A common nontechnical phrase is "nones" in vernacular sociological discourse.
Not being a Gnu Atheist, I therefore looked forward to a New York Times column written by a None.
However, to put it bluntly, Eric Weiner is NOT a "None." Selections from the column clearly show that:
We Nones may not believe in God, but we hope to one day. We have a dog in this hunt.Really? Who's the "we" you claim to represent by such a blanket statement.
Nones don’t get hung up on whether a religion is “true” or not, and instead subscribe to William James’s maxim that “truth is what works.”Again, since Nones by definition have no religion, many of them don't even have that much focus on religion.
God is not an exclamation point, though. He is, at his best, a semicolon, connecting people, and generating what Aldous Huxley called “human grace.”So, you're actually a theist of sorts, of the Paul Tillich "ground of being" school of Protestant theology that still has antirational, anti-analytic-philosophy, anti-linguistic roots at places like Harvard Divinity School.
And, if those snippets aren't stupid and barf-inducing enough, the closing paragraph certainly is:
We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive. I imagine a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us.No, honest religious seekers don't need a capitalist mass marketer as the person to lead them down the road of "wherever." That said, I don't think Eric Weiner would know intellectual honesty if it bit him in the ass.
But, knowing what he's written and reported before, he exemplifies the Peter Principle in action at public radio's Nice Polite Republicans.