Spiritual but not religious

There's an interesting opinion piece on CNN, critical of the seemingly increasing number of young people identifying as "spiritual but not religious". I'm in a mood just to take some nips at the article.

The author Alan Miller notes:

Christianity has been interwoven and seminal in Western history and culture. As Harold Bloom pointed out in his book on the King James Bible, everything from the visual arts, to Bach and our canon of literature generally would not be possible without this enormously important work.

I submit that the huge influence of the bible on art does not make any of its supernatural claims true. It is not a contradiction, as with Christopher Hitchens, to be an atheist who appreciates the bible as an important work. But I get Miller's point: the influence of the bible is pervasive in our culture, probably making even non-believers secular, cultural christians, the same was there are many people who identify as secular/cultural jews. Miller continues:

Indeed, it was through the desire to know and read the Bible that reading became a reality for the masses - an entirely radical moment that had enormous consequences for humanity.

Indeed, yes. But I have a hard time seeing this as more than an accident of history. Half a millennium ago, some Christians--namely protestants--believed that all people should be able to directly experience the divine through scripture. The purpose was not emancipating and empowering individuals and creating a liberal, democratic world fueled by an emphasis on education. Those were unintended consequences of a movement to equip people with the ability to read one (or two, depending on how you slice it) book. (See this article for a stimulating discussion about what the protestants' purpose of education was>)

I am however quite grateful for this. Intentional or not, it left my culture with a long tradition of education that should be celebrated.

Miller closes the article with a fair point:

Theirs is a world of fence-sitting, not-knowingess, but not-trying-ness either. Take a stand, I say. Which one is it? A belief in God and Scripture or a commitment to the Enlightenment ideal of human-based knowledge, reason and action? Being spiritual but not religious avoids having to think too hard about having to decide.

I think there is a choice and that sincere thoughtfulness leads to the latter option. The hilarious Stuff White People Like pokes fun at these hipsters from (I strongly suspect) the other site of the political spectrum. The blog contends that upper-middle-class liberal kids tend to dabble in "religions their parents don't belong to",  excluding islam because it requires too much of a commitment. The skeptic looks at this in wonder, as these hipsters reject one mythology only to embrace another. Perhaps it is a normal and even healthy part of a young person's evolution.

My interest is in what possibilities there are to be spiritual but not mystical. Some skeptics make an attempt to explore this, but it doesn't satisfy me. Sam Harris thinks there is some possibility for an atheist to experience transcendence, for example. I need to search for more thought on spiritual atheism.

Muslim or Liberal Democrat?

I understand that a significant minority of conservative Americans tell pollsters they believe that President Obama is a Muslim. I had assumed that this is perfectly contradictory, since a Muslim surely wouldn't endorse gay marriage. But it is a mistake to assume all Muslims are fundamentalists.

It turns out that American Muslims may be divided over gay rights. I'm impressed.

I don't think Obama is a Muslim. But I am inclined to doubt he is even Christian. I understand my own bias here. I want to believe that all intelligent, thoughtful people are atheists and that he is Christian for political purposes.