The BBC Website is carrying a piece by Tom Shakespeare, a Quaker, entitled “Is it better to be religious than spiritual?“. In it he comments on the growing practice of describing one’s belief system as “spiritual but not religious”. Many people, for a variety of reasons, have rejected organised religion in preference for a self-selected set of beliefs that vaguely recognise that there is some sort of supreme power in the universe. In Mr Shakespeare’s words, “People have rejected the shelf with the ready-made religious beliefs, and gone straight around the corner to the pick’n’mix shop to buy a more or less random set of beliefs which are, if anything, even more incredible”.
It certainly is remarkable that so few people regard themselves as atheists in a society where atheism, or at least agnosticism, is assumed by virtually every media outlet and actively evangelised by a number of high profile members of the scientific community. The vast majority, arguably all of us, instinctively recognise that we are more than just a material construct – that there is a spiritual dimension to life. The Christian daughter of the famous 20th Century atheist and sceptic, Bertrand Russell wrote concerning her father, “I would have liked to convince my father that I had found what he had been looking for, the ineffable something he had longed for all his life”. In her opinion, even this great sceptic was searching for something outside of himself.
What struck me most forcefully about Tom Shakespeare’s article, however, was the options that he gives for an individual’s belief system:-
“don’t we have four options?
We can be religious and spiritual – which is the traditional faith approach
We can be spiritual but not religious – which is the new age pick and mix approach
We can be humanist – which is neither religious nor spiritual
Or, perhaps, we can be religious but not spiritualThis last choice works best for me.”
He further clarifies this by saying he has, “a non-realist view of religion, [considering] religions to be human and pragmatic, not supernatural and god-given”. Wow! This is the most intellectually incoherent argument for religious practice I have yet come across. Mr Shakespeare goes through the practices of an observant Quaker but without any acceptance of the basic belief system of that religion. His reasoning is that:
“Without religion, the danger is that an individual thinks that he or she is the centre of the universe. Religion asks more of you than just to look after yourself. Because religion is a collective practice, it enables us to learn from others around us, and from a history of sincere and disciplined examination of the problems of life”.
So religion is essentially, in Mr Shakespeare’s view, a good thing even if its fundamental basis is mumbo-jumbo.
Here are a few questions to challenge this approach:-
- If an organisation (or an individual for that matter) bases its philosophy on and consistently repeats a lie, can it be good?
- If the human race is merely a cosmic accident with no higher purpose beyond existence, what is the definition of “good”?
- If we are not responsible for our actions and they bear no consequence beyond death, why should I not put self at the centre of the universe?
Tom Shakespeare’s position is no more cogent than the Spiritual But Not Religious devotees that he decries. The idea that being ‘religious’ is a good idea but that any religion will do, is no position for someone who claims the intellectual high ground. He is illustrating exactly the same internal desire for something greater than himself; but with the added burden of western intelligentsia’s rejection of the divine.
There is, fortunately, another position that is not considered in this article. What we need is not a vaguely defined ‘spirituality’ nor blind faith in a religious dogma but a relationship with the divine. Mr Shakespeare is driven to his position because, although he feels the need for a connection outside of himself, he is also a product of the humanist thinking of our society. He has made an a priori assumption that there is no God because, in his view, God cannot be scientifically proven. This is to assume a God who works on our terms. The God of the Bible sits outside of time, is the creator of the physical laws not the subject of them! This God has, however, revealed Himself in terms that we can understand by taking upon Himself human form and entering human history as Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Here is an individual who is hugely attested by history and who has revealed the character of God in no uncertain terms. Such a God should be expected to do things that are outside of our normal experience, otherwise He would not be God. As Paul said in his defence before Agrippa, “Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?”. It is this God who says, “Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest”.