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.

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?

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.

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.

That straw-man could be minimally tweaked to make some nice satire.


YES! Engage in duality or you are wrong! It must be religious or rationalist/materialist! Be dogmatic! Be self-sure about that which exceeds certainty! Is it this or that? Don't know? Well, CHOOSE!!!


Yup, it has been interwoven. Nothing like converting indigenous practices through missionary structures and carrying out genocide to build a society on.


This whole argument is predicated on social/institutional control.

What a hoot

YES! Engage in duality or you are wrong! It must be religious or rationalist/materialist! Be dogmatic! Be self-sure about that which exceeds certainty! Is it this or that? Don't know? Well, CHOOSE!!!

Yup, it has been interwoven. Nothing like converting indigenous practices through missionary structures and carrying out genocide to build a society on.

This whole argument is predicated on social/institutional control.

You need to re-read. The argument is predicated on the fallacy that if you are individualistic and appropriate other religions that somehow you're more spiritual. It is not promoting or putting out a message of social/institutional control...

here 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.

Organized religion doesn't like spirituality because it reduces their stranglehold on the masses who follow/fund them. Honestly, I find it fairly obvious organized religion is anti free-thinking in general. You either follow their dogma or they block you out as an inferior "other".

The last thing the Church wants you to do is find the divinity within yourself. Apparently that is only cool if you are Jesus.

If mainstream Christianity was even remotely based on the teachings of Jesus, or teaching people to strive to live in path of Jesus I would have much less of a problem with it.

The conclusion he is drawing is that these forms of control are "good" or "necessary."

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.

I find, speaking for myself only, that religion is often spiritual, and spirituality is often religious.
There is some common ground in the definitions of spiritual and religious.

For me, to be spiritual is to be religious, but to be religious does not always entail being spiritual.

He's not drawing that conclusion, he's saying that the "spiritual, not religious" have done nothing to replace these forms of control.

The idea of sin has always been accompanied by the sense of what one could do to improve oneself and impact the world.

I can't tell you how annoying it is, when talking to someone, they tell me they're "spiritual, not religious." I can't help but rant on the irony of their new age religious appropriations that they repackage into a smug definition of "spirituality."

I can't tell you how annoying it is, when talking to someone, they tell me they're "spiritual, not religious." I can't help but rant on the irony of their new age religious appropriations that they repackage into a smug definition of "spirituality."

Well, what are your views haeretic? what are you're beliefs, if you have any? are you 'religious?' and if so in what way? i'm actually very curious

He IS trying to promote control. He is arguing against the loss of institutions of control while at the same time telling people they MUST make a choice.

Theirs is a world of fence-sitting, not-knowingess, but not-trying-ness either.