Opinion: “Spiritual But Not Religious,” a Reality for Many

The Gavel
Written by 

For some, “spiritual but not religious” is a quick trendy answer, used as a means to seem “with the times,” “hipster” or “non-conforming.” And as a quick answer, it takes on an empty meaning. It is a simple way to label what young eclectic individuals, who dabble in a mix of Eastern meditation, the power of crystals, and perhaps burning of sandalwood incense in a dark room with ‘yoga music’ playing in the background, do. For those who truly live by the “spiritual but not religious” (SBNR) mantra, the concept carries validity and should not be dismissed ignorantly.

According to a study released in September of last year, college students are almost evenly divided into three camps when it comes to faith. About a third, 32% consider themselves true believers, 32% identify as being ‘spiritual but not religious’ and 28% consider themselves secular in the whole sense.

The study suggests that SBNR students are “split” among the dominant faith communities. They side with religious students on questions about God and side with secular students on topics of politics and science.

Thus, the phrase “spiritual but not religious” holds value to many students as it demonstrates their connection to both religion and secular ideals, resulting in the so-called split.

It has become increasingly popular to differentiate between spirituality and religion. This notion has evolved from the belief that religion is saddled with everything negative, while spirituality is exalted with everything positive. However it is important to note the common concurrence of the two. Religion may be highly spiritual and spirituality can also be considered religious.

Regardless of distinctions, however, it is possible to be highly spiritual and and minimally religious. These people fall into the group of what many college students, including myself, term as “spiritual but not highly religious’ category.

Throughout my time at Boston College, travels abroad and contact with individuals from an array of diverse backgrounds and religions, I have encountered many folks who identify as “spiritual but not highly religious” and share similar experiences when it comes to faith.

Growning up in a moderately religious household, religion has played an important role in my upbringing. Religion has always been taught as a means of establishing a relationship between the divine and the individual. It has provided me with a sense of individual purpose and meaning, a sense of connection with other people and community, structure, and finally as a means of reflection and self-examination.

These very same characteristics also can all be attributed to spirituality. Yes, religion can offer some form of inspiration for spiritual growth. However for many people establishing a relationship with the divine or a higher power can be obtained without conforming to one specific form of religious institution or the other.

SBNRs argue that they are essentially returning to the roots of religion, before it became the man-made institution that it is today. It has always been an inherit characteristic of man to be a spiritual, social animal. Thus there has always existed a search for higher purpose and meaning, whether it be for the divine or otherwise.

To identify as “spiritual but not religious” is to in a sense, aim to return to the origin of religion. It is to reject the eventual innate human feature of instilling structure, order, and thus institutionalize faith (religion) that has emerged in the history of religions.

Spirituality in a sense is much more about ‘the person’ and the development of ‘the self’ while religion is about ‘the institution’ and ‘the community’ as a whole. Many SBNRs value the idea of spirituality as being something born in a person and develops in a person. True spirituality in this sense, is found deeply within oneself.

Website |  + posts

Comments

Categories: ,
, , , , , ,
Related Articles

Latest Posts