Every time someone inquires about my religion I feel uncomfortable because I know my answer will not be enough for who is asking. I can not respond: “I am atheist.” I can not respond: “I am agnostic”. I can not respond: “I was baptized as a catholic”. And I definitely do not like to be referred as a “none”. It’s easy to say I am tall, I am thin, I like pasta, I like travelling, and yes! although I am an Argentinean, I do not care about “fútbol”. These are all short sentences that describe without any doubt who I am and how I feel toward things. But I do not have one to convey what my beliefs are. Recently I came across the concept of being “Spiritual but not Religious” so here I dive into its meaning to see if it could be the answer to my prayers.
I am not atheist. Doing a quick search in Google you can find that an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. I don’t consider myself a person who disbelieves. In fact, I firmly believe that there is something else beyond what our five senses can show to us. I am always learning as much as I can about Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and other creeds. When you strip them to their core they all speak about how to treat each other and agree on the existence of a superior being. This superior being is all that it is good in us and you can call it God, Universal Spirit or Energy. And by the way, believing in this also rules me out as agnostic, because agnostics only believe in what they can perceive with their five senses.
I am not religious. John Blake quotes Greeley, a professor at Sacred Heart University, in his
CNN.com post “Religion demands that we accord to human existence some absolutes and eternal truths . . ." Absolutes and eternal truths simply don’t agree with me. Absolutes and eternal truths go hand in hand with fanaticism. And sadly, I don’t need to go far in human history to find many examples of what fanaticism can do in the hands of bad or ignorant people. Just take as an example what is happening in Syria or the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. On the other hand, organized religion nurtures the needy and the poor. But as happens with any organization, when they are led by the wrong people or when their existence is threatened, they “inevitably [degenerate] into tussles over power, ego and money.”
I don’t like to be called a “none.” In one of its reports, the
Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life defines nones as “. . . people who answer a survey question about their religion by saying they have no religion, no particular religion, no religious preference, or the like.” According to this research work, the term “. . . provides a negative definition, specifying what a phenomenon is not, rather than what it is . . . [and] implies that only those affiliated with a formal group are religious.” The Center avoids these misgivings by referring to this group as religiously unaffiliated. It emphasizes that “. . . the absence of a religious affiliation does not necessarily indicate an absence of religious beliefs or practices. On the contrary, as the report makes clear, most of the “nones” say they believe in God, and most describe themselves as religious, spiritual or both.
I am Spiritual but not Religious. The definition of spirituality as found in the first sentence of its Wikipedia’s entry reads “
Spirituality may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity, personal growth, or blissful experience.” John Blake quotes a Jesuit priest called James Martin arguing that “being Spiritual but not Religious can lead to complacency and self-centeredness. If it's just you and God in your room, and a religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?" I could not disagree more bluntly with his remarks. We tend to confuse self-centeredness with egomania. Even the most educated people make this mistake. Being self-centeredness is not a bad thing. It is actually a natural behavior. Self-centered people do everything in their power for their own well being and remain as the center of their own personal world. They procure to feel good by doing the things that better their world. This creates a virtuous cycle and allow them to be available for others. On the other hand, the egomaniac wants to be the center of other’s personal worlds. This creates a conflict situation for both where no one is complete. You would not say that Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa were self-centered, but they were! Their great self-sacrifice and self-renunciation for their idea of God ultimately brought them joy. So you don’t need a religious community demanding you to do good because helping your community is helping yourself.
As you can imagine there is not only one definition of spirituality. The definition has evolved through the years but the etymology has remained. The Wikipedia entry on the etymology of the word spiritual explains that the term spirit means "animating or vital principle in man and animals." It is derived from the Old French espirit which comes from the Latin word spiritus (soul, courage, vigor, breath) and is related to spirare (to breathe).” In the context of Spiritual but not Religious, this etymology explains why I can not consider myself atheist or agnostic because I believe in something greater than the sum of the parts.
Having said all of the above I have to conclude that “Spiritual but not Religious” quite describes my approach to spirituality. I practice my beliefs independent of an organization. I am not affiliated and I do not forget that I am part of a community because balancing my existence with the existence of this community, and the whole world, is a part of my spiritual experience.
.jpg)
