't, and I said "well, we'll have to teach you about these things... unfortunately". And then I asked her if she knew what a Christian is... and I had to laugh because she didn't know that either!
I disagree with that although I understand what you're saying. I grew up in church and understand plenty - more than I want to in fact. I just don't know and while I don't reject God, I do reject organized religion and think there is a better way. I agree with previous sentiments that the ocean and the forest and the sun, moon, and stars are my church. Sunday morning hiking gives me a lift like I never experienced in 25 years of thrice weekly church sessions!
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
But maybe we will find an explanation for why things are the way they are. Why not simply commit to furthering our understanding of the universe, both in the physical sense and the metaphysical sense? Why commit to anything that has to be taken on faith?
The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.