Spirituality misleading, irrational
By Daily Bruin Staff
May 8, 2005 9:00 p.m.
“Spiritual but not religious.” It’s the new
slogan of the progressive and tolerant. It’s often adopted by
self-identifying intellectuals who find religion too primitive for
someone rational, but think a term is required to express their
solidarity with humanity.
Spirituality is a term that is thrown around without much
consideration for meaning, and for those who are trying to sell
their own new brand of spirituality, that’s a good thing. It
expresses a vague sense of cutting-edge morality and an
open-mindedness to novel ideas. And according to a recent UCLA
study, 80 percent of students at UCLA are “interested”
in the cutting-edge of morality and have an open mind to novel
ideas.
I, however, am not among the 80 percent. Nonetheless, I think I
am unconventionally familiar with “spirituality.”
I’ve read a lot of authors who promote their ideas, their
books and their programs as “spiritual.” I’ve
read many of the big names ““ but I do not think any of them
have anything valuable to say.
All of the authors primarily focus on metaphysics and ethics,
and all of the authors make unsupported or very poorly supported
claims concerning such things as “god” or
“love” or what is necessary for world peace.
Many of the authors support all of their claims through
revelation ““ one claims God directly speaks to him through a
notepad and another claims to be a psychic.
Thus, many spiritual authors have no more authority than Hitler
writing “Mein Kampf” or Charles Manson preaching to his
disciples about his divine mission.
Yet our feelings about the message of the author should have no
bearing on the truth of that message. That an idea is particularly
comforting, like the idea that our souls exist after death, is not
sufficient grounds for its truth.
Even though Manson’s and Hitler’s messages are
repulsive to most of us, their claims are no less valid than the
claims of many spirituality authors. All of them, including Manson
and Hitler, reasoned poorly to their conclusions or did not reason
at all ““ things were just “revealed” to them or
imagined.
It is distressing to discover 80 percent of the student
population at one of the most selective universities in the world
may be setting aside any critical thinking skills when addressing
the most complicated and important questions ““ “what
exists?” and “what should we do?”
Being open-minded can mean many things, and when it comes to the
uncritical acceptance of irrational ideas wrapped in pretty-feeling
rhetoric, open-mindedness is merely gullibility. And we should feel
no admiration toward the gullible ““ they are easily
misled.
Open-mindedness, however, in the sense that one encourages the
critical investigation of all ideas, should be admired. Such a mind
cannot be easily misled. And that, I believe, should be the goal of
a public university in a democratic country ““ to educate
people in the methods of critical thinking.
This way, when participating in society they can discriminate
through reason what is true and what is false, who is sincere and
who is disingenuous. This will prevent the support of bad policies
and self-interested or deluded leaders.
The content of spirituality is enormously dubious. It’s
hard for me to imagine someone who critically investigates the
world coming to believe in spiritual ideas without being
intellectually dishonest.
The content of spirituality consists primarily of contagious
superstitions ““ belief in souls, chi, reincarnation, karma,
gods, psychic powers, political conspiracy, pseudoscience, utopian
idealism, wishful thinking and speculative psychology.
Insofar as the claims of spirituality are supported no better
than claims about alien abduction, voodoo, the magic of Harry
Potter, ghosts and crop circles, I will include them all in the
category of irrational belief ““ superstition.
And, for the care of your soul, I suggest that you, dear reader,
do the same.
Peoples is a fourth-year philosophy student.
