The Elephant Bar may not be the most appropriate place to delve into deeply complicated issues of religious identity, but my father and I always seem to end up broaching that very subject over our macadamia-encrusted chicken breast. And I, inevitably, challenge the reasoning behind his self-identification as “spiritual” rather than religious.
This rhetoric is becoming commonplace throughout religious discourse in America, as UC Berkeley sociology professor Claude Fischer discusses in a recent post on the Berkeley Blog. Think about it: How many times have you heard someone proclaim some variation of “I’m not religious; I’m spiritual”? Every time this expression is used, I wonder to myself what it even means. This cliche has extended far beyond my Elephant Bar debates, and it is becoming an important subject of academic scrutiny.
My initial, uninformed opinion was that spiritual people — like my father — were more or less using the term “spiritual” as a cop-out. Being spiritual was, in my mind, an easy way to avoid limiting oneself to a single set of beliefs or sometimes even as an alternative to the more difficult admission of being an out-and-out atheist.
But, after reading Fischer’s blog post and talking to him in person last Tuesday, I came to a more balanced realization: A spiritualist is not so much contesting religion in and of itself but rather the way that organized religion negatively interacts with our modern society.
Perhaps that is not so revolutionary, but it was surprising to learn that faith is not really what is on the chopping block. Fischer’s post notes that “9 percent of adult Americans in 1998 and 16 percent of them in 2010 described themselves as spiritual-but-not-religious.” I believe the structure of their answer — spiritual-but-not-religious — is intimately intertwined with the mentality behind it, and its mounting popularity.
As Fischer explained to me, people are interested in “putting distance between the individual and the label” while still genuinely maintaining a belief that there is “something greater than mundane, biological existence.” It seems that the essential quest for the meaning of life, among other ponderings, has not really faded into the background. In other words, the primordial substance of religion is still relevant. This phenomenon reflects the opinion of a growing minority that organized religion has overstepped its role.
In my own life, it was this very sense of alienation — particularly of the political kind — that led, in part, to my conversion to atheism. I struggled to align my own feelings toward gay rights, abortion and the role of women with those of my Protestant Church. My rejection of faith is arguably another response to the same problem that spiritual people are addressing. Fischer argues in the blog that conservative political activism within American Protestant denominations has turned away some moderates and liberals. While I opted to exit the scene entirely, the spiritual folk seem like they are compartmentalizing their religious and political convictions in order to reserve the ability to choose.
Of course, politics is just one part of the equation. Globalization has strongly influenced religious belief as well — there is a “build-your-own” component to the expanding religious marketplace. Fischer said in the blog that “Americans’ growing interest in spiritual ideas … (and) growing exposure to eastern ideas such as karma yoga, and reincarnation has stimulated discussions of spirituality.” This interplay is creating a veritable American cultural melting pot of religious practices and beliefs. And the end product is much more than a “cop-out” — it’s an inspiring fusion of traditions that allow individuals to follow their own path.
Following true free-market style, some Americans have deemed unacceptable the product that religions are offering, and they have opted to search out their own. College students are particularly engaged in this exploration because our beliefs are “in flux.” During our conversation, Fischer mentioned this very “disconnect(ed)” period of students’ lives, where we are between the settled life with our parents and settling down on our own. And because the college years are defined by experimentation in a range of spheres, this “spiritual-but-not-religious” identity lends itself beautifully to our state of being.
Upon closer inspection, the response that infinitely frustrated me during conversations with my father now emerges as a carefully crafted social, cultural and political critique of our modern era. Spiritual people are not the lazy, closet atheists that I first branded them as. They are reinventing a religious space that caters to their personal beliefs. Does this mean that organized religion could potentially be on the decline? I wouldn’t wager on that quite yet, but the shift toward “spiritual-but-not-religious” may pressure organized religion to reconsider its rigid and often outdated doctrines.
Contact Hannah Brady at [email protected]
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.


Spiritual people who are dropping out of Christian churches, are not changing their faith. Like you, Hannah, they are letting politics or scandals in the church actually just let them stop pretending that they have a certain type of faith. From the Christian perspective, you are Christian if you accept Jesus as your Savior, not because you go to church with your family or friends. Most people attending Christian churches haven’t actually done this. Billy Graham has said that he preaches the gospel in church, because he believes about 85% of those attending are not actually saved. Christianity is about having a relationship with God. There are so many more people who know that God exists, but who don’t want a relationship with Him. Your spiritual-but-not-religious group is made up of a lot of those. It is their choice to believe, but not to want the relationship.
‘…the shift toward “spiritual-but-not-religious” may pressure organized religion to reconsider its rigid and often outdated doctrines.’
A religion ceases to be a religion if its doctrines change over time. Organized religion provides structure for those with faith, but if the structure is malleable by a vote of mortals then what other divine revelations can be ignored without affecting one’s chances of getting into heaven/paradise/Valhalla/Nirvana?
“Spiritual but not religious” essentially means “I belong to a religion which has one adherent.” Fine, whatever floats your boat, but please stop patting yourself on the back for being brave and individualistic; chances are your “spirituality” consists of borrowing shiny bits from this, that, and the other faith tradition while completely ignoring what lies behind them. Easy, shallow, and rarely yielding any actual spiritual benefit.
To Beeswax-
What kind of spiritual benefit are you talking about? Here is a gift from Mark Twain, America’s most productive author:
Adam and Eve entered the world naked and unashamed, naked and pure-minded;
and no descendant of theirs has ever entered it otherwise. All have entered
it naked, unashamed, and clean in mind. They have entered it modest. They
had to acquire immodesty and the soiled mind; there was no other way for Adam and Eve to
get it but from this God, their creator.
To proceed with the Biblical curiosities. Naturally you will think the
threat to punish Adam and Eve for disobeying was of course not carried
out, since they did not create themselves, nor their natures nor their
impulses nor their weaknesses, and hence were not properly subject to anyone’s
commands, and not responsible to anybody for their acts. It will surprise
you to know that the threat was carried out. Adam and Eve were punished,
and that crime finds apologists unto this day. The sentence of death was
executed.
As you perceive, the only person responsible for the couple’s offense
escaped; and not only escaped but became the executioner of the innocent.
In your country and mine we should have the privilege of making fun
of this kind of morality, but it would be unkind to do it here. Many of
these people have the reasoning faculty, but no one uses it in religious
matters.
The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he
is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield
it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no
hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case
inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God’s treatment of his earthly children,
every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those
best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and
indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits
them.
Do you blame the parents of criminals for the crimes their grown children commit? Would you jail them too? The creation wasn’t created to be good or bad. It was created to act how it wants to act. There isn’t any real relationship with God if you are just a robot that would do whatever He says. Good and bad in the world are here because we act how we want. Don’t blame God for allowing us the freedom to do what we want. You get this life to freely choose. You can choose a relationship with God or you can choose not to have a relationship with God.
I know in my heart, brain, and other giblets, that the ancient text is full of baloney, I only brought it up because Jews, Muslims, and Christians sign on for this baloney sandwich. Human bones have been found in Africa that are millions of years old, and no one was around to write the story. Those who migrated out of Africa have some neanderthal genes from 2 to 4%, from sexual contact before the neanderthal man died out. Neanderthal bones have had DNA extracted from them, and science has confirmed this. It is all part of “evolution”. God is a very recent creation in the history of man. The universe is recent, as the Bible refers to this world as our tiny planet, and that everything else revolves around it, which I do not understand since the world was flat at the time.
At least, we both agree that all the bad things we see happening are from the actions of people.
I don’t no about “all” bad things. “More than 42 million people around the world were displaced by sudden natural disasters in 2010.” That is according to a new study from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center of the Norwegian Council. At least we can both agree that nether God or people created these things. Religious people and Insurance Companies call them acts of God” The all loving all merciful God.