Wednesday Afternoon
Te’a and Mick are sharing a sofa in the campus Spiritual Life lounge. Other students are spread out, studying and chatting.
Te'a: So, how are your conversations with those old guys going?
Mick laughs.
Mick: They’re really interesting! The priest—his name is Jack—is an odd guy. We’ve been talking about atheism, and he seems to think that some of the criticisms of religion are accurate.
Te'a: Haha, oh yeah?
Mick: Yeah, he has basically been arguing that religious orthodoxy is dangerous. His point is that for religious people, doctrinal purity trumps loving others. That’s why violence, shaming, and other things are used to police obedience and distinguish who is in and who is out.
Te'a: Hmm. Some people are like that, but it’s not as if all of them are. He doesn’t really think that does he? I mean, how could he be a priest if he did?
Mick: That’s what is so puzzling about him! I think he really does believe it, but there’s also something else going on, which I’m not really clear on. He made a distinction between being religious and being faithful, and he promised to say more tonight.
Te'a: I’ll be interested to hear what he means by that. (After a brief pause.) What do you think? Do you think religious people are necessarily concerned with doctrinal purity?
Mick: Hmm, I don’t think so, but I guess I don’t really know. I’d say I am more spiritual than I am religious, so it’s not—
A student sitting in an armchair next to them interrupts without looking up from his laptop.
Will: Oh boy. I suppose you would say religions aren’t inclusive enough.
Mick and Te’a exchange glances.
Will: I couldn’t help but overhear.
Mick: Um—I might say that, but that wasn’t what I was saying. I was actually—
Will: That whole “spiritual but not religious” phrase is just a form of virtue signaling.¹
Mick: Hold on. Since you interrupted us, let me introduce myself. My name’s Mick.
He finally looks their way as he shuts his laptop. Te’a gives an unenthusiastic wave.
Te'a: I’m Te’a.
Will: Nice to meet you. I’m Will.
Mick: Okay, Will, so I want to hear why you think it’s a virtue signal, but first you didn’t let me finish what I was saying. Te’a had asked whether I think all religious people are concerned with doctrinal purity. Although I don’t think all of them are, I was going to say that since I am not religious, I’m not the best person to ask.
Will: If you’re not religious, why are you in the Spiritual Life lounge?
Te'a: It’s not the “religious life” lounge!
Will: Whatever. What I was saying is relevant to your question. A religious person has to care about orthodoxy. Being religious is all about acknowledging that there are clear moral distinctions between good and evil. That’s what people who say they are spiritual but not religious want to avoid. They don’t want to judge other people in the way that being religious requires, so they say they’re “spiritual.”
Mick: That’s not what I mean.
Will: Well, what do you mean?
Mick: I mean that I try to be fully alive and engaged with reality in a deep way. When I think of someone that is spiritual, I imagine someone who is generous, loving, caring, and courageous. So when I say I am spiritual, I mean that I try to be those things.
Will: But why aren’t you religious?
Mick: I think that’s mostly a matter of upbringing. I wasn’t raised in a religion, and I’ve never found it necessary or important to join one.
Will: Ah, but why don’t you think it is necessary?
Mick: I don’t think that one needs to belong to a religion in order to be good, and I don’t accept that joining a religion would make me a better person.
Will: Why not?
Mick: Do you mean, “Why don’t I accept that?” or “How can someone be good without being religious?”
Will: Sure.
Mick looks exasperated and Te’a chuckles.
Mick: Okay, well, I don’t accept it because I’ve never been presented with any evidence to make me suppose it is true. I don’t see how believing in stuff about heaven or a soul would make me a better person.
Will: So, do you think you’re good just the way you are?
Te'a: Dude, she didn’t say that she was.
Will: She said she doesn’t see any evidence that joining a religion would make her a better person, so I just want to know if she thinks she’s fine just the way she is.
Mick: Well, no, I don’t think I’m perfect, if that’s what you’re asking. I don’t even think I’m consistently good. That’s what I was getting at when I explained why I’m spiritual. I try to continuously improve myself. That obviously means that I recognize that I can be improved.
Will: What’s your standard?
Mick: Sorry, but again, I don’t know what you’re asking.
Te'a: Will, man, it seems like you are trying to drive at something, but you’re being kind of antagonistic.
Will: What’s wrong with being antagonistic? Asking tough questions is the best way to evaluate the claims people make.
Te'a: Yeah, it is, but your questions aren’t very effective. What, specifically, were you trying to ask about?
Will: It was a simple question. (Turning back to Mick.) By what standard do you judge whether you are improving yourself or not?
Before Mick can answer, Te’a continues.
Te'a: Why don’t you pretend that Mick isn’t your enemy and try asking complete questions like that?
Will raises his hands in mock surrender.
Will: Fine. Mick, I’m curious how you judge whether you are improving yourself or not.
Mick: It’s not very complicated. I ask myself whether I could be more loving, patient, courageous, and other things like that.
Will: But how do you know whether you are loving in the right way, whether your patience is appropriate, and whether the things you are trying to courageously fight for are worth it?
Te'a: Now that is a good question!
Mick: Yes, and it’s a hard one. I have doubts about those things, and I sometimes change my mind about whether something I was fighting for was good or whether I’ve been loving others in the right way.
Will: That’s understandable, especially if you don’t have an objective standard. (He pauses before proceeding carefully.) I think that is why it is important to be religious. Religion provides us with guidance about what is truly good, appropriate, and worth fighting for.
Te'a: Do you think all religions do that?
Will: I think they all try to, and maybe most of them are on the right track, but I think that only the Catholic faith fully and accurately conveys the truth about such matters.
Te'a: But religious teachings are worked out by people. It’s not as if the bible fell from heaven fully written.
Mick: So, this is related to something I was talking to some friends about last night. One of them is a priest, by the way— though I don’t think he’s Catholic. Anyways, that’s not important. He was arguing that religion tends to lead people to act immorally.
Will: That couldn’t have been what he said.
Mick: And yet, it was.
Te'a: That seems obvious to me, at least in the way you just said it, Mick. I don’t think religion necessarily or on its own makes people act badly, but it’s clearly used to justify bad actions, and sometimes it motivates people to do bad things.
Mick: Right, that’s probably what Jack meant.
Will: I think we need to be careful. Someone who is religious might do something bad and they might even justify themselves on religious grounds, but that doesn’t mean the religion actually justifies what they did.
Mick: Sure, I agree with that. (She pauses to think for a moment.) But that’s exactly what I think about acting rightly. Someone who is religious might be good and do good things, and they might even understand their motivations in religious terms, but that doesn’t mean the religion itself is what leads them to be good.
Te'a: Oh, snap!
Will: Hold on. Do you seriously think that being religious doesn’t make a difference in people’s lives?
Mick: No, I think it probably makes a difference. (Pauses.) But maybe not in the really fundamental way that’s implied when we say someone has to be religious or that it “makes” people good—or evil, for that matter.
Will: I don’t see why you wouldn’t accept the testimony of people who have had the experience of converting. They would be the competent judges of such matters. Take Saint Augustine. I’ve been reading his Confessions, and he talks about how his whole life was turned around when he converted. Or Saint Paul. He persecuted Christians before converting.
Mick: Hmm. I hear what you’re saying, and Jack mentioned something about Augustine. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but I think he was criticizing him.
Te'a: Hold on. Paul persecuted Christians because he was a Pharisee. That seems to be a mark in favor of what Mick is saying.
Will: Sure, but he stopped persecuting them because of his new religion.²
Mick: Anyways, it seems just as likely to me that a convert simply gives themselves a new life narrative that is a better fit—psychologically, socially, politically. The fact that they feel like they are better people as a result of converting doesn’t mean they’re actually objectively better people.
Te'a: Right. They are “competent judges” about their subjective experience, but we can’t assume they’re objectively correct in claiming that they occupy the “right” position. Wouldn’t it be funny if someone thought converting made them a worse person?
Will: Uh, yeah. It would be idiotic. That basically proves what I’m getting at.
Mick: No, it only shows that it would be absurd for someone to simultaneously think that converting made them a worse person while nevertheless fully committing to that religion. I’m not disagreeing with you about how people think about their religion.
Will: I suppose that makes sense. But at least they are thinking in terms of being objectively correct. That’s certainly better than the rampant relativism and virtue signaling that plague our society.
Te'a: I wanted to return to that. Why is saying, “I’m spiritual but not religious,” a virtue signal?
Will: Well it’s obviously just a way for people who think religions are judgmental to signal that they aren’t like that. They don’t want to accept the discipline and moral codes that come along with being religious. They think everyone is entitled to do and believe whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt other people.
Mick: I don’t think that’s fair. I mean, I’m sure some people think that way, but nothing about conceiving of yourself as spiritual but not religious necessarily entails that.
Will: It obviously does! They are saying they are not religious.
Te'a: I think you’re assuming that being religious means accepting objective moral standards. What I understood Mick to be saying was that it just means she doesn’t identify with a religion. That’s very different. I know Mick, and she is very morally conscientious. Right, Mick?
Mick: I think so? Or, I mean, I try to be.
Will: You might be trying to, but if moral principles aren’t objectively determined, you can’t really claim anything is objectively morally right or wrong.
Mick: That seems circular to me. You’re saying they are objective because they are objectively determined. But what does that even amount to?
Will: The moral law comes from God. It’s not up to us to say what is and is not moral. It’s not a matter of what feels right.
Mick: I wouldn’t say that what is good or right is simply a matter of feeling, and I guess I also don’t think it’s up to us, at least in some sense. But also, it’s not a matter of some god commanding it. Things are wrong simply because of what they are or what they cause. Take assault, for example. It’s wrong just because of what it is: assaulting someone.
Will: Oh, come on. There’s an explanation of why it’s wrong beyond just saying that it’s wrong.
Mick: I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. I don’t mean it’s wrong because we say it’s wrong. I mean it’s wrong in itself. (Pauses.) Also, I don’t think that means it can’t be explained. My brother has some social behavior issues, and my family had to learn to explain to him why certain things weren’t okay because he didn’t understand them. For example, we had to tell him not to interrupt people when talking because it causes them to feel frustrated and unappreciated, and they generally expect to be heard out. That’s basically a complete explanation. I don’t need to bring God into the explanation.
Will: Ah, but see, you just said it had to do with how people feel!
Mick: Well sure. How people feel is important.
Will: So we’re just supposed to make people feel good?
Mick: No. All I meant was that it is important or right for us to consider their feelings, and sometimes that is the most significant factor. But I don’t think it’s always the most important thing. Other things are also relevant.
Te'a: Sorry, but I want to return to the issue of virtue signaling. I get the idea, and I don’t like it when people do it, but I think you need to know more about the person than just the words they are using.
Will: What do you mean?
Te'a: I mean, saying someone is engaging in virtue signaling has to be based on more than the mere words they are using. Their intentions matter—and their actions and how they live their lives.
Mick: I agree. Someone’s really only virtue signaling if they are saying something just to be socially acceptable or demonstrate they are in a certain camp. But if they say whatever it is in complete honesty, especially when talking with someone else about an issue in a genuine way, I don’t think they should be dismissed as just signaling.
Will: Well, it seems to me that’s the problem. Everyone’s just jumping on board with the whole “I’m not going to judge you” thing, and they want everyone to know it.
Te'a: So, I have a question. You’re wearing a cross and there’s an American flag sticker on your laptop. Is that virtue signaling?
Will: I think there’s a difference. The cross and flag represent traditional values—my heritage and my commitments.
Te'a: What’s the difference, though? The fact that something is traditional doesn’t matter. If anything, that seems like the most prevalent kind of virtue signaling! Both of those are quite literally symbols, and I assume you wear them to communicate what you believe.
Will: Well, the same thing would go for all the pride flags and whatnot.
Te'a: Sure. I agree that things like that—all things like that—are symbols and signals. I think you just need to be consistent.
Mick: I think the pride flag thing is different since it’s a way of showing support for people who are marginalized.
Will groans.
Will: “Marginalized”! That’s another term people are throwing around to be politically correct.
Te'a: Oh man, we’re really getting into, aren’t we? (Sighs.) Politics is about making a community good and safe and welcoming. Should we be incorrect about such matters?
Will: Come on. You know what I mean. It’s just a way of showing that you’re on the bandwagon. Morally serious people have integrity and recognize clear moral boundaries. They don’t accept that just anything goes.
Mick: I think you’re making an unfair move. You are assuming that because people have non-traditional views they necessarily don’t have integrity and don’t recognize moral distinctions. But they usually are very concerned with those sorts of things.
Te'a: And also, hasn’t calling people out as virtue signaling or being politically correct become its own form of virtue signaling?
Mick: Hah! It sure seems like it.
Will: I think you two are being obtuse.
Te'a: Jeez, dude.
Will: Seriously. If you don’t recognize that the moral institutions in our society are being eroded and lots of people have given up caring about objective truth in favor of being polite, then I don’t know what to say.
Mick: Maybe rather than saying things we need to ask more questions. (Pauses.) I want to organize my thoughts and questions, but we have to get to class. How about I order a pizza tonight and we continue this conversation? You game?
Te'a: Uh…
Will: Sure. Name the place. I can bring some drinks. Mind if my buddy tags along?
Mick: Not all. I’m in McGregor Hall. Let’s meet in the lounge at eight.
Will: How about nine? I’m going to chapel at eight.
Mick: I’ll do you one better. How about I go to chapel with you and then we go to McGregor after?
Te'a laughs but Mick continues.
Mick: I clearly don’t have much context for your religious viewpoints, and I’m curious what it’s like. Would you mind?
Will: No, not at all! I’ll meet you there?
Mick: Sounds like a plan.
Te’a and Mick gather their things and walk out.
Te'a: You’re a glutton for pain.
Mick: It’ll be fine. You’ll come?
Te'a: I don’t know—doesn’t sound very appealing. (She gives Mick a sideways glance.) He said he’s bringing a “buddy.”
Mick laughs as they exit the student union.
1. Will’s view concerning religiosity and spiritualism is adapted from an Instagram post by user @thoughtsonthinking: “Spiritualism is Religious Cowardice” (April 26, 2023). https://www.instagram.com/p/CrgmshMsm-L.
2. It is important to note that Paul, or Saul, did not abandon Judaism. It is anachronistic to say that he converted to a “new” religion in the modern sense of those terms. See Sheila E. McGinn, The Jesus Movement and the World of the Early Church (Anselm Academic, 2014).