http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27554640An interesting perspective from BBC magazine this morning. It reminded me of the "cultural Muslim" phenomenon.
Excerpt:
I want to challenge this approach, and explain why I was unwilling to tick the SBNR box on that dating website. I worry that SBNR can just be vague, lacking the rigour which comes from centuries of refinement and debate. And unlike traditional religions, it doesn't have much to say about charity and justice. Perhaps this is because it is a reflection of the individualism that seems to be such a problem in western societies. People want a reassuring set of beliefs that makes them feel better about their own life, rather than being challenged to help others or make the world a better place. For all these reasons, I agree with the writer James Martin when he says that "spirituality without religion can become a self-centered complacency divorced from the wisdom of a community". But then Martin is a Jesuit, and so of course he wants those wishy-washy spiritual believers to sign up to his organised faith.
Whereas my biggest problem with SBNR is the opposite. It's that it often retains the mumbo-jumbo, aspects of religion. People have rejected the shelf with the ready-made religious beliefs, and gone straight around the corner to the pick'n'mix shop to buy a more or less random set of beliefs which are, if anything, even more incredible. Many people who are spiritual but not religious reject the organisation but hang on to the supernatural bit. But I don't want to be required to have faith in a supreme being or miracles or reincarnation, or any entity for which there is no scientific evidence. So, that makes me a humanist then? Not at all. Because don't we have four options? • We can be religious and spiritual - which is the traditional faith approach • We can be spiritual but not religious - which is the new age pick and mix approach • We can be humanist - which is neither religious nor spiritual • Or, perhaps, we can be religious but not spiritual This last choice works best for me. The word "religion" is thought to derive from Latin "religare", to bind or connect. I think that sense of a connection is the key point. Religion offers a bond between individuals and it helps them form a connection to the wider universe. The great French sociologist Emile Durkheim differentiated between belief, which was private, and religion, which was social. I think what we need today is more connection with each other, and with our damaged world. I don't think humanists offer us much help with that. Humanism is not positive but negative - it centres on rejecting religion. I think traditional religions do offer connections, but at the cost of demanding that we believe improbable things. So that's why I'd advocate being religious in a non-traditional way.
Topic: Religious but not spiritual?