B
Beryllos
Guest
I came across this commentary on BBC News:
A Point of View: Is it better to be religious than spiritual?
In it, Tom Shakespeare comments on the “Spiritual But Not Religious” (SBNR) movement. According to him, one in three Americans define themselves as such. To quote:
"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…”
So far, so good, but the article takes an unexpected turn when Shakespeare explains that he chose to be “religious but not spiritual.” He writes:
“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.”
In his view, the advantage of religion is:
“It offers a sense of belonging and it offers tradition, which can be reassuring and comforting. It offers discipline, teaching us that there is something outside ourselves to which we should bend our personal will. If we do it right, religion helps us lead better lives, with a commitment to justice and social action.”
In other words, religion without God or eternal life?
In order to keep my comments brief, I have probably misrepresented the article. Read it yourself if you are interested, and I look forward to your comments.
A Point of View: Is it better to be religious than spiritual?
In it, Tom Shakespeare comments on the “Spiritual But Not Religious” (SBNR) movement. According to him, one in three Americans define themselves as such. To quote:
"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…”
So far, so good, but the article takes an unexpected turn when Shakespeare explains that he chose to be “religious but not spiritual.” He writes:
“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.”
In his view, the advantage of religion is:
“It offers a sense of belonging and it offers tradition, which can be reassuring and comforting. It offers discipline, teaching us that there is something outside ourselves to which we should bend our personal will. If we do it right, religion helps us lead better lives, with a commitment to justice and social action.”
In other words, religion without God or eternal life?
In order to keep my comments brief, I have probably misrepresented the article. Read it yourself if you are interested, and I look forward to your comments.
