Great points. I've maintained that religion is more of a psychology than a theology. When people ditch the structure they're at the whim of turning anything into a religion, often without the beneficial outcomes.
Humans need the structure that religion provides. It's also aspirational which helps.
Yes, it does seem like many atheists are just so certain, almost messianically so! Personally, I just find having reservations about most things to be a smarter operating principle, and I'm immediately turned off by people who are incredibly certain about which they have little evidence one way or another.
"Is what you believe, and where you place your faith, enabling you to become a better person and allowing you to add positive energy to the world around you?" — What you wrote is a good question for humans. Is this operating system making me a better?
100% agree. I left theistic religion and now see zealots everywhere. I like the way you framed religion like an operating system. Is it helping you be better or are you constantly crashing the mainframe. :)
This is a really interesting breakdown. Another benefit of organized religion you didn't mention is community. The "just spiritual" people rarely gather in community to the same degree as the members of a mosque/church/etc. Pagan community groups are usually smaller and much less stable. Maybe that's due to the individualized nature of the beliefs, as well as the obvious fact that there are fewer people to come together. It's harder to maintain a mast on your own than when you have a solid group of people backing up your beliefs.
Agreed that it's always easier to maintain beliefs through social pressure. And attending places of worship certainly provides this. But I'm not sure it's so binary. For instance, in Austin, there's "dance church," on Sunday. More than 100 people show up. People get together for ecstatic dance and also socialize and form relationships. Many go every week. It's a big thing. My point being that some of the spiritual nonreligious crowd have strong community ties. But there's really no mast they all agree on. This may be a powerful spiritual touchstone of their life, but it doesn't really constrain them or guide them outside these experiences. As you say, if their meet up inculcated a shared belief system and restrictions, they would find it easier to adhere to them.
There was a Russian mystic Daniil Andreev who, while in a Soviet concentration camp, wrote *The Rose of the World*. The book is difficult to read, and I can't say I fully understood it, but the metaphor itself—that all religions aren't opposed to each other but are simply parts of a whole—stuck with me.
The book describes how all religions, like the petals of a rose, come together to form one beautiful flower, all connected by a single stem. Maybe there isn't a multitude of masts after all, but rather just one?
Personally, I find it difficult to have multiple criteria and principles, so I use Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative as my compass and guide: "If everyone were to always do X, would it lead to good or harm?" Overall, it works well for most situations.
I agree that its a reasonable guide in most situations. As is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you," and "treat others as you want to be treated." — the so called golden rule stated in its positive and negative forms.
But do you have any sort of metaphysical/cosmological belief suggesting this is a good idea you should stick with when it's inconvenient or hard? Or is the force of logic/love of humanity enough to compel you?
Really interesting points, and I think there’s a lot of truth to it. The point of “anything is fine so you can be happy doing whatever you want to do” likely will lead to some sort of unfulfilled life or a feeling that something is missing. However, I don’t totally believe that religion or spirituality is the answer. I think it can be AN answer, but not for everyone. Those with strong determination or beliefs to a different cause may be fulfilling enough to not necessitate religion or spirituality. Religion though does seem to be a simple guiding force that works for most, which explains some of its popularity throughout history.
I would agree, but I think if we examine people who have "strong determination or beliefs to a different cause," who are very active on the local or national or international stage, we would find that most:
1) Operate in at least some spheres of life with strict rules, very akin to religion, or the "mast" we've discussed this article
2) Act with a background metaphysical/cosmological underlying belief system or vision that they may or may not be able to explicate. The humanitarian or the businessman or the scientist might embrace something akin to humanism, or utopianism, or any old-style religion, and it's just running in the background, driving them and framing all their actions in a way they find meaningful or pleasing.
That could be true. But either of those seem very different than religion in the traditional sense. You could argue that certain driving “rules” become akin to a religion, and they may be “religious” to those principles in which case you could say they are religious. But to me it seems like a different thing than normal spirituality.
Great post. “ Recapture the Rapture” by Jamie Wheal is a fascinating deep dive into this question. “valued practice more than dogmatic belief” is a perfect description of my position. It can be very hard to find a church that drops the dogma, but they are out there. Attending church feels like pulling a compass out of my pocket and giving some thought to whether I’m on course.
Religion has accountability? Seems to me what gets ditched when you unyoke spirituality from religion is a) dogma b) misogyny c) spurious reasons to murder ‘unbelievers’ or followers of competing religions.
I'm reminded of my experience getting my M.S. at Penn. The degree required a thesis. The program had a huge dropout rate. Over half of the participants would get their 10 class credits just fine but be unable to produce a thesis. Most people need structure and a lot of handholding, even at such an advanced level as this.
My observation from college was that many people couldn't extrapolate from one piece of literature, historical observation, or psychological/scientific fact and apply it to another to make something new. It was just an alien mode of operation for them. I have no great insight into why so many lack this ability.
I can't read your article, but I'd say the siren song is not bad. It's not evil. It has value. But like many things of great worth, it can be dangerous. We can drown in it. So having a framework for interacting with it can be helpful, sometimes even lifesaving. Religion/ritual often serves that purpose.
At what point is it no longer helpful, or even self destructive, to sail your ship one more time through the churning waters off the sirens' isle for the pleasure of getting another listen?
Whether the Eleusinian Mysteries were a drug trip or an ecstatic ritual — or more likely some combination — I find it interesting that it was a thing people did once or twice, and it apparently affected them profoundly, removed their fear of death, and changed the way they lived.
Compare that to some of my psychonaut friends, who keep going back to that well again and again. It seems to me that they're losing something of themselves that they can't get back, because they're incapable of self restraint and have no restriction imposed by any sort of religion/culture/decision making framework.
It seems we have a problem these days. We’ve encouraged people to find their own bliss, to pursue their authentic selves, but most who try end up making a mess of things.
Newish reader here. Reading this entry, it’s clear that in seeking to avoid the dogmatism of religion, you’ve inadvertently recreated it as a Stoic.
I say this as someone who has studied Stoicism for years and found much value in its teachings, including the emphasis on virtue. However, I also recognize that Stoicism is one lens among many, not the universal template for how meaning, spirituality, or integrity must be lived. Other frameworks, other experiences, and other ways of being are equally valid and essential for different individuals.
The sweeping dismissal of "spiritual but not religious" individuals as floundering or adrift reveals not just a lack of empathy, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the diverse ways human beings construct meaning outside traditional frameworks.
You conflate structure with virtue, discipline with superiority, and constraint with wisdom, without considering that for many, true wisdom begins precisely where imposed structures end. Spirituality without rigid handcuffs is not a failing; it is a legitimate, courageous path forged after surviving systems that weaponized constraint.
It takes far more resilience and reflection to live meaningfully without ready-made masts than to simply tie oneself to another.
Your writing makes clear that you are speaking for yourself: your needs, your fears, your worldview. But the projection of that onto others as a universal truth does a disservice to the very inquiry you claim to pursue.
Freedom is not the enemy of meaning. Sometimes, it is the birthplace of it.
I'm always open to evidence of my ignorance. I'd be shocked if I wasn't wrong about a great many things not just in here, but through all of life. But it seems to me that your reaction here is equally sweeping in its dismissal and may not be dealing with the nuance of what virtue is.
Universal proclamations and prescriptions can't work because not everyone is the same. And you may say....and so you admit prescribing virtue is useless!
But no, because baked into virtue is Sophrosyne — moderation/temperance.
And so if you have too much discipline and structure that you're drowning in it, that is where sophrosyne comes in.
And if you're too clinically logical and cut off from the wonders of our world and can feel no awe and elevation — sophrosyne again. (please see my multiple articles about this topic)
Practical wisdom requires us to dial things up and down to meet what the moment and our character require. To moderate. Virtue is self-correcting, not a set of inflexible shackles that damn us to one path.
But as I go through this world, it does not strike me that the majority of people I meet are drowning in virtue and logic. These are things they barely touch, giving no more than lip service to them. They're carried away by emotion and whimsy and desire, consequences be damned. I've known more than a few who are swept away to nihilism or a variety of dark places.
And so where does that leave us? I suppose we could both write nothing about anything, since all things are circumstantial. But I believe that the framework of virtue, of clinging to certain values, is powerful, and something that could help a lot of people.
And perhaps it all comes back to Epictetus (Discourses, 3.23.30)...
"A philosopher's school is a physician's clinic: you shouldn't leave in pleasure, but in pain."
Ultimately, that's sort of what I'm working with. Me writing here is a great way to find my defects. But I think it's also a great way to discomfort the comfortable of the wider world.
If I can do that, if I can get a little bit of reflection that otherwise would be lacking — even if they think I'm deluded — then haven't I done a good thing?
Personally, I can rest satisfied if I accomplish that.
I want to be clear that I never said virtue was useless — in fact, I explicitly acknowledged its value. What I challenged was the idea that virtue, framed Stoically, must be everyone's "mast" in order to lead a meaningful or spiritually grounded life.
Your reply confirms a deeper pattern I already noticed: the habit of universalizing your personal experience as though it were objective truth. Rather than engaging with what I actually said, you reinterpreted it to fit a familiar philosophical defense, prioritizing intellectual frameworks over relational connection or genuine understanding. Our conversation is the poorer for it.
I found your writing through the Authentic Relating community (via Sara Ness), and I approached your work with openness. It’s disappointing that the spirit of authentic dialogue — curiosity, mutual respect, and vulnerability — was not reflected here.
I will be unsubscribing and moving on.
I honor my path, my right to define meaning for myself, and my right to disengage from dynamics that replicate the very forms of dogmatism I have intentionally left behind.
I jettisoned religion long ago in my youth. It began when I was bounced around between two Christian religions -- one of one parent, another of the other parent. I got a bit weary of the two dogmas and being in between. So I started investigating world religions, but didn't subscribe to any -- to any great extent . There are some truths in most great religions. So yes, I'm spiritual, but not religious. I don't practice any religion, I go my own way. And, I have not lost my way at all. I'm philosophical, not religious. I'm happy in my own personal place. I have not lost my way, I have my own belief system I'm satisfied with. I have no need of religion. So yeah, I guess I am weird.
>They continuously make bad financial, relational, and career decisions that would have baffled their grandparents equipped with a “non-weird,” compass.
It does not mean their grandparents were right, tho. The basic problem is that their grandparents believed in "shoulding". You should do this, you should not do that, you should save money, you should not get hooked on substances etc.
Why? Worst case you die and then nothing hurts. There are no shoulds. Yes, different choices can result in different outcomes, but they can all be livable.
What Stoics would tell you is that virtue is what matters, and what being virtuous or acting with vice does to your character. Other religions might hang their hat on purity or sin or whatever.
So it's not the state that's the problem. You don't judge the state, or shame a bad living situation someone has gotten themselves into.
But if you're continuously making decisions that are not moderate, Stoics would point out that this is erosive to your character, and because of their cosmology, they think this is a mistake.
Great points. I've maintained that religion is more of a psychology than a theology. When people ditch the structure they're at the whim of turning anything into a religion, often without the beneficial outcomes.
Humans need the structure that religion provides. It's also aspirational which helps.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/religion-as-a-psychology
Yes, it does seem like many atheists are just so certain, almost messianically so! Personally, I just find having reservations about most things to be a smarter operating principle, and I'm immediately turned off by people who are incredibly certain about which they have little evidence one way or another.
"Is what you believe, and where you place your faith, enabling you to become a better person and allowing you to add positive energy to the world around you?" — What you wrote is a good question for humans. Is this operating system making me a better?
100% agree. I left theistic religion and now see zealots everywhere. I like the way you framed religion like an operating system. Is it helping you be better or are you constantly crashing the mainframe. :)
This is a really interesting breakdown. Another benefit of organized religion you didn't mention is community. The "just spiritual" people rarely gather in community to the same degree as the members of a mosque/church/etc. Pagan community groups are usually smaller and much less stable. Maybe that's due to the individualized nature of the beliefs, as well as the obvious fact that there are fewer people to come together. It's harder to maintain a mast on your own than when you have a solid group of people backing up your beliefs.
Agreed that it's always easier to maintain beliefs through social pressure. And attending places of worship certainly provides this. But I'm not sure it's so binary. For instance, in Austin, there's "dance church," on Sunday. More than 100 people show up. People get together for ecstatic dance and also socialize and form relationships. Many go every week. It's a big thing. My point being that some of the spiritual nonreligious crowd have strong community ties. But there's really no mast they all agree on. This may be a powerful spiritual touchstone of their life, but it doesn't really constrain them or guide them outside these experiences. As you say, if their meet up inculcated a shared belief system and restrictions, they would find it easier to adhere to them.
Have you ever been to a football match?
There was a Russian mystic Daniil Andreev who, while in a Soviet concentration camp, wrote *The Rose of the World*. The book is difficult to read, and I can't say I fully understood it, but the metaphor itself—that all religions aren't opposed to each other but are simply parts of a whole—stuck with me.
The book describes how all religions, like the petals of a rose, come together to form one beautiful flower, all connected by a single stem. Maybe there isn't a multitude of masts after all, but rather just one?
Personally, I find it difficult to have multiple criteria and principles, so I use Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative as my compass and guide: "If everyone were to always do X, would it lead to good or harm?" Overall, it works well for most situations.
I agree that its a reasonable guide in most situations. As is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you," and "treat others as you want to be treated." — the so called golden rule stated in its positive and negative forms.
But do you have any sort of metaphysical/cosmological belief suggesting this is a good idea you should stick with when it's inconvenient or hard? Or is the force of logic/love of humanity enough to compel you?
as in my internal dialogue it sounds like "It just makes sense", I guess it might be logic
I’m just the opposite, religious — garden variety, sing in the choir, Sunday Mass going — but not “spiritual.”
Really interesting points, and I think there’s a lot of truth to it. The point of “anything is fine so you can be happy doing whatever you want to do” likely will lead to some sort of unfulfilled life or a feeling that something is missing. However, I don’t totally believe that religion or spirituality is the answer. I think it can be AN answer, but not for everyone. Those with strong determination or beliefs to a different cause may be fulfilling enough to not necessitate religion or spirituality. Religion though does seem to be a simple guiding force that works for most, which explains some of its popularity throughout history.
I would agree, but I think if we examine people who have "strong determination or beliefs to a different cause," who are very active on the local or national or international stage, we would find that most:
1) Operate in at least some spheres of life with strict rules, very akin to religion, or the "mast" we've discussed this article
2) Act with a background metaphysical/cosmological underlying belief system or vision that they may or may not be able to explicate. The humanitarian or the businessman or the scientist might embrace something akin to humanism, or utopianism, or any old-style religion, and it's just running in the background, driving them and framing all their actions in a way they find meaningful or pleasing.
That could be true. But either of those seem very different than religion in the traditional sense. You could argue that certain driving “rules” become akin to a religion, and they may be “religious” to those principles in which case you could say they are religious. But to me it seems like a different thing than normal spirituality.
Great post. “ Recapture the Rapture” by Jamie Wheal is a fascinating deep dive into this question. “valued practice more than dogmatic belief” is a perfect description of my position. It can be very hard to find a church that drops the dogma, but they are out there. Attending church feels like pulling a compass out of my pocket and giving some thought to whether I’m on course.
Spirituality without religion is just religion without accountability
Religion has accountability? Seems to me what gets ditched when you unyoke spirituality from religion is a) dogma b) misogyny c) spurious reasons to murder ‘unbelievers’ or followers of competing religions.
To whom?
I'm reminded of my experience getting my M.S. at Penn. The degree required a thesis. The program had a huge dropout rate. Over half of the participants would get their 10 class credits just fine but be unable to produce a thesis. Most people need structure and a lot of handholding, even at such an advanced level as this.
BTW, the song of the sirens was to reveal unknown truths: https://pyrrhonism.medium.com/the-lure-of-the-sirens-in-the-odyssey-isnt-what-you-think-it-is-5ab5218b5577
My observation from college was that many people couldn't extrapolate from one piece of literature, historical observation, or psychological/scientific fact and apply it to another to make something new. It was just an alien mode of operation for them. I have no great insight into why so many lack this ability.
I can't read your article, but I'd say the siren song is not bad. It's not evil. It has value. But like many things of great worth, it can be dangerous. We can drown in it. So having a framework for interacting with it can be helpful, sometimes even lifesaving. Religion/ritual often serves that purpose.
At what point is it no longer helpful, or even self destructive, to sail your ship one more time through the churning waters off the sirens' isle for the pleasure of getting another listen?
Whether the Eleusinian Mysteries were a drug trip or an ecstatic ritual — or more likely some combination — I find it interesting that it was a thing people did once or twice, and it apparently affected them profoundly, removed their fear of death, and changed the way they lived.
Compare that to some of my psychonaut friends, who keep going back to that well again and again. It seems to me that they're losing something of themselves that they can't get back, because they're incapable of self restraint and have no restriction imposed by any sort of religion/culture/decision making framework.
I copied the article onto Substack https://ataraxiaorbust.substack.com/p/the-lure-of-the-sirens-in-the-odyssey
It seems we have a problem these days. We’ve encouraged people to find their own bliss, to pursue their authentic selves, but most who try end up making a mess of things.
Newish reader here. Reading this entry, it’s clear that in seeking to avoid the dogmatism of religion, you’ve inadvertently recreated it as a Stoic.
I say this as someone who has studied Stoicism for years and found much value in its teachings, including the emphasis on virtue. However, I also recognize that Stoicism is one lens among many, not the universal template for how meaning, spirituality, or integrity must be lived. Other frameworks, other experiences, and other ways of being are equally valid and essential for different individuals.
The sweeping dismissal of "spiritual but not religious" individuals as floundering or adrift reveals not just a lack of empathy, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the diverse ways human beings construct meaning outside traditional frameworks.
You conflate structure with virtue, discipline with superiority, and constraint with wisdom, without considering that for many, true wisdom begins precisely where imposed structures end. Spirituality without rigid handcuffs is not a failing; it is a legitimate, courageous path forged after surviving systems that weaponized constraint.
It takes far more resilience and reflection to live meaningfully without ready-made masts than to simply tie oneself to another.
Your writing makes clear that you are speaking for yourself: your needs, your fears, your worldview. But the projection of that onto others as a universal truth does a disservice to the very inquiry you claim to pursue.
Freedom is not the enemy of meaning. Sometimes, it is the birthplace of it.
I'm always open to evidence of my ignorance. I'd be shocked if I wasn't wrong about a great many things not just in here, but through all of life. But it seems to me that your reaction here is equally sweeping in its dismissal and may not be dealing with the nuance of what virtue is.
Universal proclamations and prescriptions can't work because not everyone is the same. And you may say....and so you admit prescribing virtue is useless!
But no, because baked into virtue is Sophrosyne — moderation/temperance.
And so if you have too much discipline and structure that you're drowning in it, that is where sophrosyne comes in.
And if you're too clinically logical and cut off from the wonders of our world and can feel no awe and elevation — sophrosyne again. (please see my multiple articles about this topic)
Practical wisdom requires us to dial things up and down to meet what the moment and our character require. To moderate. Virtue is self-correcting, not a set of inflexible shackles that damn us to one path.
But as I go through this world, it does not strike me that the majority of people I meet are drowning in virtue and logic. These are things they barely touch, giving no more than lip service to them. They're carried away by emotion and whimsy and desire, consequences be damned. I've known more than a few who are swept away to nihilism or a variety of dark places.
And so where does that leave us? I suppose we could both write nothing about anything, since all things are circumstantial. But I believe that the framework of virtue, of clinging to certain values, is powerful, and something that could help a lot of people.
And perhaps it all comes back to Epictetus (Discourses, 3.23.30)...
"A philosopher's school is a physician's clinic: you shouldn't leave in pleasure, but in pain."
Ultimately, that's sort of what I'm working with. Me writing here is a great way to find my defects. But I think it's also a great way to discomfort the comfortable of the wider world.
If I can do that, if I can get a little bit of reflection that otherwise would be lacking — even if they think I'm deluded — then haven't I done a good thing?
Personally, I can rest satisfied if I accomplish that.
Thank you for your response.
I want to be clear that I never said virtue was useless — in fact, I explicitly acknowledged its value. What I challenged was the idea that virtue, framed Stoically, must be everyone's "mast" in order to lead a meaningful or spiritually grounded life.
Your reply confirms a deeper pattern I already noticed: the habit of universalizing your personal experience as though it were objective truth. Rather than engaging with what I actually said, you reinterpreted it to fit a familiar philosophical defense, prioritizing intellectual frameworks over relational connection or genuine understanding. Our conversation is the poorer for it.
I found your writing through the Authentic Relating community (via Sara Ness), and I approached your work with openness. It’s disappointing that the spirit of authentic dialogue — curiosity, mutual respect, and vulnerability — was not reflected here.
I will be unsubscribing and moving on.
I honor my path, my right to define meaning for myself, and my right to disengage from dynamics that replicate the very forms of dogmatism I have intentionally left behind.
Understood. All my best.
I am not a stoic. I am absurdist.
SBNR: https://tempo.substack.com/p/no-god-only-religion
The Absurd: https://tempo.substack.com/p/groove
I jettisoned religion long ago in my youth. It began when I was bounced around between two Christian religions -- one of one parent, another of the other parent. I got a bit weary of the two dogmas and being in between. So I started investigating world religions, but didn't subscribe to any -- to any great extent . There are some truths in most great religions. So yes, I'm spiritual, but not religious. I don't practice any religion, I go my own way. And, I have not lost my way at all. I'm philosophical, not religious. I'm happy in my own personal place. I have not lost my way, I have my own belief system I'm satisfied with. I have no need of religion. So yeah, I guess I am weird.
>They continuously make bad financial, relational, and career decisions that would have baffled their grandparents equipped with a “non-weird,” compass.
It does not mean their grandparents were right, tho. The basic problem is that their grandparents believed in "shoulding". You should do this, you should not do that, you should save money, you should not get hooked on substances etc.
Why? Worst case you die and then nothing hurts. There are no shoulds. Yes, different choices can result in different outcomes, but they can all be livable.
What Stoics would tell you is that virtue is what matters, and what being virtuous or acting with vice does to your character. Other religions might hang their hat on purity or sin or whatever.
So it's not the state that's the problem. You don't judge the state, or shame a bad living situation someone has gotten themselves into.
But if you're continuously making decisions that are not moderate, Stoics would point out that this is erosive to your character, and because of their cosmology, they think this is a mistake.