I have been mulling over the oft used phrase, "I'm spiritual but not religious." The phrase now has its own books. It also has a set of initials SBNR. It has its proponents and its detractors According to surveys as many as thirty percent of the United States population claim to be SBNR.
Though its difficult to pin down, in general SBNR seems to mean that the the SBNR person has no (and wants no) formal religious affiliation, but considers spirituality important. I can understand the sentiment. Formal religion gets a very bad press. Religion, it is claimed, is the cause of most of the world's ills from terrorism, to child abuse, to wars, to prejudice, to ignorance. Who wants to be associated with all of that!
Yet, for the phrase "I'm spiritual" to mean something more than the vacuous "all human beings are spiritual by definition," I suspect that a spiritual person probably engages in some practice that looks very much like religious practice.
In other words, it's complex. And I'm going to make it more complex. If you can be spiritual but not religious, I guess you could also be religious but not spiritual, neither or both. If we list the possibilities and give each an acronym it looks like this:
Spiritual but not religious (SBNR)
Religious but not spiritual (RBNS)
Religious and also spiritual (RAAS)
Not spiritual or religious (NSOR)
And one further complication. As I was thinking about my own life (examining life, as Socrates suggests) the ideas of spirituality and religion do not cover the whole of my inner life—a great deal of which is spent in asking questions, pondering answers, listening to what others say, reading the classics, having conversations, and asking further questions. In other words, engaging in philosophy.
In my department at the university, one of our catchphrases is that "philosophy is an activity," or, "philosophy is a practice." Much of my life is engaged in that activity of philosophy, as well as the activities we might call spiritual or religious.
If we add "philosophical to the mix," give each possibility an acronym, then we have:
Spiritual but not religious or philosophical (SBNROP)
Spiritual and religious but not philosophical (SARBNP)
Spiritual and philosophical but not religious (SAPBNR)
Philosophical but not religious or spiritual (PBNROS)
Philosophical and religious but not spiritual (PARBNS)
Religious but not spiritual or philosophical (RBNSOP)
Spiritual and religious and also philosophical (SARAAP)
Not spiritual or religious or philosophical (NSOROP)It was working out quite neat with six letter acronyms, until I reached "spiritual and religious and philosophical," which is only five words—so I added "also." Now it is something like a Myers-Briggs type indicator! I was tempted to include the words "somewhat," or "very," which would add more complications—for example, somewhat spiritual, but not religious, and very philosophical. You get the idea ... Almost infinite possibilities, like the the 64 hexagrams of the Yijing, or the "10,000 things" of the Daodejing.
What the point of all this? Two things to ponder:
a) Philosophers make distinctions for the sake of analysis. It might help in the task of "the examined life" to ask the question "where am I in all of this?" The exercise might also help you see change over time, growth and development. If it doesn't help, then ignore it.
b) Who we are is often determined by what we do. If someone says, "I'm religious," it is appropriate to ask, "To what religion do you belong? Where do you go to church?" "Where is you Sangha?" In other words, a religious person is in part constituted by the practice of religion. If someone admits, "I'm spiritual," it might follow to ask "what practice of spirituality do you follow?" If there is no practice, then it might be more honest to say so. "I'm spiritual," might mean more like "I'd like to be spiritual, if I had the time to meditate or something." "I'm religious," might mean "I was born Catholic and cling to the idea, but I don't practice."
In all of this I am not suggesting that you or I classify other people. It gets very annoying when those "who know" talk in Myers-Briggs acronyms, as if that solves problems—"Ah, that's Juanita, she does that because she's ENFP," with knowing nods by those "on the inside." I'm suggesting, rather, that it just might help on your inner journey to honestly take a peek to see where you are at this point along the way.
Stay well and centered,
+Ab. Andy