Is it Dangerous for Mental Health to be
"Spiritual, not Religious"?
A religion is a community based on a system of doctrine and morals and worship.
It is dogma based - you are not allowed to change your mind regarding its
accepted teaching, its established teaching, even when you see proof that you
are wrong. A religion is supposed to consist of spiritual people. But today most
who call themselves spiritual do not mean the spirituality required by a
religion's doctrine. It is something more vague than that.
Christians like to say that being spiritual is part of
human nature so unless you are spiritual you are not fully human. Thus if you
have the wrong spirituality or none or are not interested there is something
defective or inhuman about you. See the subtle poison in such a doctrine?
Christians believe God gives you a soul and that soul is meant to follow what
God told the Christian religion so anything unChristian is unspiritual or fake
spirituality. The idea of a spiritual soul given to you by the Christian
God is narrow and degrading and arrogant.
Today, the spiritual person is usually seen as a person who is on a journey and
is his or her own religion. The spiritual person may or not be dogmatic. The one
who is dogmatic is immune to evidence and facts and truth. That alone is
dangerous. It means there is no way of changing the person whose beliefs are
dangerous to themselves and others. It means that if she or he is harmless, that
harmlessless could be temporary. It means that if she or he is harmless it is
not because of her beliefs but down to luck. The essential anti-truth attitude
is still there. Instead of being good they want to invent a goodness of their
own. This spirituality despite looking good and caring is essentially bad and
unhealthy.
The one who is not dogmatic could be too changeable and her or his faith could
be in God one day and in a spellbook the next. Abortion could be acceptable in
the morning to them, wrong at noon and morally neutral by evening and acceptable
again at midnight. This kind of person like the previous has an anti-truth me me
me attitude and they want to invent a good of their own instead of being good.
A religion is what binds you and the rest of your community to believe its
teaching. Christianity says that faith in the Christian religion and in the
doctrines and truths God has revealed is not natural and is a gift from God.
Religion must and can only be a communication to people from the God of truth.
He must give you an experience of your faith as a gift from him. It is a gift
from God who is a supernatural power that tells you the truth and only the truth
and demands obedience. So to summarise, a religion that is from God is based on
God communicating truth to people and making sure they know he is in touch with
them. So religion and the notion of infallible revelation go together. If the
spiritual person sees herself as somehow infallible, so does the religious
person. If religion is bad because people think they know what they don't know,
then the spiritual not religious brigade are no better. Some would say the
latter are worse for each one of them wants no constraints but to be her or his
own religion. They would say there is nothing to stop them from going completely
astray. They reason that religion is bad but each person being her or his own
religion makes things worse for it means more religions - so the fewer religions
around the better.
If spiritual people are harmful, and if religion is a collection of like-minded
spiritual people then it is harmful too. Cranks are terrible on an individual
basis but a nightmare when they become a collection.
In 2012, researchers at University College London conducted a study with
interesting findings which were published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
They found that those who claim to be spiritual but not religious or members of
religion were more likely to have anxiety disorders, phobias, neurotic
disorders, eating disorders, drink problems and drug problems. They were found
to be more likely than others to be taking medication for mental health
problems. The Catholic press and media - eg the Iona Institute - has capitalised
on this study in the hope of stemming the flow of Catholics out of the Catholic
Church to become freelance spiritual people.
The study concluded, "Our main finding is that people who had a spiritual
understanding of life had worse mental health than those with an understanding
that was neither religious nor spiritual."
7,403 men and women in England were chosen at random for the study. 35% said
they attended places of worship such as churches and mosques etc. Five out of
six of those people identified as Christian. 46% - nearly half the people
selected for the study - said they were were not religious or spiritual. That
leaves 19% who said that they were spiritual but had no religion.
This 19% were found to be 77% more likely than the others to depend on mental
health drugs. They were 72% more likely to suffer from a phobia. And they were
50% more likely to have an anxiety disorder. They were found to be 40% more
likely to be getting treatment with psychotropic drugs. Their risk of neurosis
was 37% higher.
It is vital to note that the study found no significant difference between those
who had a religious outlook and those with no religion in terms of their mental
health.
It is ludicrous to suggest that it is okay to be a godless church cursing
atheist or a fervent believer and churchgoer and bad for you to be spiritual and
not go to Church. If it is not going to Church that is the problem, then the
unbelievers who stay away from Church should have the biggest problems.
We must remember that spiritual people such as Charles Manson and Hitler have
proved very dangerous. People who consider themselves spiritual more than
religious have arguably done more evil than religious people. Religion itself
has its history books full of people who claimed to be members of a religion and
did evil on spiritual grounds against the religion's will.
Religion is when spiritual people come together under the one faith and ethos
and umbrella. Religion likes power and money and influence so when it behaves
itself, it is because it needs something from society and doesn't want to
attract hostility. Experts say that spirituality that does not care about being
guided by religion or spiritual therapists can lead you to becoming a complete
crank and you may end up kidnapping the local toddlers to sacrifice them. If
individual spirituality is dangerous, this danger is seems to be tempered by
religion. Or is it? What tempers the danger is the need to cooperate and fit
into the religious community. This is not the same as it being tempered by
religion. There are as many different levels of commitment to Catholicism in
parishes as there are parishes. If a priest talks sense into a wayward youth, it
does not follow that religion helped the youth. The priest approached the youth
as a person and not as a priest. Some priests are humanist and do not realise
it. Religious believers themselves are tempered by the doubts created by
humanists and atheists. That is why a faith can be evil and endorse evil and its
people may rise above that and be good in spite of it.
The tempering itself is a problem when it is based on the spiritual attitude.
Even the most outrageous spiritual individualists will co-operate but only for
as long as they feel like it. Their co-operation is not based on the idea that
we must try to level with others. It is only outward or cosmetic co-operation.
And if religion can temper the dangers of spirituality, we must remember that
religions can lose their influence.
Religions can collapse.
Religions disillusion people - thus the spiritual person who becomes a
religionist could end up even more spiritual and crazy. If a spiritual person
poses a danger and a risk, a disillusioned one who ends up hating or being
suspicious of all religious guidance will be worse.
We must remember that if the media and society give the impression that a
certain view, however irrational and ridiculous, is the accepted view or the
"in" view people will largely go along with it or enable it by failing to
contradict it or imagine they believe it or they may believe it. If being
spiritual in an individualistic or irrational way is seen as socially
acceptable, this enables and opens the door to any problems that may result.
Irrational or stupid views seem more reasonable when you are among people that
claim to hold them. Being part of the group puts you in a haze that stops you
seeing how illogical you are being.
The dangerous spiritual but not religious person will feel supported by religion
for like him or her, the religion is based on the notion that people can have
infallible knowledge of the truth thanks to God. Condemnations of her or him by
the religion will be seen as unjust and hypocritical and have no reforming
effect.
The study shows that being spiritual is unhealthy. Maybe going to Church and
participating in social activities to do with the Church makes people better at
hiding the unhealthy side. Or perhaps the benefits prevent the harm done from
showing or being too obvious. If my spirituality was giving me a generalised
anxiety disorder, perhaps that is cancelled out by the social benefits. The
spirituality is still doing me harm though. It is still dangerous.
Religious people need the delusion that they can have personal ill-feelings
towards immorality but not against the immoral person. Personal ill-feelings are
by definition against the person. People need the lie. Religion tells them the
lie and they lap it up. Religion is based on this fundamental lie - it is the
rock it is built on. Any happiness that results from the delusion or lie not
real happiness and is pathological. The spiritual person may leave the lie
behind and go out and punish sinners instead of pretending that sinners and sins
are separate and must get separate treatment.
A man-made religion has no intrinsic right to consider anybody to be a member of
it. It is perfectly just and sensible for a person who is labelled a Mormon and
who has been raised Mormon to disown that label even if the Church won't
disfellowship and de-register him. It is up to you to decide what you are, not
others. The implication is that being part of a religion is no protection
against the dangers of being spiritual when you realise this.
The spiritual person goes their own way and is ultimately an individualist. She
only bothers with others when it is going to serve her individualism. It is very
dangerous for a person to be their own pope and prophet and Jesus and religion.
That means they think their views are the views of God. If they are harmless,
then that is through luck. Their attitude is intrinsically risky and dangerous.
It makes a bad example before others.
Most believers who are fanatical in at least some things, keep it in check or
feel too intimidated by society to unleash. Some people claim to be spiritual
not religious. If it is true that those people are more fanatical and mentally
unhealthy than religious people, then we must ponder the following question. Is
the reason they have problems because spirituality is dangerous in itself but
they are missing the social constraints imposed by religion? Their situation is
not necessarily a case for religion. It is a case against it.
If a religion is a safeguard against the excesses of
spirituality or DIY faith, then how sustainable is that if the leader himself
belonged to the spiritual bracket? Jesus seems to have been a law unto
himself. A religion that is about a person who is potentially or actually
disturbed will lead to its most vulnerable members becoming as damaged as him.
We conclude that religious people have a screw loose but this craziness tends to
be contained. For example, believers can behave deranged in Church but not in a
shopping centre. So religion is contained craziness and spirituality is
uncontained craziness.
Response to God Is dead, but faith never will be, Freethinker article by
Luna Linsday - argues that she is atheist and has faith and is spiritual
I think atheism should be faith and can be comforting.
For example, you can accept death as a means of leaving a space for somebody
else to enjoy life. After all, if nobody ever died life on earth would be hell.
I do not like the term spiritual. It seems to imply a ghost in the machine. And
philosophically spirit means an immaterial reality. Spirit in Mormonism means a
physical substance that is not like anything we can test in a lab or examine.
There are sects such as the Christadelphians and Jehovah's Witnesses that hold
that you are your body and there is no soul and nothing to survive death - so
they would agree with the atheists there. Suppose they would use the word
spiritual but not in the way most people would understand it.
People often enjoy the escapism provided by religion and religious worship. It
makes them feel magic instead of the mundane. They fear the hardness of life and
the horrible realities of life in this world. Religion and worship help these
evils seem far away and somehow unreal. People fear that reason might prove
there is no God and no afterlife and that their loved ones suffer for nothing
along the lines of a divine purpose. So religion and worship allows them to
escape from reason. If reality and the rational world are scary and seem
omnipotent, you will wish that there was some magic that subverts and conquers
them. If you are dying, you can get enormous relief by doing magic spells for
you feel that something magical will happen to save your life. You want a
miracle and you hope for one. Television and cinema and different things provide
escapism. People enjoy watching the suffering of characters in movies for it
triggers the sense that bad things are fine if they happen to others but not me
and so they won't happen to me. If bad things are happening to them, they can
feel they are not and that other people thankfully are doing the suffering not
them. Religion is evil precisely because it teases out and develops our
faculties for escapism and not only that but wants to turn us into escapists all
the time.
Spiritual is too vague. With religion, people depart from truth and reality as a unit. But this does not result in a religious free for all. The spiritual person is a one person religion. The more religions there are the more entities there are to hurt and cause harm and wars. Is there a difference between being religious or a religionist? Can you be one or the other? Are you a religionist for making Nicky Minaj your god? Or are you religious? I would suggest that spiritual means religious or religionist but apart from organised religion.
COMMENT
For the NHS, "[spirituality pertains to] the essence of
human beings as unique individuals: the power, energy and hopefulness in a
person". Some use that definition to hide their religious intentions and
hopefully to get the law of the land to endorse spirituality legally. This
definition is describing self-confidence not spirituality.
Any meaningful definition of spirituality will involve the belief that there is
a higher power who pours supernatural strength into you. It is a religious
concept and must be struck out of the law.
However, Susan Stebbing (1885-1943) spoke of spiritual
excellences that had nothing to do with religious belief or faith.
Loving the human beings you come into contact with.
Being joyful when human nature is creative.
Respecting truth and loving to learn.
Being loyal to others.
Compassion for those who suffer and being generous in exercising that
compassion.
Hating cruelty and things which hurt people.
Rejoicing in the beauty of nature and art.
Accepting that you may need to give up what is good for you for the greater good
of others.
None of that needs the word spiritual appended in.
If you use personal excellences it makes better sense and sounds less flowery
and mystical.