I really think the crux of their discussion is the role of dogma and specific spiritual practices and whether/how that forms the basis for one's religious identity.
I’m redefining the term bound here, but one could say that Sam is still bound to spiritual practice in a general sense even though he's not bound to any particular dogma. On the other hand, I think there are people for whom spiritual fulfillment of any formal kind is not a priority unless we're really stretching the definition of spirituality to include things like love of music, art, sports, or anything one may experience in a profound way. Those are the people who I might describe as the truly unbound.
For Sam, one could argue that he simply hasn't found (or founded?) a religion that matches his spiritual needs in a 1:1 manner. However, Sam's cherry picking what works for him from various religious practices is, in many ways, a nontheistic religious practice in itself.
This perspective is one I've come to embrace within Satanism where, while there's a focus on the character of Satan, it's not a dogmatic or even necessary focus on Satan himself, but rather what he represents. In Satanism, people are free to tailor their spiritual practice in a highly unbounded way, much like Sam Harris has done. As an example, some Satanists incorporate Buddhist practices within their Satanism because it works well for them. Satanism can be a great religion for the types of people you've described as unbound. In fact, I still consider myself unbound because the difference for me is I'm not bound to my Satanism, my Satanism is bound to me.
Ironically, the distinction between religion and spirituality becomes more clear the less that one's religion relies on formal, dogmatic ritual practice. The distinguishing features of the religion, at that point, become the community, identity, and mission.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. What's been most interesting to me is hearing how other people interact with the bound/unbound concept. Some nonreligious atheists have told me that they feel Bound, while some religious people have told me they feel Unbound.
I think that the dichotomy is ultimately fairly superficial but a helpful way to begin thinking about how individuals relate to religion (or, at least, perceive themselves in relation to religion.)
Your concept of Satanism as an unbound religion is interesting to me, and warrants further reflection.
I also wonder if it’s possible to become truly unbound without having to study and deeply know what it’s like to be bound. Like, without the context of being bound, how would you really know what unbound is like?
I can imagine truly unbound ones being born in an environment without any religion or strong ideologies, no baggage. Which is great, BUT can they truly appreciate what it’s like to be unbound?
Mmm, that's interesting. Perhaps put another way: one can't truly become Unbound until they have committed themself to the discipline of a single path?
This is definitely the kind of debate I think about a lot, and you picked a couple of good representatives to illustrate both sides. I'm comfortable and confident where I'm at in being more on the unbound Harris side of things, but there is an argument for the bound side that I find particularly compelling - and it's not the one Brooks articulates here.
The thing that makes me periodically wonder if I'm missing out by being something of an unbound universalist is the argument that you can only really explore the depths of transcendence to the fullest if you do so within a particular tradition because each religious tradition is a comprehensive system for achieving just that.
For lack of a better analogy at the moment, it would be as if you split your time playing a bunch of different sports. You'd get a lot of exercise, have a lot of fun, and develop a lot of athleticism. But you're not going to go pro in any of those sports or become an olympian. You're not going to be able to reach the pinnacle of athletic achievement. And that's totally fine. There are good things about both ways of being. From what I know about you, it makes total sense to me that you feel drawn to the "bound" side of things because stability and a systematic daily routine are so important for your overall well-being. It's helpful to have one steady system to follow. For me, my well-being tanks when things stay the same for too long. But everyone's different! And we need both types of folks.
This all makes sense! It’s also super interesting to me to revisit this article now that I’ve effectively been turned out of my religious community and I’m unbound by circumstance. It’s a horrible uncomfortable experience, but I’m leaning into it.
I really think the crux of their discussion is the role of dogma and specific spiritual practices and whether/how that forms the basis for one's religious identity.
I’m redefining the term bound here, but one could say that Sam is still bound to spiritual practice in a general sense even though he's not bound to any particular dogma. On the other hand, I think there are people for whom spiritual fulfillment of any formal kind is not a priority unless we're really stretching the definition of spirituality to include things like love of music, art, sports, or anything one may experience in a profound way. Those are the people who I might describe as the truly unbound.
For Sam, one could argue that he simply hasn't found (or founded?) a religion that matches his spiritual needs in a 1:1 manner. However, Sam's cherry picking what works for him from various religious practices is, in many ways, a nontheistic religious practice in itself.
This perspective is one I've come to embrace within Satanism where, while there's a focus on the character of Satan, it's not a dogmatic or even necessary focus on Satan himself, but rather what he represents. In Satanism, people are free to tailor their spiritual practice in a highly unbounded way, much like Sam Harris has done. As an example, some Satanists incorporate Buddhist practices within their Satanism because it works well for them. Satanism can be a great religion for the types of people you've described as unbound. In fact, I still consider myself unbound because the difference for me is I'm not bound to my Satanism, my Satanism is bound to me.
Ironically, the distinction between religion and spirituality becomes more clear the less that one's religion relies on formal, dogmatic ritual practice. The distinguishing features of the religion, at that point, become the community, identity, and mission.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. What's been most interesting to me is hearing how other people interact with the bound/unbound concept. Some nonreligious atheists have told me that they feel Bound, while some religious people have told me they feel Unbound.
I think that the dichotomy is ultimately fairly superficial but a helpful way to begin thinking about how individuals relate to religion (or, at least, perceive themselves in relation to religion.)
Your concept of Satanism as an unbound religion is interesting to me, and warrants further reflection.
I also wonder if it’s possible to become truly unbound without having to study and deeply know what it’s like to be bound. Like, without the context of being bound, how would you really know what unbound is like?
I can imagine truly unbound ones being born in an environment without any religion or strong ideologies, no baggage. Which is great, BUT can they truly appreciate what it’s like to be unbound?
Mmm, that's interesting. Perhaps put another way: one can't truly become Unbound until they have committed themself to the discipline of a single path?
Yes, exactly!
This is definitely the kind of debate I think about a lot, and you picked a couple of good representatives to illustrate both sides. I'm comfortable and confident where I'm at in being more on the unbound Harris side of things, but there is an argument for the bound side that I find particularly compelling - and it's not the one Brooks articulates here.
The thing that makes me periodically wonder if I'm missing out by being something of an unbound universalist is the argument that you can only really explore the depths of transcendence to the fullest if you do so within a particular tradition because each religious tradition is a comprehensive system for achieving just that.
For lack of a better analogy at the moment, it would be as if you split your time playing a bunch of different sports. You'd get a lot of exercise, have a lot of fun, and develop a lot of athleticism. But you're not going to go pro in any of those sports or become an olympian. You're not going to be able to reach the pinnacle of athletic achievement. And that's totally fine. There are good things about both ways of being. From what I know about you, it makes total sense to me that you feel drawn to the "bound" side of things because stability and a systematic daily routine are so important for your overall well-being. It's helpful to have one steady system to follow. For me, my well-being tanks when things stay the same for too long. But everyone's different! And we need both types of folks.
Also, I want to emphasize: I agree with you that both types are needed. 100%.
This all makes sense! It’s also super interesting to me to revisit this article now that I’ve effectively been turned out of my religious community and I’m unbound by circumstance. It’s a horrible uncomfortable experience, but I’m leaning into it.