Who
are the Nones? [1]
They
“constitute the nation’s [The US] fastest-growing religious demographic.” The
Nones “may not believe in God, but we [the author is a self-professed None]
hope to one day.” The why of this hope is articulated nowhere.
They,
about 12% of the people in a survey, claim “no religious affiliation at all.”
However, the same survey indicated 93% of Americans said “they believe in a
higher power,” presumably, God. This “holds true for most Nones,” the author explains.
Here is the mathematical disconnect
between religion and God. 93 and 12 add to something more than 100, if I am not
wrong.
The
newspaper article under reference tries to make sense out of the numbers thrown
up by the survey and ends up, alas, being nonsense.
“Apparently
a growing number of Americans are running from organized religion,” the author
says, implying that religion can be, even if not disorganized, unorganized. Perhaps,
private religion? This confusion is compounded when the author later asks, “[H]ow
to talk about the private nature of religion publicly?” He assumes, apparently
quite confounded by his line of thinking that private religion has to be talked
about in public.
Lest
you do not catch the distinction between religion and God, the article says
that the people who are running from organized religion are “by no means
running from God.” Blame the co-option of the debate about God by the “True Believers”
(TB) and “Angry Atheists” (AB). The Nones have nowhere to hide. They neither like
the TBs nor agree with the AAs. Hence they became Nones. And, politics helped.
The
author refers to the ideas of two academics, David Campbell and Robert Putnam,
who are paraphrased as, “we’ve mixed politics and religion so completely that
many simply opt out of both; …they [Nones] are reluctant to claim a religious
affiliation because they don’t want the political one that comes along with it.”
This may not be farfetched, but it is claimed that the Christmas Holiday season
helps to, “reconnect with our religious heritage.” The implication is that
politics does not play during this season. That could be so, but an even more
insidious virus is at work, commercialization of the season. It is like, “Chose
your poison, politicization or commercialization!”
Religion,
and also unfortunately the tag-along God, are brought into the public space through
shopping! Every mall in the US sports a few white bearded, red clad, potbellied
Santa Claus. That is religion for you. Oops! God for you! Better than the
burning bush!
The
author helpfully says that it was when he came out of a health scare he became
a None. It was a crisis of faith that drove him off the AA cliff and stopped
him from climbing the TB cliff all the way. He fell between the stools.
And,
he blames God. The Semitic God has not been too much fun to be around (you must
remember that Christianity has none like our mischievous, womanizing, ras leelaesque Lord Krishna). The God of
Abraham is eternally angry because His folks are disobedient (who will not be
when you ask them not to steal and do other fun things, like having fun with
the neighbor’s wife?). “He is constantly judging and smiting.” No wonder
Christian religious leaders are a dour lot. Wet blankets.
But
the Nones find that any God is better than no God. Hence they like Dalai Lama,
who “Laughs, often and well.” They transfer Dalai Lama’s smile onto the Buddha’s.
Now, I know the secret of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar; he too smiles often and well;
and not for him the matted hair of our erstwhile sages.
But,
how to get back to Christianity? You have to have the entrepreneurial spirit of
a Steve Jobs. There must be a “new way of being religious,” that does not
offend God, of course. And, it may do a whole lot of good to have Him named
iGod (following Jobs)! This new way “would be straight forward and unencumbered
and absolutely intuitive.” The author imagines “a religious space that
celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word
God without embarrassment.” This is the height of nonsense.
If
a religion allows doubt it stops being a religion. If it allows
experimentation, it stops being a religion. If you accept the first two, the
third comes automatically.
Why
would you ever be embarrassed about something meaningless?
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
1. Americans: Undecided about God?
Eric Weiner, The New York Times, December 10, 2011
10 comments:
Raghu Sb,
Yes I can smile well!
Thanks,
DMR Sekhar
Raghu Sb,
I smiled well.
Thanks,
Sekhar
Upanishads posit no absolutes..
it talks of a psychological location
of no doubts and no asserted certainties..goes beyond..
"One can smile and smile and still be a villain " (Hamlet talking about Claudius)
As Sampath sir said upanishads do encojurge doubt etc
I also do not undestand this ' hope to ' attitude. But still no problem talking about god.
Also I see that most of your posts now a days are about ( and of course against) religion. More worked up than before ?
"One can smile and smile and still be a villain " (Hamlet talking about Claudius)
As Sampath sir said upanishads do encojurge doubt etc
I also do not undestand this ' hope to ' attitude. But still no problem talking about god.
Also I see that most of your posts now a days are about ( and of course against) religion. More worked up than before ?
Thanks DMRS sir ... if doubting religion brings even a grin to one's face, it is worth it!
RE
Yes DS sir ... and that is precisely the point ... one cannot live philosophy and Upanishads are philosophical treatises to the extent they espouse uncertainties. In my mind, good living is concurrent with living with doubts. Therefore, I say religion cannot let you live a good life.
RE
pala, a few things ...
Religion may have co-opted philosophy, but the situation is not sustainable for the very reason I had mentioned in my response to DS sir.
I have a problem with the agnostics ... do they hope that God exists while claiming they do not know? I want to do nothing with them if they do.
My mind is not working very well and religion is an easy target ... jump starting of my brian, I suppose.
RE
I've just started reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs. What I've read so far, about 50 pages, makes me think that God was a kind of filler for Jobs, to fill the void left in his psyche by his (biological) parents' abandoning him just after his birth. For most people, I feel, God serves a similar function. That's why you won't find any logic when it comes to God.
But Matheikal, Jobs adoptive parents seem to have done an admirable job of filling up Jobs. He spoke so glowingly of them in his Satnford U commencemtn address!
I don't mind people saying religion is truth, but they cannot claim it is logical truth. This is what I hear from almost all religionists and that gets my goat!
RE
Post a Comment