SPIRITUAL, BUT NOT RELIGIOUS

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have long felt that those who equate the origin of the universe with god, but otherwise do not offer an expression of the nature of a deity have simply equivocated in a difficult situation. However, i have revised that view somewhat today. Our local NPR talk radio program has had as a program with Robert Fuller, of Bradley University's religious studies department, who has a new book entitled Spiritual, But Not Religious. Since i was old enough to apply any rational thought to the question, i have believed that there are no gods, no goddesses. This had not meant, however, that i ridicule those who say that they have a spiritual nature, and wish to express it. After all, believing that someone is wrong in one or more matters is not of necessity believing that they are deluded about all matters, nor is it an assertion that they are "bad." The author made a comment which sparked my interest, when he spoke of those who searched for a means of reconciling the spiritual feelings they have with a description of a deity which is not in conflict with scientific evidence about the cosmos as it is now known. He also referred to Emerson's description of god as "oversoul," and spoke of those who have increasingly left organized religion, have become "unchurched," because they don't consider that such institutions provided them the spiritual expression they desired, due to the narrowness and exclusivity of the theological dogma.

What's your take on this topic? Are you "unchurched" but spiritual? How do you express that? How does that affect you in the course of your life?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,804 • Replies: 81

No top replies

My opinion? --

Many people know the expression "attitude of gratitide". When someone appreciates each moment, experience and thing in the world just for what it is, then it changes them. Each moment becomes savory for it's natural beauty, without much need to struggle or slave. Things are done from joy instead of fear. They have more curiosity, more open to thought, more eager to learn and discover everything around them. Plus, when it's genuine, the person is more pleasant to be around.

Gratitude, a positive outlook, going for the good stuff, being constructive, enjoying -- this is a spiritual state. It can be constructed deliberately, with full intent and awareness. It takes a bit of energy and that's why it's spiritual "work". But we can be conscious, self-made people. We can change the "way" we are through decision, practice, meditation and spiritual exercises.

Notice that at no time did I mention God. Spirituality does not require a God, only the awareness of attitude, approach and spirit in which one lives. What do you appreciate and value, deep down? How do you cultivate those things? How do you choose to think, feel, and react?

Any atheist can be highly spiritual. To me, it's not a self-expression but a self-construction, a meta-consciousness, a tool for self-determinism -- to know, appreciate and create whatever kind of life we want.

And gratitude? When every act and every feeling can be appreciated just for what it is, then the joy of living is in everything. That's not necessarily the Ultimate Goal, but certainly one possible goal that a person might choose. Regardless of their method, it would be a spiritual pursuit.

Spirituality is about our way of being. It's my life, and I'm the one who should live it! My self-made values, focus, character, quality and destiny are much too important to give them to someone else. So personally, I would leave God out of it, and use religion simply to control others. Spirituality is far too sacred to be abused by religion.

0 Replies

I am totally with CodeBorg on this issue. Being spiritual, being aware, being positive to others is indeed work, but it need not involve any kind of deity. So many threads in this forum aggravate me because the questions soooo block the process. The sooner we stop questioning god and get on with the business of living humanely, the better.

As for book-learning, I have always been a big fan of Alan Watts, I think he pretty much covered all the bases:

http://www.alanwatts.com/aw_story.html

0 Replies

I have the same qualm with "spiritual" as I do with religion. It's the same stupidity under a different name.

0 Replies

Balanced with practicality, I disagree Craven. It is not dogmatic.

0 Replies

It's not the dogmatic element. What I dislike about the "spiritual" is the complete and utter disregard for truth. When fallacious thinking is unopposed it spreads. Spiritualism is still the feeble aspect of the human mind taking over.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's not the dogmatic element. What I dislike about the "spiritual" is the complete and utter disregard for truth.

What makes you think that being "spirtual" means "the truth" is disregarded? "Spirtual" can mean a whole lot of things...

0 Replies

It can mean many things, almost all of which include reification.

Unjustified reification is the same backward thinking that leads people to believe in all kinds of untrue things.

0 Replies

Jeez, Im siding with Craven. Neither spiritual nor churched am I. Im a recovering Catholic trained by the Shock Troops of the Church who always, always demanded rhat data and evidence rule our experiments in science.
They, however. lose it with their inability to distinguish evidence from dogma in dealing with the infinite.

theres a lot of hard wiring that the genome projects have disclosed. we have discovered separate genic alleles that correspond with psychosocial properties, like fellowship, nurture, empathy, etc. so why cannot a property for "wonder" and awe not be far behind.

Its a lot more plausible to me than the structured myths we are force fed as kids. Some of the myths get so complicated that they spin totally outside of reality

0 Replies

"Unjustified reification"?? Who gets to decide what is justified?

Ok, I get your point but you are making it with some pretty broad statements that include people that DON'T dabble in reification.

0 Replies

I gotta agree with Craven and farmerman on this one. Our brains are influenced much by chemistry, and even a chocolate bar can provide us with "spiritual" experience. c.i.

0 Replies

fishin',

First I must clarify that I do not think being spiritual (or religious) is wrong. Just that spirituality and religion are wrong.

By the same measure I do not think it wrong for a person to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, just that the statement is wrong.

The term "New Age" was coined because this is a relatively recent development. I consider it progress because the ambiguity of some spiritual beliefs is more scientifically defensible than some religious beliefs.

But to me they are all rooted in the same human flaw. The desire to be able to comprehend and express what the individual is unable to comprehend and express.

Even if spirituality is used metaphorically (e.g. "the human spirit") it still represents an explanation of what to the individual is unexplainable without resorting to mysticism.

I'd really like an example of spirituality that doesn't reify. Maybe I am missing something.

As to the question of what is justified it's a good question that is hard to answer simply. There are no simple definitions but I guess I can sum up my qualm with the statement that spirituality is an easy mystical route to understanding abstract elements of life ort human nature. By taking up these beliefs the individual has abandoned the goal of accepting unexplained phenomenon without resorting to myth.

When an individual starts to allow feel-good explanations to become belief they weaken the case for scientific evaluation of fact and fiction.

An example of this is how science itself is ridiculed by some spiritualists as "closed-mindedness" and such. I find it ironic because by demeaning science in favor of mythical explanations a closed mind as a result is more likely than the desire for verification before acceptance is.

0 Replies

what comes to mind when i hear the word "spirituality" is akin to what comes to mind when people refer to "karma." which i think is a very silly belief that "justice will be served" in some cosmic way.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

First I must clarify that I do not think being spiritual (or religious) is wrong. Just that spirituality and religion are wrong.

Ok, I understand that. But I think when you refer to something that someone else may identify with as "stupid" they take that as an indication that you think they are stupid as well. It's just inflamatory for no reason..

Quote:

The term "New Age" was coined because this is a relatively recent development. I consider it progress because the ambiguity of some spiritual beliefs is more scientifically defensible than some religious beliefs.

But "New Age" is only a small subset of the entiore spectrum of "spiritual".

Quote:

But to me they are all rooted in the same human flaw. The desire to be able to comprehend and express what the individual is unable to comprehend and express.

Even if spirituality is used metaphorically (e.g. "the human spirit") it still represents an explanation of what to the individual is unexplainable without resorting to mysticism.

And what happens when someone uses the term "human spirit" as nothing more than a placeholder for things they can't explain? There is a significant difference between recognizing that there are things one can't explain and attempting to make some comprehenisble theory out of what they can't explain. But people who calim to be "spiritual" may be from either of those two camps.

Quote:

I'd really like an example of spirituality that doesn't reify. Maybe I am missing something.

Anyone that just accepts something as currently unexplainable isn't reifying. Just to use Farmerman's example, I can acknowledge that I have feels of awe at times without attaching any more meaning to it than that.

Quote:

By taking up these beliefs the individual has abandoned the goal of accepting unexplained phenomenon without resorting to myth.

When an individual starts to allow feel-good explanations to become belief they weaken the case for scientific evaluation of fact and fiction.

You've crossed a line here from "being spiritual" into "spiritual beliefs". The first is very general, the second depends on the specific belief.

But being spiritual doesn't require that anyone accept any specific beliefs. I can claim to be spiritual and base that on the feeling of wonder that I have that there are many things that we all observe that science has no current explaination for without attaching any more meaning to my being spiritual than that.

By your own statements, anyone that does that is both stupid and wrong. I don't see how acknowledging that there are things that we can observe that we can't explain is either.

0 Replies

I hear the "spiritual but religious" line pretty often. Mostly from poets and artists, those who rely on their emotions.
I think that it's a wishy-washy statement.
Can you define spiritual? What makes a person spiritual?
Do they make weird noises while playing with sticks?
Do they rely on intuition and emotion more than other faculties?
Do they vaguely believe in astrology, powers that be, lightning bolts that were intending to strike down that old, mean tree?
It's a very ambiguous claim, people say it because the phrase sounds good without thinking it through. It's non-commital.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Ok, I understand that. But I think when you refer to something that someone else may identify with as "stupid" they take that as an indication that you think they are stupid as well. It's just inflamatory for no reason..

I disagree, it's a dillema inherent to beliefs. The mere belief in God can indicate a belief of superiority. If one believes that my beliefs are inferior to the degree that I will burn forever is that inflamatory?

I use the word stupid frequently. Most often in life I use it to describe my actions. Maybe some of what you reference is a different interpretation of the word than I use. I use it liberally to indicate a situation in which myself or others could have done things more intelligently.

But even so, what is the alternative. My objection to spirituality is the stupidity that it represents, I simply have no further qualm. I do not take offense at the spiritual, I simply think the acceptance of spirituality demeans intelligence.

It's just as inflammatory as is the stated belief that their spirituality is right. By implcation the concerse is wrong, therefore a stupid belief to take up.

Basically what I'm saying is that in matters of belief people are going to be offended either way, I try not to go out of my way to offend them but it is an inevitability.

Quote:

But "New Age" is only a small subset of the entiore spectrum of "spiritual".

I agree, this is why I based none of my objections to spirituality on the term "New Age". It was just a comment in passing.

Quote:

And what happens when someone uses the term "human spirit" as nothing more than a placeholder for things they can't explain? There is a significant difference between recognizing that there are things one can't explain and attempting to make some comprehenisble theory out of what they can't explain. But people who calim to be "spiritual" may be from either of those two camps.

I use the term "human spirit" all the time. I prefer the term "human nature" but have no qualm with this metaphor.

Do you really suggest that all who use this metaphor are spiritual?

If it's just an expression, a placeholder, for what one acknowledges is not yet ascribable to phenomenon I do not consider the person to be spiritual.

Quote:

Anyone that just accepts something as currently unexplainable isn't reifying. Just to use Farmerman's example, I can acknowledge that I have feels of awe at times without attaching any more meaning to it than that.

I'd simply not consider that person spiritual. I know that the person might, but I've seen white people call themselves black. I respected their label for themselves while disagreeing about its validity.

If someone does not believe in the spirit world but uses the words to express what they do not have explanations for I do not think they are spiritual, they do not maintain a belief in spirits.

Quote:

You've crossed a line here from "being spiritual" into "spiritual beliefs". The first is very general, the second depends on the specific belief.

Yeah, this is where our difference lies. I consider that for someone to "be spiritual" they have to accept the notion that the spiritual exists.

I believe that belief in the spiritual is essential to being spiritual. One can't BE what does not exist. To define oneself as being something is a validation of the existence thereof.

Quote:

But being spiritual doesn't require that anyone accept any specific beliefs. I can claim to be spiritual and base that on the feeling of wonder that I have that there are many things that we all observe that science has no current explaination for without attaching any more meaning to my being spiritual than that.

You can claim to be spiritual, but I'd disagree. The other day I saw a man refer to his buddies as "dog" and they were not dogs.

Quote:

By your own statements, anyone that does that is both stupid and wrong. I don't see how acknowledging that there are things that we can observe that we can't explain is either.

I've never said anything about anyone being stupid. Can you accept that smart people can succumb to stupidity?

I dimply disagree with your claim that one can be spiritual without believing in spirituality. They might use the words as placeholders but if they are meaningless words that do not have foundation in belief they are simply a person who uses those words, not someone who is spiritual.

The key difference is that I consider that for someone to be something that something has to exist and if one claims to be something that doesn't exist it does not make them so.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I disagree, it's a dillema inherent to beliefs. The mere belief in God can indicate a belief of superiority. If one believes that my beliefs are inferior to the degree that I will burn forever is that inflamatory?

Probably not. But saying "People are stupid" while what you mean is "SOME people are stupid" would be insulting to everyone including those who you don't think are stupid. My objection was to your gross generalization.

Quote:

Do you really suggest that all who use this metaphor are spiritual?

If it's just an expression, a placeholder, for what one acknowledges is not yet ascribable to phenomenon I do not consider the person to be spiritual.

Nope. I'm suggesting that it is up to them to decide how they want to define themselves - not you.

Quote:

I'd simply not consider that person spiritual.

What YOU may or may not refer to them as is irrelevant. The choice of how they describe themselves is theirs.

Quote:

You can claim to be spiritual, but I'd disagree. The other day I saw a man refer to his buddies as "dog" and they were not dogs.

but their wives were.. <rimshot>

Quote:

I dimply disagree with your claim that one can be spiritual without believing in spirituality. They might use the words as placeholders but if they are meaningless words that do not have foundation in belief they are simply a person who uses those words, not someone who is spiritual.

"Meaningless" to whom? You've created your own definition for what "spiritual" is and are deciding for others what is or isn't meaningless here.

Quote:

The key difference is that I consider that for someone to be something that something has to exist and if one claims to be something that doesn't exist it does not make them so.

Umm.. So people can't be happy? Content? Sad? Those things don't exist either...

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Even if spirituality is used metaphorically (e.g. "the human spirit") it still represents an explanation of what to the individual is unexplainable without resorting to mysticism.

I'd really like an example of spirituality that doesn't reify. Maybe I am missing something.

Craven, quick question --
You can give yourself an attitude adjustment by going to a beach on vacation. It relaxes you, gives you more energy and perspective on life.

To me, it's a practice that deliberately changes the way we are -- a spiritual pursuit.
Would you consider a vacation to be reification? Or even a belief?

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Probably not. But saying "People are stupid" while what you mean is "SOME people are stupid" would be insulting to everyone including those who you don't think are stupid. My objection was to your gross generalization.

I never said people are stupid in this thread. You call it a "gross generalization" but since I didn't say that who are you directing this at? Look through the use of the word stupid in this thread. I did not say what you allege one time here.

Quote:

Nope. I'm suggesting that it is up to them to decide how they want to define themselves - not you.

I agree, and it's up to me how I want to define them. Example:

Person A decides to think he is a god.

I decide I don't think he is.

I am under no obligation to accept his determinantion as my own.

Quote:

What YOU may or may not refer to them as is irrelevant. The choice of how they describe themselves is theirs.

It's highly relevant. If one claims to be something that is untrue I am under no obligation to operate based on an acceptance of their claim.

Quote:

"Meaningless" to whom? You've created your own definition for what "spiritual" is and are deciding for others what is or isn't meaningless here.

Nonsense, here is Mirriam Webster:

Quote:

1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL <man's spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : SPIRITUALISTIC
- spir·i·tu·al·ly adverb
- spir·i·tu·al·ness noun

I did not make up the definition fishin'. If you want to say that people who use the word spirit are spiritual that's fine. I have no qualm with that. I have a qualm with people who reify spirituality by expressing a belief in it.

That's all. If you have an objection to my actual opinion (about belief in spirituality reifying spirituality) I'd love to discuss it. But splitting hairs over whose definition of spirituality is to be operated under will dead end on us.

Quote:

Umm.. So people can't be happy? Content? Sad? Those things don't exist either...

fishin' happiness and sadness exist. I believe you are confusing tangible with exist.

I believe that human feelings exist. I do not believe in spirits.

0 Replies

CodeBorg wrote:

Craven, quick question --
You can give yourself an attitude adjustment by going to a beach on vacation. It relaxes you, gives you more energy and perspective on life.

To me, it's a practice that deliberately changes the way we are -- a spiritual pursuit.
Would you consider a vacation to be reification? Or even a belief?

Codeborg,

That's a loaded question. It assumes that I accept your notion that relaxation is spiritual.

I don't.

0 Replies

SPIRITUAL, BUT NOT RELIGIOUS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know