Are You Spiritual?

[DWill]

There's agreement that it's a damned confusing question, at least. About half of the "unchurched" identify themselves as "spiritual," which works out to be about 20% of the adult population. For these people, the word appears to equate with some belief in non-corporeal "life," though the beliefs they admit to can be very vague. Robert C. Fuller has written a whole book on the "spiritual, but not religious." Beliefnet has an excerpt from it:

From "Spiritual, But Not Religious," by Robert C. Fuller. Used with permission from Oxford University Press.

A large number of Americans identify themselves as "spiritual but not religious." It is likely that perhaps one in every five persons (roughly half of all the unchurched) could describe themselves in this way. This phrase probably means different things to different people. The confusion stems from the fact that the words "spiritual" and "religious" are really synonyms. Both connote belief in a Higher Power of some kind. Both also imply a desire to connect, or enter into a more intense relationship, with this Higher Power. And, finally, both connote interest in rituals, practices, and daily moral behaviors that foster such a connection or relationship.

Before the 20th century the terms religious and spiritual were used more or less interchangeably. But a number of modern intellectual and cultural forces have accentuated differences between the "private" and "public" spheres of life. The increasing prestige of the sciences, the insights of modern biblical scholarship, and greater awareness of cultural relativism all made it more difficult for educated American to sustain unqualified loyalty to religious institutions. Many began to associate genuine faith with the "private" realm of personal experience rather than with the "public" realm of institutions, creeds, and rituals. The word spiritual gradually came to be associated with a private realm of thought and experience while the word religious came to be connected with the public realm of membership in religious institutions, participation in formal rituals, and adherence to official denominational doctrines.

A group of social scientists studied 346 people representing a wide range of religious backgrounds in an attempt to clarify what is implied when individuals describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious." Religiousness, they found, was associated with higher levels of interest in church attendance and commitment to orthodox beliefs. Spirituality, in contrast, was associated with higher levels of interest in mysticism, experimentation with unorthodox beliefs and practices, and negative feelings toward both clergy and churches. Most respondents in the study tried to integrate elements of religiousness and spirituality. Yet 19 percent of their sample constituted a separate category best
described as "spiritual, not religious." Compared with those who connected interest in private spirituality with membership in a public religious group, the "spiritual, but not religious" group was less likely to evaluate religiousness positively, less likely to engage in traditional forms of worship such as church attendance and prayer, less likely to engage in group experiences related to spiritual growth, more likely to be agnostic, more likely to characterize religiousness and spirituality as different and nonoverlapping concepts, more likely to hold nontraditional beliefs, and more likely to have had mystical experiences.

Those who see themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" reject traditional organized religion as the sole-or even the most valuable-means of furthering their spiritual growth. Many have had negative experiences with churches or church leaders. For example, they may have perceived church leaders as more concerned with building an organization than promoting spirituality, as hypocritical, or as narrow-minded. Some may have experienced various forms of emotional or even sexual abuse.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/ ... gious.aspx

[youkrst]

Those who see themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" reject traditional organized religion as the sole-or even the most valuable-means of furthering their spiritual growth. Many have had negative experiences with churches or church leaders. For example, they may have perceived church leaders as more concerned with building an organization than promoting spirituality, as hypocritical, or as narrow-minded.

some really great stuff in this thread.

the quote above raises a marvellous point. what could be called a rejection of false authority. this bit...

reject traditional organized religion as the sole-or even the most valuable-means of furthering their spiritual growth.

we are social creatures and very subject to peer pressure and not going it alone, at least the vast majority seem to have missed the maverick side of their nature. so we may well join a church or group and try to make it work, but if we are watching and thinking at all, we will notice that not only is our church missing the point completely so are all the institutions, justice, education, health, finance etc etc all made up in such a way as they can be easily perverted and subverted by various humans who can easily manipulate the gullible to their own advantage, or just generally make a hash of anything.

who are you to judge?

who else?

if the church is borked are we not spiritual, or even human?
if education is borked can we not still learn?
if finance is borked can we not still help out a friend?

i see around me all these people who act as if they have authority, but like the socrates story, upon examination many are found wanting, weak, ill informed, hypocritical, corrupt or mal-suited in various ways, so i - reject their authority -

thats why i think all attempts to "fix the system" are ultimately doomed to fail - in this sense - it's like trying to fix a car with faulty components, you are doomed to failure because the components you use are faulty.

if the components are all working well the car is almost fixed already just a little tweaking and getting things in the right place and we're nearly done.

now the christian religion is a classic in that once people fall for the "god is out there you are an unworthy sinner" line they no longer see that they themselves are the authority, that there comes a time when mother doesn't know best and you better bloody well stand on your own two feet and realise that if there is a god... it's you, if there is a devil... it's you, if there is a jesus... it's you, if there is a judas... it's you.

all the angels and demons are between YOUR ears, so you better go like jesus and exercise some authority yourself

if we fail to do that our world turns to ashes before our very eyes.

[sonoman]

I hate to say it but I believe it's true.

Yeah, you're sort of a belief slut, the more ridiculous it is, the more you're apt to believe it!

It really shows the intellectual quality of this atheist dominated forum that you are a moderator here who consistently uses
slander and name-calling, i.e. the tools of schoolyard nine-year mean little boys instead of adults
using reasoned argument to debate others. But it is in keeping with the truth that atheism can only be held by intellectuals as a fundamentalist belief system. Same kind of reaction to new information that I've met many a time from Christian fundies, first slander and name-calling, then censorship when that fails, anything but one-on-one rational debate. Because atheism is a losing paradigm now as the logic of history destroys its basic premise.

[youkrst]

but you've got to cut Interbane some slack sonoman, after all you have a sword called paxcalibur. (i thought Inter was joking till i read the link)

i'd still like to start at the beginning, a peculiarity of mine, what is step one in this system of thought you espouse.

[Interbane]

Same kind of reaction to new information that I've met many a time from Christian fundies, first slander and name-calling, then censorship when that fails, anything but one-on-one rational debate.

You likely missed the posts where you were shown to be wrong. Or misunderstood them. There's nothing left in dealing with someone who's incorrigible.

Your beliefs are wrong Stephen, they truly are. I say this without spite or malice or misunderstanding. Reasoning does not get through to you, and there has been plenty of it from the 'atheist' camp.

[Robert Tulip]

ant is funny. I'm not sure if he was serious in his critique of the stardust melody.

Or if not Hoagy, then Joni - billion year old carbon.

The universe has had three generations of galaxies. For five billion years, there was just hydrogen fusing into helium. Then light metals (oxygen, carbon, etc) evolved in the second generation of stars, for example with carbon happening via beryllium when three helium atoms banged together in a star. And the universe breathed in and out and it was another five billion years. And then these light metal galaxies had supernovas that produced heavy metals, from iron to uranium. And God said over the next four billion years that it was all just fantoodly. And all those heavy metals from the stars (or some of them at least) ended up in a small planet orbiting a small star five billion years ago, zim zum zam and Joni wrote Woodstock.

Oh and by the way, my theory is that there are eight chakras.

[grizzlyman]

I am not a theist, however I am a 'spiritual' believer in the anthropomorphic sense. Ancient societies recognised the intrinsic character of natural objects and phenomena as they were reflected in humans and human society. Today we practice that same form of allegory in our poetry, storytelling and so on. The earlier natural form of reference to the 'spirits within' has been confused by religious dogma that distorts the earlier facts of anthropomorphic belief into supernatural fiction. We have argued religious theobabble for almost two millennia; amazing really...

[sonoman]

Same kind of reaction to new information that I've met many a time from Christian fundies, first slander and name-calling, then censorship when that fails, anything but one-on-one rational debate.

You likely missed the posts where you were shown to be wrong. Or misunderstood them. There's nothing left in dealing with someone who's incorrigible.

Your beliefs are wrong Stephen, they truly are. I say this without spite or malice or misunderstanding. Reasoning does not get through to you, and there has been plenty of it from the 'atheist' camp.

Talk's cheap, Interbane. Please show the posts where they've answered my questions. Where is the answer to the basic question of why in a strictly physical material universe, there would ever arise a need to assign imaginary forces and entities to explain the workings of the world? How does a thinking animal come to spend enormous amounts of time and energy on activities that have no direct physical benefits to society, even taking away at times from normal community survival activity. Where is your answer how this happens. Where is your answer to the logic of history that proves to the intelligent mind that what is known yesterday about the way the world works may well be overturned today or tomorrow, i.e., knowledge does not stand still nor is it frozen at the atheist's time but continues to advance, and I gave the brain science showing spiritual reception that I can give testimony to is a fact hardwired into most human brains. Explain how yesterday's knowledge supersedes tomorrow's? Where is your answer that explains why Muhammad and I sweated when we each received spiritual revelations that came not only as energy but with specific instructions. How does imaginary invisible spiritual forces do this if they don't exist? What is making our brains and bodies respond to what stimulation?

Specific questions needing specific answers. Every answer that others have posted I have addressed their flaws and when you, Interbane, post your answers, I will address the flaws of them as well as your opinions are easy to debunk because of being so emotionally based without reasoned argument behind them, e.g. all the slander comments you've posted. Slander is no substitute for rational debate. Post your answers to my questions.

[Interbane]

Talk's cheap, Interbane. Please show the posts where they've answered my questions.

The last post on this page is where your questions were answered: http://www.booktalk.org/still-no-atheis ... 80-15.html

As for why humans invented all the metaphysical claptrap that's being discussed, there are many facets that converge on the answer. Why we believe in spirits, and how it happens "naturally":

Paradoelia - http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html
Apophenia - http://skepdic.com/apophenia.html
Agency Detection - http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/CAM/HADD.pdf
Magical Thinking - http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html

The combination of these psychological facets of the human mind answer all your follow-up questions. Let me know if you don't understand any of them. There are also books that explain, in detail, how these characteristics have caused us to believe in false metaphysical concepts. I've posted links to the books in previous responses. Let me know if you can't find them.


__________________________________________________________

As for logic, I'll show you what you're unable to see.

First of all, 90% of what you post commits the Ipse Dixit Fallacy. So, the majority of the content of your posts can be dismissed for committing that fallacy.


However, you do support some of what you say, although the instances are few and far between. Here are some of your attempts to support your points.

First: Sonoman: "...you forget all about Jesus Christ Superstar and the Age of Aquarius and a whole New Age spiritual movement that outnumbers your atheist one I suspect. And you forget too how universal astrological interest is in the world. Horoscopes are much more read than any Bibles, or Qurans."

Your quote here commits the Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy.

Second: Sonoman: " Please read the Story of Paxcalibur at: http://biomystic.org/paxstory.htm, and see that it has its own complex history and remarkable spiritual power acknowledged now by hundreds of Palestinian Christians including top leaders like the Melkite Catholic Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses."

Your quote here commits the Argumentum Ad Verecundiam Fallacy.

Third: Sonoman: "Celestial Torah Christianity is not a new organized religion but only a historical pattern there for all to find and marvel at the consistency of the Messianic Idea coming down to us intact now through 4000 years of diabolical religious interference."

This quote here commits the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy.



I would have kept going, but as I said originally, the vast majority already commits the Ipse Dixit fallacy, it's simply unsupported assertion. Essentially, 100% of what you type is illogical. Not just by the layman's definition of the word, but truly illogical.

I believe it's because you have no idea what Logic actually means. You've misused and abused the word so many times, then go on to commit a fallacy in every other sentence you type.

[DWill]

I think atheists can answer the question, "yes," mostly because we don't need to be tied down by the original meaning of the word spiritual. Lots of words have changed definition, drifting away from their root meanings. Decimate no longer means to lose one-tenth of an army; starve no longer means to die by any cause. The most sensible meaning of spiritual I've seen is the one geo cited: to feel submerged in a greatness of some sort, a lessening of the feeling of being a separate ego. By this definition, not only can atheists claim spirituality, but we can note that religions sometimes don't promote spirituality. Religions often accentuate picayune differences in beliefs in a effort to exclude others, which seems counter to creating a feeling of unity with all people, one type of spirituality.