"Are There Dangers in Being Spiritual But Not Religious?"

[realisticphish]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/index.html?hpt=C2

The title is absolutely ridiculous, since the content of the article says "no."

I think it's hilarious that ANY faith, generally an amalgamation of faiths before it, can criticize cafeteria-style religion

[laconicsax]

1. Only intellectually...

...plus, it makes you look like a pretentious moron.

[realisticphish]

2. seriously

anyone who says that, I immediately take them down a few notches. It's craven. It means that you have doubts, or at least don't agree with aspects of a particular faith; but instead of confronting them, and dealing with the issue, you just hide it in a vague philosophical position

[LeftishBrit]

3. I don't think that being either spiritual or religious is dangerous *in itself*

I have no leanings in either direction, and don't regard either as supported by evidence; but whatever floats your boat, as regards your own personal approach to life.

What I do think is dangerous is trying to impose your personal narrow religious beliefs on society as a whole, by enshrining them in law, or using them to restrict education or medical science. For some religious people, their religion has been associated with ethical opposition to oppression and cruelty, as has the secular humanism of other people. I would not reject the great contributions of society of a Martin Luther King or a Desmond Tutu, because their ethical beliefs happened for them to be associated with belief in a God. But for most people who attempt to inject religion into policy, this has involved either a mean-minded, harsh social conservativism; a rejection of science and/or modern medicine; sectarianism often leading to war; or often all of these.

Being 'spiritual' is less likely to be associated with social conservativism or sectarianism, but it is sometimes associated with anti-science/anti-modern-medicine beliefs. When it is, it becomes dangerous.

[vixengrl]

4. I find I agree with the last statement--it's kind of lazy.

It's one of those "Are you in or are you out?" deals. If one professes to be spiritual--what does that actually mean? Or is it something that sounds good without actually meaning anything? Is it an expression of being "philosophically" turned on? "Emotionally" engaged? "Ethically" scrupulous? I've been any of the above, without feeling "spiritual" about it. I think it's mostly a cliche used to come off as "deep". And I do think cliches can be a bit dangerous if they take the place of thinking.

[trotsky]

5. "I think it's mostly a cliche used to come off as 'deep'."

And I think a nail was hit smack on the head with that statement. :)

[mr blur]

6. Depends whether or not you believe in the supernatural,

if you do then you're still a deluded whackjob.