I disagree with the article. I however do feel one can be spiritual and not religious.
I don’t feel the term spiritual infers any connotation of a god-like being.
I don’t find it a cop out.
Technically you could argue the term agnostic is a cop out as well.

Spiritualism is a religion in every since of the word. It's rooted in the "faith" that a special person is endowed with special powers to see into an unseen realm . "Offerings" and "sacrifices" made to these "prophets" can buy you a glimpse into the future. "Resurrection" of the dead or even a conversation with dead people. Moderated of course by Sylvia Brown or some other priest or priestess. In many cases alienation of family is required. I could go on all day with such examples because I believe "spiritualism" maybe the largest religion of all. It should be called out, especially on this forum, whenever it raises it's ugly head.

Not only agree, but can't help to wonder how much better the world would be if these people grew a set.

Its the only fence you can sit on, and everybody else gets a pain in the butt.

Whether or not it’s a cop-out may depend on the individual’s motivations, intentions, abilities, etc., but I do agree that it lacks structure and discipline, and any kind of accountability, at least as a movement, and probably for most, if maybe not all, individuals.

Yeah it's annoying.

I've always associated that phrase with people who want the benefits that religions promise without following religious rules. It's more than a cop out; it's mental weakness.

I think those that go from religious to spiritual have one more step to go in their journey away from pseudo-scientific and fairytale type thinking. They tend to be superstitious and believe things based on anecdotes and feelings just like the religious. I do hope they outgrow their spirituality the way they did their religion.

Disagree!

The cop out is to cling to dogmatic church dogma or to the dogmatic tenets of scientism. To be spiritual is to be deeply aware of the magnificence, mystery and beauty of reality and the inexplicable enigma of consciousness.

From the article: “The trouble is that “spiritual but not religious” offers no positive exposition or understanding or explanation of a body of belief or set of principles of any kind.”

There is no trouble. Spiritual people are honest and courageous enough to realize that positive expositions of belief are nothing but hot air. NO ONE understands ultimate reality.

Logic, reason, science used to rule my work life and political life. Empathy wed with love and altruism used to rule my personal life. When people say they are "spiritual" but not religious...I have to laugh because they are just substituting one for the other. And frankly it is all semantics and it is an emotional and intellectual cop out. They are often hanging on to their upbringing but making it a new age, no guilt belief that fits their lifestyle, with no social commitment.

For most people it's just a cop out. They want to seem connected to something and knowledgeable in some way but are really just too lazy or too much of a wanker to to come out with the truth.

Sorry, I couldn't even finish the article. Not that it was bad, but I rarely waste my time with something in which I am not interested... I had someone call me on my identifying myself as an atheist, suggesting that "spiritual" might be more palatable. Huh? I am what I am, and identifying myself as something far too close to religious for my personal taste is pretty much a cop-out, or lie, if I am hoping to not offend anyone I might hope to entice.. That was the gist of his suggestion, anyway.

I know people who believe in some sort of power in the Universe or even in God. They don't believe in organized religions or religious doctrine. They are very liberal, believing in gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. I have no problem with these folks. They aren't pushing their beliefs on anyone and resent folks who do. If this belief helps them wade through this crap we call life, more power to them. I could not care less.

The idea that without the king james bible visual art, music and literature would have been impaired is flawed. The influence of religion on arts was predominantly that religious orders had money to pay and subject matter they wanted to disseminate. Had non-religious financial institutions predominated, and wished to propogate the idea of naturism - much of artistic output would have featured naked frolicing. Same logic applies now to any subject matter that artists are commissioned to do....we call it marketing.

Meh. It's more of evidence that the organized religion has been losing power.

Agree

agree

I agree that "roll your won beliefs" has its downsides (like everything), but his characterization of such people as self-absorbed navel-gazers with uniformly unclear convictions is an unfair caricature. You could level the same accusation against people who DO identify with an organized religion.

While (to pick a random example) the Roman Catholic Church has an official party-line of dogma, the level of agreement and embracing and practice of those dogmas by individuals who are members of the RCC are all over the place. There are plenty of Catholics who think birth control is okay, who think the mass should be said only in Latin, or who think the pope is all too fallible. And there are a TON of Catholics who are wholly ignorant of most Catholic dogmas and only know how to recite rosaries and make sure to take their children to christenings and go to confession and the like. They know what to confess to in the confessional but not particularly why those things are "bad" or wrong, nor do they have any impetus to follow them going forward beyond some vague sense of shame about having to confess them all the time. And so forth.

Or take a prosperity gospel charismatic (please). They will spout the party line that god wants to open the windows of heaven and rain down largesse upon you, yet they get up every morning and go to work. They will say god wants you to have "none of these diseases" and that you should demonstrate your faith in this by trusting god for your health, and yet most of them go to the doctor and take their vitamins and hit the gym and pay their health insurance premiums, even if somewhat surreptitiously. Their pastors still go to hospitals to visit the sick and feel no sense of failure about not emptying out those hospitals and putting them out of business.

So the notion that being part of an organized religion also organizes your beliefs and makes them consistent is obvious hogwash ... as is its corollary that not being part of an organized religion necessarily makes one's beliefs more incoherent.

In or out of organized religion, people follow practices and ideas that work, at present, for them. In and out of religion, people are frequently quite irrational and inconsistent and sloppy thinkers.

It is when people acquire (or, like me, were forced to acquire) critical thinking skills that they leave religion entirely. So it's also wrong for the author to suggest that we need to return to that old-time religion in order to be grounded and anchored and sensible.

Excellent, thank you for sharing.

I agree.

its all bullshit

Total bullshit, the comments of the author, not being spiritual. I don't know what being "spiritual" means to different individuals but it is a refreshing change from blindly believing age old religious dogma.

I don't think it's a cop out. Someone who is spiritual but not religious doesn't ascribe to the same fundamental ideals as organized religion. They might believe in a God, but it's more non-literal than the God in the bible. They don't follow the religious texts and tenets. Some believe that God is just energy. They think that something out there is bigger than them and/or this existence or perception of this existence.

I believe many young people have lost 'faith' in organised religion due to easy access to publicity about failings of personnel within religions. Priests sticking hands down childrens' pants - fraud, embezzlement, and other financial scandals - the general opulance exhibited by religions, while asking for donations - etc. When you set yourself up as arbiters of 'good' and 'evil' it becomes difficult to operate in a society where knowledge is so easily shared.... depending of course on the ability of individuals to comprehend the information

I agree. It can be a stepping stone to atheism.