“Spiritual but not religious”—this is how an increasing number of people today identify themselves. The phrase is used worldwide, especially among the younger generation, but it is most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as 33% of the population describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. These people are also described by other terms and phrases, such as unchurched, none of the above, more spiritual than religious, spiritually eclectic, unaffiliated, freethinkers, and even as spiritual seekers. This last description—spiritual seekers—is interesting, as it is also used by those who do see themselves as religious.
While some polls show that roughly 9 in 10 Americans still maintain belief in God, the trend of religious young Americans is toward a mishmash of varied religious beliefs. A 2010 USA Today survey revealed that 72% of the nation’s young people self-identify as “more spiritual than religious.” Of those aged 18 to 35, three in 10 say they are not affiliated with any religion, while only half are “absolutely certain” of God’s existence. The actual numbers may be significantly higher. As columnist Tina Dupuy observes: “When it comes to self-reporting religious devotion, Americans cannot be trusted. We under-estimate our calories, over-state our height, under-report our weight, and when it comes to piety we lie like a prayer rug.”
A survey jointly conducted by Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and Religion & Ethics newsweekly, points out that nearly 33% of American adults are religiously unaffiliated. But that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in God. In fact, 68% among these do “believe in God”; 58% feel “a deep connection with nature and earth”; 37% describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious,” and 21% admit to daily prayer.
The key terms in tension here are “religion” and “spirituality.” Normally speaking, these two should have been natural allies. It is not easy to conceive of a religion without spirituality. Religion also deals with the world, it is true, but religious concern for the world is derived in and through its primary engagement with the spirit. If this doesn’t sound familiar, try substituting the word “God” for “spirit.” Look at the word “spiritual”—it includes the word “spirit”. How would anyone know anything about spirituality—or anything related to the spirit—without the wisdom derived from religion, either through religious texts or through religious practitioners?
What would a “religion” be if its sole concern was this world and nothing beyond it? Such a religion would be indistinguishable from any social movement or ideology including even atheism or agnosticism. A strong case, thus, can be made in favor of religion and spirituality being synonymous or, at least, inseparably connected.
But that may not be true today. “Religion” and “spirituality” are words and, like us all, they grow and evolve. Sometimes their connotations change radically. Something like that seems to have happened with these two terms “religion” and “spirituality”. They no longer look obviously synonymous or connected. Each has acquired a distinct identity, and their new connotations are reinforced by contemporary books and films.
In 2012, Jefferson Bethke made the film "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” (available on YouTube) in which he criticized organized religion as superficial and hypocritical. There is not much we can do about the evolved meanings of the terms “religion” and “spirituality”. If most people around us use the terms in a new way, it seems pointless and even impractical to continue clinging to older meanings that are rapidly becoming passé.
What, then, is the new meaning of “religion” today? Religion has increasingly become associated with religious organizations. To be religious does not simply mean to have a religious ideal or to observe a religious discipline. To be religious has come to imply being part of a religious group. It has become associated with membership of a place of worship, acceptance of a dogma, and commitment to a ritual or practice.
This implication is problematic and it is easy to understand the hesitation to identify oneself as religious. As the recent decades have shown, religious organizations haven’t really covered themselves with glory. The media coverage of scandals in religious organizations has pushed into the background whatever good these places of worship do. Many have begun to see religious groups as too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules, and too involved in politics. They have too little of religion and too much of everything else. No surprise that this turns people off. But not all and not fully. The survey responses show that some of these same people also believe that “religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor.”
There are several theories why “spiritual but not religious” identity has become more popular and more attractive in America. One theory, proposed by sociologist Robert Wuthnow of Princeton University, points to an overall decline in church attendance since the 1970s and attributes it to broader social and demographic trends, including the postponement of marriage and parenthood by growing numbers of young adults.
Another theory is that the numbers indicate a symbolic statement against conservative politics and the Religious Right. In the book, titled American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, by Robert Putnam of Harvard and David Campbell of Notre Dame, we read that “religiosity and conservative politics became increasingly aligned, and abortion and gay rights became emblematic of the emergent culture wars.” The result, they write, was that many young Americans came to view religion as “judgmental, homophobic, hypocritical, and too political.”
A third theory points to social disengagement—a tendency among Americans to live more separate lives and engage in fewer communal activities. In this view, the growth of the “spiritual but not religious” generation is just one manifestation of much broader social disengagement.
Yet another theory links economic development with secularization around the globe. It is claimed that societies in which people’s health and well-being are threatened tend to be more religious than where no such threat exists. This explains why attendance for religious services is declining in the developed parts of the world but has remained relatively strong in other parts. What this implies is that a gradual secularization is to be expected in a generally healthy, wealthy and orderly society.
Put together, these theories suggest that the current move towards being “spiritual but not religious” may either be a rejection of the right-leaning conservative politics, or it may be a sign of the changing social and demographic trends, growing social disengagement and increasing secularization of life. All of these theories have some merit, but only some. The survey data not only supports them but also challenges them.
I would like to propose an alternative theory. In the light of Vedanta, almost the first thing that comes to mind is that religion is not simply a system of doctrines, a bunch of beliefs, or a matter of intellectual assent or dissent (see CW, 2. 40–41, 2. 372, 4. 215). As Swami Vivekananda said,
“Religion does not consist in erecting temples, or building churches, or attending public worship. It is not to be found in books, or in words, or in lectures, or in organizations” (CW, 4. 179–80).
Religion is primarily an experience at the deepest core of our being. It is not enough to believe that God exists or that God loves us; we must “realize God, feel God, see God, talk to God” (CW, 4. 165).
But experiences are always subjective. It’s impossible to know accurately what’s going on in someone’s mind, but it is possible to get an idea—sometimes a fairly clear idea—by looking at the person’s actions and behavior. When our lives are fully authentic, our persona reflects who we are. But this is rare. Most often, through conscious effort or unconscious habit, the inner life is separated from the outer. This kind of separation is more a norm than an exception. It is the result of self-alienation, which leads to stress, anxiety, fear—traits that seem almost inseparable from human existence.
Thus only a small part of who we are manifests externally through the way we relate to others and do our work. It is these visible traits that others see and the person is judged accordingly. Most judgments are based on incomplete knowledge of others. We don’t judge others by who they are (who can ever know what someone really is?) but by the manner in which they speak, smile, react, work, and behave. A person is deemed religious when seen doing things that are perceived as religious, such as visiting places of worship, praying, meditating, and studying sacred texts. Which is why, in popular usage, religion is more a matter of “doing” than “being.”
What we do is not necessarily always an expression of who we are. Being aware of this discrepancy in one’s own life can be disconcerting. Bridging the gap between “being” and “doing” is a fruitful spiritual discipline. Not many do this with singleminded attention for a sustained period of time. It is easier to focus instead on others and see the gap between what they do and who they are perceived to be. It is not unusual to encounter someone who is presented as a religious person doing things that are an antithesis of religion. The process gets multiplied several times over when a similar divergence is seen between being and doing in religious organizations. When people and organizations get away with such hypocrisy, it produces anger, frustration, and even disillusionment with religion itself.
As a result, some people distance themselves from religion altogether and may begin to describe themselves as secularists, atheists, humanists, or whatever. Some others cannot bring themselves to do this. Somewhere deep down in their hearts the seeds of religious values still lie embedded. They find themselves in a strange situation: they want to be religious but are turned off by what goes by the name of “religion” in the circles in which they move. The disgust is so strong as to pervade the word “religion” as well.
Enter spirituality. It feels like an ideal substitute. It feels neutral, without any baggage with which “religion” is today burdened. Spirituality is not bound in any organizational structure. It appears free from rules, dogmas, and disciplines imposed from outside. Most importantly, it is refreshingly free from the need for any commitment to anyone and anything. Being spiritual seems to give us the freedom to choose what we like and reject what we don’t like.
Used intelligently and weaved into an integrated self-discipline, this kind of freedom has the potential to produce excellent results. It is just as possible, though, that while the idea of being spiritual can be enticing, we may end up doing nothing in particular to live spiritually. We may have no idea what “spirit” means and every fleeting feeling of wellbeing may be mistaken for a spiritual experience. A vague ideal of spirituality without any commitment and discipline cannot take us anywhere. That is one serious danger that the “spiritual but not religious” generation has to guard itself against.
Finally, every one of us can ask ourselves: does it really matter how I identify myself? Whether I see myself as religious or as spiritual, the truth is that I am what I am. Labels don’t matter. They peel away on their own at some point anyway if I don’t do it myself. What matters ultimately is who I am as a person, not what others think of me. Not even what I think of myself. What matters is who I am. Am I free from hatred, anger, jealousy, fear and selfishness? Do I love and help others with no thought of self-interest? If yes, then I can go ahead and call myself either spiritual or religious or both or neither. Results matter, labels don’t.