Sane spirituality??

When I first read this article back in March, I began a diatribe as to whether I was spiritual but not religious (SBNR). But upon re-reading the article to get my train of thought back, I seem to have missed a small piece of the author's definition of sane spirituality.

,,,it perpetuates the false proposition that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. What about the rest of us?

So my first question would be, who are the rest of us? The author continues:

,,,[t]he real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps. I'm referring to the enormous number of people who actively engage in some form of what my colleagues in the Forge Institute call "sane spirituality." These are people who recognize that we're part of a transcendent something -- a no-thing, really -- and that connecting to, or uniting with, that infinite ineffable wholeness is natural and beneficial.

I'll be honest, just to be on the safe side I looked up the definition of transcendent and found this--going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing or exceeding ordinary limits; superior or supreme. Uhm, call me stupid but that sounds an aweful lot like god or god like characteristics. [I purposely used a lower cased "g" not to offend but to stress that I am not picking out a particular god in this case.]

So now I am even more confused than I was before. Is this author going "new age" (for lack of better term, since new age of today doesn't seem to equate to the "new age" of 30 years ago? To continue,,,

This diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner,,,[m]any practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions,,,although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists. Also in the group are people whose world views are secular and who view practices such as meditation** as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Finally, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious,,,[b]ut they participate on their own terms,,,

Yup, that be some "new age" gobbledyguck right there. What clinched that bit of incite on my second reading of this article ",,,they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar." In other words, the hijacking of quantum physics by the likes of Deepak Chopra and Wayne Dyer.

As I write this, I keep thinking to myself, "how did I miss this the first time around?" I think I became so stuck on the word "spirituality" that my anti-religion radar went off, blinding me to the fact that spirituality does not mean religion, but deals with ideas that are incorporeal or immaterial in nature. Spirituality attempts to recognize aspects of life and human experience which are not captured by a purely materialist or mechanistic view of the world.

They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment.

Again this line of thinking is a bit baffling to me. I guess that I'm having a difficult time rectifying the author's use of the words faith, evidence and reason within the same thought. [By it's standard defintion, faith is believe without proof or evidence; or, to borrow from Bertrand Russel, ",,,[w]e only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion is apt to lead to strife since different groups substitute different emotions."]

Recently I was listening to a podcast where the guest presented a 3 part definition of faith as used in today's world. According to this definition there are three types of faith:

1. faith that makes the world go round, based on partial evidence


2. faith without evidence


3. faith that is counter intuitive, counter to the evidence

So following this line of thinking I can accept his use of faith within the limits of the first two definitions, but not the third.

As I continued reading his article, I can understand the point he is trying to make; at least I think I can. What I keep getting stuck on is his use of words that are so steeped with religious overtones that my mind cannot get past them. My brain keeps screetching to a halt.

This practical, autonomous, experience-driven spirituality recognizes that there are many ways to define the sacred and many pathways to it,,,It is a down-to-earth antidote to the screaming ideologues and fanatics who falsely polarize religious discussions.

What has caught my attention is the author's reference to Sam Harris. Is he attempting to claim Harris as his own?

It turns out that he acknowledges the distinction between unthinking religious belief and sensible spirituality. In fact, he's a long-time meditation practitioner himself,,,

It seems he is pushing a guru type status on Harris to lead the charge. Whether that is warranted or not, I don't know as I haven't read any of his works as of yet. I think the author would have been better served by showing how Harris wants to celebrate the spiritual aspect of human existence and explain how we can live moral and spiritual lives without religion. Maybe that is his point and I am just missing it. May be it's beacause I have become a bit like,,,

The fanatics who believe that their way -- their God, their prophet, their book -- is the one true way are on the wrong end of history. They're bound to wreak a lot of havoc on their way out, but mockery is not the antidote and logic alone won't change many minds.

Altho that mind set is changing as I get older, new and different experiences are influencing my life. I find myself exploring/seeking connections between spiritual experience—especially an experience of selflessness—and human happiness. Now I'm beginning to sound like the author, and that may be the point. It only took me five months to figure it out.

The urge to transcend, to connect deeply, to penetrate the great cosmic mysteries and elevate mundane life to the level of the sacred has always been with us and it always will be. That impulse, sensibly pursued, is the heartbeat of healthy religion, and it's the best remedy for the madness of extremism.

Philip Goldberg: Making Space For Sane Spirituality
_____
**Now in the interest of full disclosure, I do practice meditation. I have for many years off and on, even when I was a fundie. My use of meditation though has no religious/spiritual conotations, I use it purely to try and calm my bipolar brain, control my panic attacks (I take no medication for either), and for pain management.

Russell, Bertrand. "Will Religious Faith Cure Our Troubles?". Human Society in Ethics and Politics. Ch 7. Pt 2. Retrieved July 31, 2011..