Religion and Identity

While I might be in danger of sounding like a broken record, I wanted to take a little bit more time in understanding what is meant by people when they say they do or don't affiliate/identify with a religion.

Check out this Pew article about the 10 facts about religion:

 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/27/10-facts-about-religion-in-america/

Specifically, take a look at the opening paragraph about how the rates of the "unaffiliated with a religion" have grown from 16% in 2007 to 23% in 2014. 

This is more than 1/5 of those surveyed, and due to its numbers, I think this question is a valid one to ask: If one chooses to not affiliate with a religion, do they still have a religious identity? Broadly speaking, if we define having a "religious identity" as something everyone must have, then yes, their "religious identity" would be that they don't have one. But is that accurate? As I quoted William Lee Miller in my last SSRP, many Americans seem to be "very fervent believers in a very vague religion,"  and even if one doesn't identify with a philosophy, are they still part of a collective "vague" American religion? Are they truly outsiders?

From thepastfoundation.org

Henry David Hwang, in his play Chinglish has one of his characters say that "Love is the American religion," and I think there's something there that can connect to Miller's assertion above. While 23% of those in that Pew poll don't affiliate with a religion, it would be interesting to see if the cultural ideals of America could be translated as a collective and "vague" religion since love, the American Dream, and the Puritan Work Ethic seem to be cultural touchstones that drive almost religious-esque devotional behavior in people. The definition of a religion is slippery and probably impossible to truly define, but one popular idea is that it is a philosophy that has some sort of supernatural-like authority. If the American Dream of working hard to attain wealth, power and social mobility relies on some sort of authority, then yes, it is a religion; if love is something to search for and something we, as Americans, are by right (an authority) are destined to have, then yes, it's a religion under these terms. Under this set of circumstances, "religiously unaffiliated" people might be affiliated with some sort of infusion of the collective American religious ideals that permeate the culture.

On the other hand, is affiliating with nothing in particular completely divorced from its concept? If I have a choice between a burrito and a sandwich, and I choose neither, have I made a choice that truly is not connected to that realm of selection? I would argue that yes, choosing nothing is a valid choice, and those who are religiously unaffiliated are not exclusively non-religious. They just, when choosing between a burrito or a sandwich, didn't choose either; that's not the same as not eating... Perhaps they chose a doughnut instead, or something else that wasn't listed in those choices, or maybe they just weren't hungry and didn't eat anything.

From begum9.com

I have known many people who proudly identify as an atheist or an agnostic. In their stance against religion, they have chosen to identify themselves as something they are not, which is not an uncommon practice, but one that seems to be a special thread running throughout the history of religion and philosophy. 

Finally, to end this strangely circular and rambling post, let's go back to the Big Lebowski. As Walter is shouting to the self-identified Nihilists who want money, the Nihilists are disappointed and complain that they don't get their fair share. Walter than yells to them, "You don't think that's fair? Who's the real Nihilists now?" 

Anyway, some food for thought... or doughnuts... or whatever you choose... or don't choose... whatever you do... or don't... 

Ugh, philosophy.