(REVIEW) In his famous “Meditations on First Philosophy,” 17th century philosopher Renee Descartes sought to abandon all his previous beliefs in an endeavor to discover the truth.

Catherine and Gil Stafford, in their book, “Walking with the Spiritual but not Religious,” (Apocryphile Press) describe their endeavor to mentor those who have done the same with organized religion.

The book, according to the authors, “takes a fresh look at being a spiritual companion for those who self-identify as something other than religious … a growing populace who constitute a quiet but radical rejection of religion in all its dogmatic and dangerous forms.”

This group of people have often turned to spiritual companions like Catherine and Gil to make sense of their experiences with the paranormal despite their atheism, agnosticism or other kind of background.

Overall, this book is a valiant attempt to create an ethic of deep listening, empathy and guidelines for spiritual mentorship for those who find themselves marginalized by the religious community. At the same time, the Staffords’ lack of clarity exposes the groundwork to logical fallacies, self-refuting statements and logical circles.

In attempting to move away from religion, the Staffords have expounded upon a new one, albeit unorthodox. Nonetheless, it is an intriguing read for those looking for a written exposition of empathy and instruction on how to be a good listener, and for those who may disagree with this review. 

Those who identify as “spiritual but not religious” differ from Descartes in one fundamental aspect — they are not in search of “the” truth but instead “desire a reality of lived experiences with the divine, in whatever form the divine is experienced.”

What the Staffords and Descartes have in common is their willingness to leave previous dogmatic beliefs behind, albeit for different reasons.

The book helpfully illustrates and explores the concepts of deep listening and empathy necessary for a good spiritual companion but also for anybody wishing to authentically connect with somebody who holds different beliefs. Additionally, the authors brilliantly explain the importance of asking open-ended questions toward this end. Regardless of religious background or affiliation, every person longs to be seen, known and loved, and this is part of the noble goal that the Staffords endeavor to contribute to. 

While the good intention of the Staffords cannot be doubted, the book is rife with unclear statements and faulty arguments.

The authors are also quick to criticize religion as a whole, they fail to provide something resembling a definition of what a “religion” actually is. Hence, what the authors describe as a move away from organized religions such as Christianity, Islam or Buddhism is merely a shift from one religion to another. 

Tara Isabella Burton discusses this very topic in her book “Strange Rites.” She broadly discusses and defines religion as a set or system of beliefs, accompanied by rituals, or practices, that reinforce a community with a sense of purpose and link that community to a higher or wider meaning.

Religion provides a clear account of the meaningfulness of the world and a sense of personal or communal purpose, and this belief is reinforced and commemorated via the use of rituals (or liturgies).

If Burton’s definitions hold, then what the Staffords describe as the exploration of spirituality — asking the “big questions” of life without the historically loaded, “pre-prescribed” answers of religion — still possesses the four qualifications necessary for a religion: meaningfulness, purpose, community and ritual.

Even if these things are seen as rooted in and proceed from the individual experience, that collective belief unites those individuals in what may be called “religion” in Burton’s analysis. 

Although the Staffords seek to move away from dogmas or sets of frameworks laid down by organized religions, they lay down principles of their own that must be followed to achieve their desired end of spiritual transformation. 

The authors posit that being a spiritual companion necessarily involves “an ongoing engagement of mindful presence to the ego while seeking the true self. Thoughtful, intuitive listening to heart, mind, and body is the work required to be a wisdom listener and spiritual presence for those who come seeking” (p.58).

In this sense, one kind of religious framework, involving Burton’s four essential characteristics, is simply reshaped and exchanged for a different set of rituals that reinforce and convey a sense of meaningfulness and purpose for various people. The difference is that the categories of what those things look like are much broader. However, the spiritual but not religious do value authenticity and emotional experiences, even though they are suspicious of moral or truth claims that are not rooted in subjectivity. In this sense, they constitute their own loose, unorthodox religion.

In an anecdote, the authors talk about mentoring a person called Elyssa. Elyssa herself admits in the book that being spiritual but not religious involves a “challenging” commitment to pursuing truth, beauty and even holiness. 

This highlights another fundamental problem with the book, namely how poorly most terms are defined, leaving the reader with a great potential for confusion. Perhaps the ambiguity is part of the authors’ intention, but the very claim that religion or spirituality is mostly or purely subjective is in and of itself an overarching, objective claim. The same holds with terms like truth, beauty and holiness. Hence, the notion that religion, truth and holiness all proceed from the individual or are inherently subjective terms, is a self-refuting claim. 

Complete skepticism of what is religious or spiritual is not the position of the authors, which makes the book potentially more confusing as the authors also do not clearly define terms such as truth, God, the divine or wisdom. 

The authors also commit, if they at least do not fail to correct, guilt by association fallacies against organized religion. The Staffords recount various conversations with people who have been hurt by organized religion. Now, to be clear, I do not mean to diminish the hurt that respective churches, faith traditions or individuals of different faith traditions have and continue to inflict on people. 

However, one cannot associate the actions of a Christian, for example, with the entirety of Christianity, as some dialogues in the book suggest. The Christian, for instance, cannot be equated with Christianity, which is instead a body of doctrine. One’s worldview cannot be discredited by what someone of that worldview has done but must instead be discredited by an argument against one’s system of beliefs and rituals. If I am hurt by a Muslim, it does not follow that Islam is evil or inherently harmful by that line of reasoning alone. 

Rafa Oliveira is an intern with ReligionUnplugged.com covering technology and religion. He is a recent graduate of The King’s College in New York City with a degree in politics, philosophy and economics. He speaks Portuguese, English and Spanish and is an ardent Manchester United Supporter.