Wednesday, midday.

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 archivist, Doc, gave me a book to read called The Essence of Christianity by a German philosopher named Ludwig Feuerbach. It is really fascinating. You should read it sometime, since it’s right up your alley. It’s an anthropological account of religion. 

TE’A: Oh, cool. I’m surprised I haven’t heard about him in my classes.

MICK: The priest—his name is Jack—has really caught me off guard. 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 a certain kind of faith or religious orthodoxy is dangerous. I guess that’s what Feuerbach is going to argue as well, but I haven’t gotten that far yet. Anyways, Jack’s point was that faith in one’s religion and concern with doctrinal purity can trump 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. (After a pause.) Do you think it is religion itself that leads to those things? I take myself to be religious, but I’m not at all in favor of acting in that way. 

MICK: Right, I was interested in hearing what you thought. I, myself, don’t really know. Part of me does think it is a tendency intrinsic to religion. But I am more spiritual than I am religious, so it’s not—

A student sitting in an armchair next to them interrupts. 

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 there is something about religion that tends to lead people to be cruel. 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 who 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: According to what?

MICK: I don’t know what you’re asking.

TE’A: Will, man, 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: Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, your questions aren’t very effective. You’re not being clear.

WILL: It was a simple question. (Turning back to Mick.) By what standard?

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?

Will raises his hands in mock surrender.

WILL: Fine. Mick, I’m curious how you judge whether you are improving yourself or not. What is your criterion?

MICK: It’s not very complicated. I ask myself whether I could be more loving, patient, courageous, and other things like that.

WILL: But why should you be more loving, patient, and kind? 

MICK: (Looking baffled.) Because being that way is good.

WILL: But is it good?

MICK: I don’t think there’s an answer to that. They are good in themselves, given the kind of beings we are. You seem to want me to treat them as extrinsically good, but I think of them as intrinsically good. 

WILL: Why would you pursue them if it didn’t ultimately matter whether you did or didn’t? If you don’t believe your ultimate fate hinges on how you act—if you don’t believe in God and justice in the afterlife—then anything goes. 

TE’A: It seems to me that you’re just saying that if there isn’t a god then we are free. 

MICK: Right, specifically, free to be either good or bad.

TE’A: Building in an appeal to divine punishment or reward is a way of constraining that freedom in the basest way imaginable: by appealing to egocentric concern. 

WILL: There’s nothing wrong with being self-concerned, and it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that God would tie our self-concern to how we treat other people. 

He opens his laptop. 

I have a photo of a bumper sticker I saw awhile ago that gets at this. It was so good I had to snap a shot of it.² 

He clicks around until he find it and then turns the screen so they can see. 

TE’A: Jesus! You don’t see how awful that is?

WILL: Please don’t use the Lord’s name in vain. 

TE’A: Hah! It is only in vain if it doesn’t work on you. 

MICK: (Gesturing toward the screen.) I think if anything is “using the Lord’s name in vain,” it is that gross slogan. 

WILL: Haha, I thought that might set you off. But we’ve gotten off track. I wanted to know how you determine 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?

Mick and Te’a look at each other, not sure whether to continue the conversation. After a moment, Mick responds. 

MICK: Well, it’s hard. 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 lack an objective standard. (After a pause.) That’s 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.³

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 the best 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. There are two problems with that assumption. First, plenty of non-religious people believe in objective moral standards. Second, we can’t just assume that what a religion holds up as objective moral standards are actually objectively true. They hold them up under the guise of being objective, but since there are plenty of religious traditions with wildly different accounts of what is allegedly objectively true, any claim of objectivity needs to be critically scrutinized. 

What I understood Mick to be saying was simply that she doesn’t identify with a religion. That’s very different than not believing in objective moral standards. I know Mick, and she is very morally conscientious and seeks to discern what is truly good and just. 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: I think what is good and right is objective in some relevant sense. I just don’t think religions have a monopoly on trying to figure out what is genuinely moral. In fact, I think they have sometimes erred quite profoundly!

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. But if you don’t believe in God, you’re just left with your own feelings or with cultural norms. 

MICK: I wouldn’t say that what is good or right is simply a matter of feeling, and I think cultures often get things wrong. So, 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. Morality is about how we relate to others, so it has to be about that, at least in some sense.

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: Sounds to me like you think people listened a bit too closely to Jesus. 

WILL: You’ve got to be kidding me. He didn’t mean we’re supposed to refrain from criticizing people.

TE’A: (Sighing.) So, I have a question. You’ve got two stickers on your laptop: a US flag and a cross. 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 symbols that communicate what you believe, and I presume you think they indicate that you are a good person. That’s a virtue signal in a nutshell.

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: I actually agree to a small extent. I think there is a real sense in which people aren’t as concerned as they should be about living in a good, just, and noble way. But I am inclined to think that this includes many people who think of themselves as moralists. 

WILL: That doesn’t make sense. If they are concerned with morality, they are concerned with being good, just, and noble.

MICK: I don’t think so. All it takes to be a moralist is for someone to think they know what is right. But they might not critically question their prejudices. To be really committed to being good means being willing to doubt and critically evaluate what we believe and value, including so-called traditional values. 

TE’A: Right. Think about Socrates and his fellow Athenians. What got Socrates in trouble was his insistence that people should examine their values. The people who charged him with atheism and corruption of the youth were traditional moralists. But obviously Socrates cared about morality. He was just concerned about having a rationally defensible conception of it. 

MICK: Yes! That’s a good point. His accusers actually cared more about maintaining tradition than they did about actually being moral.

WILL: Nevertheless, people are just setting aside moral standards because they don’t like to operate under constraints. 

TE’A: I think Mick is right and you’re wrong, at least generally speaking. People definitely want to set aside unjust and inappropriate constraints, but they don’t want to set aside moral constraints across the board. In fact, the reactionaries who oppose things like trans rights and whatnot hate that they are being asked to constrain themselves and respect other people.

WILL: That’s bullshit. What they oppose is being forced to recognize something that isn’t true. It’s insane to expect people to treat men as if they are women. 

TE’A: No one is asking people to do that. They are asking people to treat trans women as trans women and trans men as trans men. 

WILL: There’s no such thing as a trans person. It’s a made up term to describe a man who doesn’t act like a man or a woman who doesn’t act like a woman. 

MICK: Good grief! Have you ever genuinely asked a trans person how they experience their lives? Or are you just getting your talking points from the media?

WILL: You can’t get it from the media. They are all on board with the LGBTQ agenda. 

MICK: (Rolls her eyes.) Speaking of bullshit. I’m sick of people claiming that “The Media” has some monolithic agenda. I can turn on Fox News and hear all about the perspective you’re giving expression to, yet I’m suppose to think that “The Media” is all on board with LGBTQIA+ rights. 

WILL: Fox News isn’t the mainstream media. 

MICK: It’s the most watched cable news channel in the US—of course it is “mainstream.”⁴ Reactionary people just like to think of themselves as an oppressed minority. That’s part of the irony. They are all up in arms about others trying to make our society better, and they claim that social progress results in them being oppressed.

WILL: They aren’t opposed to social progress when it is genuine progress. They are simply opposed to irrational and insane social engineering projects, especially those which coddle people and erode our social morality. 

TE’A: Again, you are claiming that they are eroding social morality, which implies they are simply trying to get rid of morality, but the issue is more complex. They are proposing a different social morality—one which recognizes and acknowledges facts and realities that we previously failed to appreciate. 

WILL: (Sneering) And I would say again if you don’t realize that our society is simply swapping truth for relativism, then I don’t know what to say to you. 

MICK: Maybe rather than saying things we need to ask more questions. 

WILL: And maybe we should hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

TE’A: Asking God to “come by here” seem eminently reasonable. 

Will looks puzzled, and he then checks the time. 

WILL: Speaking of all this nonsense, I’m going to that lecture by Dr. Tostig about atheism. That ought to be good. When it comes to pushing the liberal agenda, she’s one of the most obnoxious professors on campus. 

TE’A: Dr. Tostig isn’t a liberal; she’s a feminist-socialist.

WILL: What the hell is the difference?

TE’A: I think there’s a huge difference, they—

WILL: Whatever, I have to get going. It’s going to start soon. 

He gathers his stuff and exits.

TE’A: What the fuck was that?

Mick laughs uncomfortably. 

It sucks that he’s going to Tostig’s talk. I wanted to go, but I really don’t want to see him again. 

MICK: You should still go. Don’t let him scare you off. I wanted to go too, but I have to go to a meeting. 

They gather their things.

TE’A: I guess I could sit in the back. 

MICK: Do it. I want to hear about what she says—and what he says, for that matter!

TE’A: (Chuckling.) Fine, but if he goes off on her the way he went off on us, I’ll explode. And that’s on you!

They playfully knock each other on the shoulder’s as they leave.

Notes

1. Will’s view concerning religiosity and spiritualism is adapted from an Instagram post by user @thoughtsonthinking: “Spiritualism is Religious Cowardice” (April 26, 2023): instagram.com/p/CrgmshMsm-L.

2. Adapted from an original photo by Threads user @mediumboi; reposted by Instagram user @doconstructiongirl (December 16, 2023), instagram.com/p/C0620GCuvz0.

3. 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).

4. Amy Watson, “Leading cable news networks in the United States in July 2023, by number of primetime viewers.” September 25, 2023. bit.ly/statista-373814.