My brother, not impressed by bullying rhetoric, did not find Alan Miller’s Spiritual But Not Religious article on CNN compelling. I tend to agree. He misses the point, interpreting religion primarily as something to be affiliated with. He would like to draw a line in the sand and bunker down on one side of it – it is this that he seems to define as the value of religion.
I don’t disagree with his theme, even if I think he has missed the importance of it. To be “spiritual but not religious” is shorthand for “to define one’s own set of beliefs that provide succor and personal satisfaction”. As with many modern discussions on spirituality, the disconnect between modern society and the generations before boils down to a fundamental misalignment in the understanding of truth and reality. If there is some divine being, particularly an all-powerful one, then that god defines reality. To think that we could envelope ourselves in our individualized shroud of self-generated spiritual ecstasy does not make sense when the God of the universe has revealed the truth of himself in some different way.
If there is such an all-powerful being, our existences would be defined in terms of him. The spiritualism of today defines our existence in terms of ourselves. If there is an external, objective truth, a greater reality, then we do not define it, by definition. Doing so would make us to be god. In a sense, this is what the spiritualism movement attempts to do – start with oneself and learn to understand the universe in that egocentric manner.
If there is no universal truth, no reality, nothing external or eternal, then it makes no sense to worship a higher power – nothing could be higher in such a universe, as nothing really IS. In this universe, religion makes no sense, and humanism is the only meaningful “god”.
“Religion” is in need of a new PR man, as people tend to see the results of religion more than the genesis of it. Religion is a way of relating to something higher than you. It assumes an ultimate reality, and provides the framework through which mankind can interface with such a reality. In Christianity and Judaism, it is the God-inspired words of the Bible. In Islam, it is also the God-breathed word, though this time through the Prophet Muhammad. Eastern religions muddy the waters a bit more, but there is still an enlightenment, a higher form of life to be aspired for – with the middleware of religion providing ability to access the divine.
In generations past, everyone assumed that things were real, and that truths were true. In modern times, this has made people very uncomfortable, likely because a single truth renders many other statements false. People do not like this sort of exclusivity. Spiritual but not Religious is a rebellion against the idea that a truth exists and/or can be known. Because of this, science and religion find themselves as strange bedfellows in their common distaste of post-modern cuisine. Science sees the universe as an objective reality that can be understood and should be studied for this purpose. Religion sees the purpose of the universe as an objective reality that can be understood and studied. In both cases, reality is assumed, and systems are built from that basis.
Miller’s article didn’t deal with this at all. He says that we live in a world with sides, and you should pick one rather than stay on the sidelines. This is a necessary step in learning how to live in a world where truth exists, but to focus on a point further downstream is to highlight why religion should cause division – it’s no wonder that the areligious would find his style distasteful. First, establish that there is a truth. Next, point out that it is knowable. Lastly, mold your life around the outcomes of such an understanding. That’s where one starts down the road of religion.
Words 
This was a way better read than the turd on CNN.