Spirituality trumps religion -- that's the story. Spirituality, it seems, is definitely conducive to happiness while religion is not. I know ... you're saying, "Huh?" Or, at least, I did. So the article helpfully defined religion as an "institutionalized venue for the practice of or experience of spirituality." Oh, thanks. I got it now. You see, it is the personal and communal aspects of spirituality that make it fulfilling. And I really loved this quote: "Some people say they are spiritual but are less enthusiastic about the concept of God."
The article is in a digital magazine called Live Science, so I am somewhat surprised that they even admit that spirituality is conducive to happiness. You know ... "science" is stuff we know and "happiness" ... well, that's just a human convention, a Necessary Lie. But, okay, so they're admitting that "spirituality" has some effect on the perception of happiness. But what, really, is the difference between "spirituality" and "religion"?
The difference is that spirituality is a nameless void. I'm not entirely making that up. Remember, "they are spiritual but are less enthusiastic about the concept of God." In other words, it's merely a sense of something ... else, something beyond the physical. Religion, on the other hand, tries to hang "reality" on that ... sense of something else. It gives doctrine, makes truth claims, includes a truth system. Yeah ... that will never do. You see, spirituality is much better. It has no truth claims, no doctrine. Hey, it doesn't even need "God". It's just a warm feeling toward something outside of the existence that we know. Sigh. Just makes you kind of feel good all over, doesn't it?
The problem, of course, is that our society has so neatly managed to sever "science" from "faith", "fact" from "values", you know -- "reality" from "mysticism" -- that we are very happy to allow meaninglessness as long as its personal. Fact is fact and faith is faith and never the twain shall meet. Of course, just as it's difficult to find a consistent "We only go by the evidence" person, it's equally difficult to find a consistent "faith should make sense" person. So, tell me again ... what are my options? Surely these are not the only possibilities.
7 comments:
We even see this permeating Christianity. "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship." And there there is truth to that claim, which is what is supposed to separate Christianity from other religions, it can and does lead to a very dangerous place that no Christian should want to be, universalism. As long as you have a "relationship" with God, you're fine, don't bother me with doctrine, or living right, I am God's friend.
Christians these days really seem to like this shift they are perpetrating. "No creed but Christ" is a popular cry. The Bible affirms correct doctrine, but to many people (you know, the ones who are "spiritual, not religious"), "doctrine" is becoming a bad word. It's a massive move to undermine the very truth that is Christianity and move it to the realm of "feeling". "Oh, you can surely believe whatever myths you want ... as long as you don't bother me with it." And we seem to be helping them!
Well of course I would argue with you that science is severed from faith. If a scientist was honest about Darwin's theory, for example, they would have to admit serious holes in it on the cellular and subcellular level. But I digress...isn't your post really stating that "every man did what was right in his own eyes?" Now where have I read that before? ;)
I'm assuming you meant you were agreeing with me that our society has severed science from faith. The real question is should it? I would argue, as I think you would, that in a biblical worldview faith would inform science rather than combat it.
Yes, it's sin, I'm sure. The sad thing is that so many people who call themselves "Christians" are also perpetrating this. How astounding is it, for instance, that 75% of people who call themselves Christians believe that there is no absolute truth and that all roads lead to God. Sigh.
It's interesting, I just about finished reading "Angels and Demons" which is the prequel to DaVinci Code. The premise has been the argument between faith and science. A Catholic priest was a physicist trying to find scientific proof of the Genesis account, and was able to (just according to the storyline). His reason was to show that faith and science mesh, not separate. Eventually you find out that the Pope's secretary orchestrated a destruction of the scientist and his studies because of his belief that science and faith are repelant. Was quite interesting, still damning of the Catholic Church, but interesting.
Just happened to read that study. It's painfully stupid, and the National Institute of Health paid for it.
I'm not even sure what "spirituality" is by their definition. It's as if they dissected Christianity and somehow separated the mushy parts from the hard.
"Spiritual, but not religious" reminds me of Adam Ant - "Desperate, but not serious", btw.
David, interesting that they would try to make that "argument". (I know ... it's fiction ... but a lot of people think that the DaVinci Code was truth.) The real conflict between science and religion didn't occur until the 18th or 19th centuries. Also interesting because they (who argued that Christianity was a fraud perpetrated by the Church) would then be arguing that the Bible is true. How strange!
Post a Comment