"Spiritual But not Religious"

[ChristineR]

Does anyone know what this means? What do you think it means when you hear it? At least one person who was appalled when I told her I was atheist calmed down when it was established that I was "spiritual." I'm not sure what I told her, but as I'm keenly interested in morals, ethics, philosophy, psychology and all that good stuff, I think it was something along those lines.

[Phil]

Does anyone know what this means? . . . . .


Drunk.

[brodski]

Religious implies both an organised set of beliefs (as in beliefs associated with an organised religion) and in many circumstances an theistic belief (hence why many Buddhists deny that they are religious- although many others disagree).

"Being spirtual" is basically having a religion without the organisation and/or without the anthropomorphic interventionist deity.

It's also a “nice” catch-all term for these people who haven't thought to much abbot what they believe, but like to think that there is “something”.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It usually means an overabundance of silver and lapis lazuli jewelry, a dreamcatcher hanging from the rearview mirror, and patchouli incense. Oh, sweet merciful Allah, the patchouli.

[ChristineR]

It usually means an overabundance of silver and lapis lazuli jewelry, a dreamcatcher hanging from the rearview mirror, and patchouli incense. Oh, sweet merciful Allah, the patchouli.

Now I'm going to puke. Can't it mean having a library full of Kant and Hume instead? Or maybe just liking the Harry Potter books? I don't love the Harry Potter books, but I do like them.

[l0rca]

If I remember correctly, Ann Druyan uses the word to express the feelings associated with religious feelings in a non-religious context. I also use the word in a similar way, though I take pains, when I do, to point out that I acknowledge these feelings in an entirely physicalist way.

An atheist who is "spiritual" is nothing more than a person who treasures feelings of awe and wonder, feels deeply connected to the world around them, and uses these feelings to empower their lives.

[Fnord]

Does anyone know what this means?

Pretty much as Brodski put it, plus Agnostic, Buddhist, Neo-Pagan, and New age.

What do you think it means when you hear it?

"I already have a religion, so I don't really want to hear about yours."

Now I'm going to puke. Can't it mean having a library full of Kant and Hume instead? Or maybe just liking the Harry Potter books? I don't love the Harry Potter books, but I do like them.

Really, it's such a vague term that it can mean practically anything the speaker wants! I remember a girl who claimed to be "spiritual but not religious." It turned out to be her way of saying that she was seeing a psychiatrist 2 or 3 times a week.

[Phil]

Now I'm going to puke. Can't it mean having a library full of Kant and Hume instead? Or maybe just liking the Harry Potter books? . . . .


Sure, but it's not as much fun as saying lapis lazuli jewelry and patchouli all in the same sentence.

[ImaginalDisc]

Semantically? It means nothing.

[Rasmus]

Does anyone know what this means? What do you think it means when you hear it? At least one person who was appalled when I told her I was atheist calmed down when it was established that I was "spiritual." I'm not sure what I told her, but as I'm keenly interested in morals, ethics, philosophy, psychology and all that good stuff, I think it was something along those lines.

You should probably ask that question to whoever was responsible for establishing that you were spiritual.

Interestignly enough I just heared a song on the radio where guy-being praises girl-being with the words "you are spiritual". (Sorry, I cant seem to find out the precise lyrics or who it's by. Swiss song is all I know.)

[brodski]

plus Agnostic, Buddhist, Neo-Pagan, and New age.


being agnostic has no direct bearing on whether one is "spirtual" or not, neo-pagenism can often be descirbed as religion rather than just "spirtual" and buddism, as I said, can go both ways.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, I know the "spiritual but not religious" type. It's someone who doesn't subscribe to religious orthodoxy, doesn't practise religion (though they've usually had a religious upbringing) and is politically and culturally liberal but is still interested in the metaphysics of that sort of thing.

[Fnord]

being agnostic has no direct bearing on whether one is "spirtual" or not, neo-pagenism can often be descirbed as religion rather than just "spirtual" and buddism, as I said, can go both ways.

I based my comment on the Agnostics, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, and New-Agers that have told me how spiritual they are.

I never would have known if they hadn't told me, btw...

[brodski]

I based my comment on the Agnostics, Buddhists, Neo-Pagans, and New-Agers that have told me how spiritual they are.

I never would have known if they hadn't told me, btw...

But not all Agnostics, Buddhists and Neo-Pagans are spirtual rather than religious, being "spirtual" rather than "religious" isn't an essental part of those beleifs so there is no need to make specific room for, or mention of, them.

[petra10]

I am a very spiritual person,I believe in spirits.Especially spirits like vodka,whisky,gin or barcadi.

[Fnord]

But not all Agnostics, Buddhists and Neo-Pagans are spirtual rather than religious...

Of course. Just as all Agnostics, Buddhists and Neo-Pagans and are not arrogant, condescending, and socially myopic people who easily take offense at the slightest provocation, rather than being exceptionally intelligent and perceptive.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I like to think of myself that way.

I like philosophy and ethics.

I don't like dogma.

[Apathia]

An atheist who is "spiritual" is nothing more than a person who treasures feelings of awe and wonder, feels deeply connected to the world around them, and uses these feelings to empower their lives.

I've been called a "woo-atheist" for that, but yes, that's my "spirituality."

[Erin]

Tsukasa Buddha,

"I don't like dogma."

Your karma just run over my dogma!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

More serious post being constructed as we laugh.

[Erin]

I believe we can be spiritual without being religious. It's more to do with self-awareness and personal and spiritual growth. People are leaving the churches and discovering their own god-like abilities through relaxation and meditation. Power to them!

[JoeEllison]

"Spiritual But not Religious" means "nutty and dumb, in a way I made up myself!"

[Magenta]

"Spiritual But not Religious" means "nutty and dumb, in a way I made up myself!"


:D I think it's so over-used and ill-defined that it doesn't really mean anything.

[JoeEllison]

:D I think it's so over-used and ill-defined that it doesn't really mean anything.

Well, it means whatever the person saying it wants it to mean... which is the same as meaningless. Usually, it is a way for people to mold a dogma to fit their own personal prejudices, while allowing them the illusion of being unique. :cool:

[Quinn]

I really, really hate that phrase. As others have pointed out, it can mean just about anything, in theory. But in my personal experience*, what it ends up meaning in the majority of cases is, "I'm a moderate woo who doesn't wear it on my sleeve, and will therefore make you waste a significant amount of time getting to know me, and possibly even starting to think of me as a potentially pretty cool person, before I turn the tables on you and reveal myself to be a blinkered ninny who believes in a bunch of crap that will prevent you from ever being able to take me seriously as a human being." When I was doing the internet dating thing, that phrase in a woman's profile quickly became grounds for an immediate pass -- no exceptions, no looking back.

*Which of course is completely anecdotal and may not be at all representative of greater trends, but still...

[JoeEllison]

I really, really hate that phrase. As others have pointed out, it can mean just about anything, in theory. But in my personal experience*, what it ends up meaning in the majority of cases is, "I'm a moderate woo who doesn't wear it on my sleeve, and will therefore make you waste a significant amount of time getting to know me, and possibly even starting to think of me as a potentially pretty cool person, before I turn the tables on you and reveal myself to be a blinkered ninny who believes in a bunch of crap that will prevent you from ever being able to take me seriously as a human being." When I was doing the internet dating thing, that phrase in a woman's profile quickly became grounds for an immediate pass -- no exceptions, no looking back.


Sweet Satan, that takes me back. When I was doing the Internet dating, I always appreciated the chicks who would give a religion, because I could figure out about where they were at.

The "spiritual" chicks were always completely "fundamentalist", but in really random and unpredictable ways.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

What it really means is that you're a single 20-year-old girl from Staten Island.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Tch, this thread is full of scorned breeders.

I prefer my definition :p .

[brodski]

Of course. Just as all Agnostics, Buddhists and Neo-Pagans and are not arrogant, condescending, and socially myopic people who easily take offense at the slightest provocation, rather than being exceptionally intelligent and perceptive.

Would you care to explain this comment in this context?

[kellyb]

I really, really hate that phrase. As others have pointed out, it can mean just about anything, in theory. But in my personal experience*, what it ends up meaning in the majority of cases is, "I'm a moderate woo who doesn't wear it on my sleeve, and will therefore make you waste a significant amount of time getting to know me, and possibly even starting to think of me as a potentially pretty cool person, before I turn the tables on you and reveal myself to be a blinkered ninny who believes in a bunch of crap that will prevent you from ever being able to take me seriously as a human being."

That's been my experience, as well.
Well, except I don't really care if my friends hold some woo beliefs, but it's disappointing sometimes to find out they really think there's scientific evidence supporting the existence of souls and ghosts and telepathy and whatnot.

[Snap]

Spiritual is just an upgrade of religious. It sounds better and you're less likely to be attacked than if you'd said you were religious.

When you say you're spiritual, you should say so with a proud smile. When asked what "spiritual" means, you must provide an answer which implies that you're not shackled down by some specific belief or practice.

If you're spiritual, you do more than just obey institutional laws, you feel and sense truth and conduct your life accordingly.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Does anyone know what this means? What do you think it means when you hear it?
It means that they feel the "oneness" of it all, but hold no religious view on how that came about.

At least one person who was appalled when I told her I was atheist calmed down when it was established that I was "spiritual." I'm not sure what I told her, but as I'm keenly interested in morals, ethics, philosophy, psychology and all that good stuff, I think it was something along those lines.
For some people, to reject the idea of God, is to reject that "spirit/feeling." Your interests reminded her that the one, does not exclude the other.

[Robin]

Now I'm going to puke. Can't it mean having a library full of Kant and Hume instead? Or maybe just liking the Harry Potter books? I don't love the Harry Potter books, but I do like them.
I am not sure what Hume, the arch-fiend of empiricism, would have to do with spirituality.

[AmyWilson]

Religion is a set of beliefs and practices.

Spiritual is something non-physical, beyond both time and the material world.

They aren't the same thing.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Religion is a set of beliefs and practices.

Spiritual is something non-physical, beyond both time and the material world.

They aren't the same thing.
I am not sure whether to take your post seriously or not, as you have not verified it as true. :)

[arthwollipot]

I believe we can be spiritual without being religious. It's more to do with self-awareness and personal and spiritual growth. People are leaving the churches and discovering their own god-like abilities through relaxation and meditation. Power to them!Ah. Being spiritual is more to do with spiritual growth!

Holy circular definition, Batman!

[hipparchia]

If anyone ever professes out loud their "spiritual" status, I tick them off as people who have built their own subtle, feline system of ego-boosting via amplification of their own fluffy emotions.

I don't let them operate heavy machinery.

[chris epic]

From past experience, I've always heard the "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual" generally as a cop-out to fend off unwanted adversity for being agnostic, or just searching.

Being spiritual, but not religious, means that you don't abide by any sort of dogma, but you believe that things in this universe aren't only material, but that there exists some underlying spiritual universe. This can either be directed toward a god or a belief in the connectivity of everything in the universe.

[chris epic]

A generically spiritual person is defined as: one who loves that movie "What the **** Do We Know," Part 1 and 2

[zeusbheld]

If anyone ever professes out loud their "spiritual" status, I tick them off as people who have built their own subtle, feline system of ego-boosting via amplification of their own fluffy emotions.

I don't let them operate heavy machinery.

while i think you are being entirely unfair to cats, that doesn't mean i allow my cat to operate heavy machinery.

generally i take the term "spiritual" to be something that has been equivocated to the point of complete meaninglessness and therefore fair game as something to say when one wants to have sex with a religious person or new agey type.

[Soapy Sam]

"Spiritual" is meaningless.
"Religious" is "spiritual" with tax breaks.

[blutoski]

I think I'm leaning towards agreeing most with JoeEllison on this... it's hard to reverse-engineer what the speaker means by 'spiritual' and unfortunately, it could mean just about anything outside of regular church attendance.

Just to include three examples that contrast:

1. my sister, who is a gaiist, and believes that the universe itself is conscious

2. my friend who is more or less a functioning wiccan

3. my friend who does tarot readings and is trying to learn to do mediumship, but hasn't made contact with the other side yet. except for a few experiences that she feels are accidental and related to being a moderately-functioning intuitive.

[gnomon]

Does anyone know what this means? What do you think it means when you hear it? At least one person who was appalled when I told her I was atheist calmed down when it was established that I was "spiritual." I'm not sure what I told her, but as I'm keenly interested in morals, ethics, philosophy, psychology and all that good stuff, I think it was something along those lines.

As pointed out, it depends upon the speaker.

As I've seen in practice, after hearing the phrase ad nauseam in 12 step groups, what it means is "I hate churches and making up my own nonsense rather than relying on the nonsense of others makes me superior."

It's also one of the greatest abuses of the English language. It equates religion with dogma, a false statement. It equates spirituality with liberalism, a false statement. Spiritual is the war cry of the ignorant. Modern spiritualists mock when you point out that individuals such as Aquinas and Augustine were spiritual authors. Which begs the question, why is so called personal spirituality better than dogma? What if past dogma is based upon personal spiritual insights.;)

There is one benefit. When someone tells me they are spiritual but not religious than I know to limit our conversation to who will win the World Cup. And I could really care less who will win.

In closing, putting forth the notion that spiritual people do not abide by dogma is devoid of intellectual thought. It's a disservice to learning and what actually constitutes the variety of religious belief on this planet.

[peteweaver]

I believe in God, I don't believe in forcing God down other peoples throats, I don't go to church / synagogue / temple / mosque or chapel, for me it is a private matter.

I don't believe the idea that God is somehow jealous, or requires things that she can't get.

If you drew a straight line for a metre, with devout atheist at the left, agnostic at the middle, and devout religious type on the right, I'd be 7 mm to the right of agnostic.

[dglas]

You know how I'm always going on about "external referents" and entirely "private, internal realms?" Well now, I'm not just talking about statements of fact. Ever notice how, in natural language, spiritual feelings are akin to mysticism? That's no coincidence, folks.

It seems both the religious and spiritualists claim to have spiritual components, which are feelings they have carefully constructed about their "understandings." For the religious, it is beliefs; for the spiritualist it is feelings. To classify feelings as spiritual is an attempt to place feelings beyond public scrutiny, in the same way that defining beliefs as faith attempts to put beliefs beyond refutation. The spiritualist wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the benefits of an entirely private emotional (intuitive) realm without the discomforts of verificationism.

In this way being spiritual places feelings in an "entirely private realm" that has no "external referents." This functions precisely the same as faith places statements of belief in an "entirely private realm" with no "external referents." In the case of spiritualism, external referents really means negotiating the legitimacy of feelings with others. Morality, from the religious/spiritualist standpoint, is a peculiar mix of belief and feelings.

Lately, we have been moving away from mysticism and faith, with tremendous effect and benefit, through verificationism (science). Every time we ignore the mystical, we gain human efficacy - the ability to influence. We have done so in terms of belief about the natural world. We need to do the same thing with respect to concepts of self and emotional realms. Our social state of being is, to some degree, negotiated.

Ever notice how spiritualists seem to be in a world of their own? They are. This, contrary to popular opinion, is not a good thing.

Negotiating our concepts of self is a vital human function. It is also intensely difficult and fraught with peril. Spiritualists deny that function. They trump human negotiation of feelings in favour of their little private realms. They mystify their feelings and pretend they are sacred. Things get a little muddled when those feelings also seem to include others, most notably when spiritualists attempt to spread their sickness, making it appear as if they are engaged in the human negotiating process. But their part in the process is entirely one-sided. They are attempting to influence others, without permitting themselves to be influenced by others. This is not merely dishonest; it is sociopathic.

The worst kinds of spiritualism, just as is the case with the worst kinds of religion, make no reference to external reality in any way whatsoever, and therefore are never subject to critique. It is emotional intuitionism in its most fundamental, irrational form, but it appeals to those who want to claim expertise without the burden of evidence or, in terms of being social animals, never being subject to the social negotiation process of definition/redefinition of concept of self. At its extreme, it is the short path to insanity.

The relief the spiritual person expresses when you claim to be spiritual is the understanding that you "recognize" the legitimacy of their private emotional realm as being somehow sacred and therefore not subject to refutation or critique.

"But feelings are harmless!" wails the spiritualist.

Let's be blunt and to the point. We advance when we disregard mysticism. Things go from being un-understandable to understandable. We go from being helpless to being efficacious when we get rid of mystical elements. Mysticism is the single most debilitating and disabling idea in human history.

We are social critters. Spiritualism is a denial of that basic, human function, even when it is screaming loudly about being connected. Ever notice how that connection is only peripherally concerned with other people? They want to "rise above it," when we, as people interacting with real, living, breathing people, must be "down in it." The claim to "connection" is shallow, self-absorbed and lost in idealism and often references vague, undefined (and undefinable!) realms and entities. This is the same as having no referents at all. It is anti-human, despite its fluffy emo bent. It is dogmatic.

Just like religious belief, spiritualism is self-centered and egomaniacal, placing the self above reality and other people. Denying critique or negotiation through force of will. Spiritual "growth" is a distancing from humanity.

It seems to me that the most appropriate way to view religious belief and spiritualism is as rotting diseases of the social context and the mind. They do not "inform" (as the euphemism goes); they define and restrict - hobble development and growth, distract into meaninglessness. The claimed "depth" of it is merely mental/emotional drowning.

For your amusement...

Maybe if we feel strongly enough (weeping plastic tears of joy), we can...
Win Powerball!!!

[dglas]

If you drew a straight line for a metre, with devout atheist at the left, agnostic at the middle, and devout religious type on the right, I'd be 7 mm to the right of agnostic.


No such straight line can legitimately be drawn.

There is no such thing as a "devout" atheist. You are trying to define atheism in terms of theism. This is simply an error as the two are not even remotely similar. The scale does not apply; it is a false dichotomy. Period.

I am an atheist. I am not a variant on you. If you don't understand that, you understand nothing.


You'll never...
Win Powerball!!!
...with a disfunctional measure!

[Limbo]

Hmm. Maybe organized skepticism is too cynical and polemical to be 'spiritual'.

[dglas]

Hmm. Maybe organized skepticism is too cynical and polemical to be 'spiritual'.

Cynical. Heh. Nothing cynical about empowering humanity :)
Skeptical AND polemical? Wiggle your ears when you say that. ;)
Spiritualists and their ilk do not have a copyright on positive thinking.

Actually, what I have quoted above represents one of the most difficult problems skeptics face. Since mysticism annexed our hearts and minds, anyone who suggests the junk may not be so has been vilified with negative connotations. Skeptics are declared "negative," "contrary," "nihilistic," "destructive," "cynical," ... the list goes on and on, as if the positions skeptics reconsider are somehow the natural defaults and are being assaulted by pure chaos.

They aren't.

We are engaged in one of the greatest, most astonishing endeavors in history as we know it. We are negotiating who and what we are. The potential is tremendous. What we bring to the table is up to us. We can learn, and grow and build and strive for the future, or we can...

Ommmmmmm.....


Ommmmmmm.....
Win Powerball!!!
Ommmmmmm.....

Over the last year, I have saved well over $10,000 by being skeptical. I didn'y buy any of the mystical trinkets, pamphlets or other nonsense a "psychic astrologer" plied at me via email spam. Instead of the golden buddhas, angel nightlights, spirit emblems and chakra charms, I can treat friends to dinner, or a movie or...
Skepticism saves!

[arthwollipot]

You know how I'm always going on about "external referents" and entirely "private, internal realms?" Well now, I'm not just talking about statements of fact. Ever notice how, in natural language, spiritual feelings are akin to mysticism? That's no coincidence, folks...Nominated.

[XBoxWarrior]

Does anyone know what this means? What do you think it means when you hear it? At least one person who was appalled when I told her I was atheist calmed down when it was established that I was "spiritual." I'm not sure what I told her, but as I'm keenly interested in morals, ethics, philosophy, psychology and all that good stuff, I think it was something along those lines.

To be honest, I didn't read through all the replies....

But to me, it's a phrase I see a lot on inet dating sites.

I think it means, "I don't go to church, but look out for some crazy arse **** in the future...wanna play "Ouiji"? ;)

[m_huber]

I must disagree with at least some of you on this point. The reason stems from one of my coworkers, who recently discussed her spirituality with me. She did, in fact, have a hard falling-out with the church, and she does not now have a real belief in God (or other Spirit Beings). I pressed her for her definition of spirituality, and she responded that it is whatever gives an individual peace.

This is, of course, also the goal of religion, but religion is more organized about it. Say a certain prayer, and you have peace; go on a hike and have peace; play Monopoly with your friends and have peace -- the feeling is always the same. I would guess (though I have seen no studies on this) that the chemical release of going to a Regina Spektor concert is the same as going to a Jars of Clay concert. The high "spiritual" feeling is real, but not related to God. People who can recognize that the spiritual feeling is good, and discard the woo of religion, in my opinion has done something good for themselves.

Overall, though, "Spiritualist" is as much of a garbage can as "Atheist." We can have a general stereotype, but really, it all depends on the individual. That can be good or bad.

[arthwollipot]

In my opinion that makes the term virtually meaningless.

[Rasmus]

I must disagree with at least some of you on this point. The reason stems from one of my coworkers, who recently discussed her spirituality with me. She did, in fact, have a hard falling-out with the church, and she does not now have a real belief in God (or other Spirit Beings). I pressed her for her definition of spirituality, and she responded that it is whatever gives an individual peace.

Chess, Cease-Fire, Pizza and a new born babys smile? Who knew ...

Mind you, those are external things that, as such, say nothing about the spiritualist or spiritualism.

This is, of course, also the goal of religion, but religion is more organized about it. Say a certain prayer, and you have peace; go on a hike and have peace; play Monopoly with your friends and have peace -- the feeling is always the same.

I would highly doubt that. I cannot pray, and I don't like Monopoly much. Hiking makes me feel different than eating pizza. I would assume that other peoiple respond differently to different things, too.

I fail to see how all of these, maybe even any of these, would justify the term "spiritualism".

I would guess (though I have seen no studies on this) that the chemical release of going to a Regina Spektor concert is the same as going to a Jars of Clay concert. The high "spiritual" feeling is real, but not related to God.

So whoever is happy is spiritual? Why not just call it "happy" then?

People who can recognize that the spiritual feeling is good, and discard the woo of religion, in my opinion has done something good for themselves.

Yes. But that doesn't suggest the feeling should be called "spiritual". It's not a term I'd give my pizza, at least.

Overall, though, "Spiritualist" is as much of a garbage can as "Atheist." We can have a general stereotype, but really, it all depends on the individual. That can be good or bad.

"Atheist" is rather clearly defined. I will not start yet another discussion of "lack of belief" vs. "disbelief" here, but either approach is perfectly clear.

Even after reading your post I have no idea how you want to define "spiritual" in any meaningful way. What does the word add to the world? What kind of person can be described with it - preferably better than with other words! And who cannot be described with it?

[zeusbheld]

....So whoever is happy is spiritual? Why not just call it "happy" then?

hmmmm i'm usually pretty happy after sex. it sounds so much cleaner to say "i'm usually pretty spiritual after sex."

and it will probably get me laid more often if i can say "you will make me really spiritual."

as tempting as these benefits are, the word is so imprecise and equivocal as to be useless for anything else, IMO.

[m_huber]

Happiness and spirituality are different, as spirituality (I think) is speaking more to the intensity of emotion than to specific emotions. I think the naturalistic explanation for it is that it is a release of chemicals in the brain that is interpreted as "oneness" or "god" or some other higher level of being, which goes beyond simply happy. The most common phrase associated with spiritual experience is "life-changing experience." I have also read that the same chemicals are released during a cocaine high as a spiritual high (from meditation, prayer, music, etc.).

"Atheist" doesn't tell you anything about the person except that they do not believe in the existence of god. "Spiritualist" tells you nothing about the person except that they enjoy feeling spiritual feelings.

[zeusbheld]

Happiness and spirituality are different, as spirituality (I think) is speaking more to the intensity of emotion than to specific emotions. I think the naturalistic explanation for it is that it is a release of chemicals in the brain that is interpreted as "oneness" or "god" or some other higher level of being, which goes beyond simply happy. The most common phrase associated with spiritual experience is "life-changing experience." I have also read that the same chemicals are released during a cocaine high as a spiritual high (from meditation, prayer, music, etc.).

plausible enough.

"Atheist" doesn't tell you anything about the person except that they do not believe in the existence of god. "Spiritualist" tells you nothing about the person except that they enjoy feeling spiritual feelings.

problem is, "spiritualist" doesn't even tell you that. it is too imprecise and has been equivocated from there.

[bokonon]

Here's a quote I coincidentally ran across as I was going through some old magazines today deciding what to toss. The cover of an old Skeptic magazine had the headline "Debate - Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer." Since we have a DC thread going here now, I took a moment to re-read the article.

Shermer said this:
This past summer I was invited to teach a seminar at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California, the New Age Mecca on the Pacific coast. I called it "Science and Spirituality." As it turns out, Chopra also once taught a seminar there under the same title, so either my students (mostly scientists) and I all sat around staring at the walls with nothing to say, or there is more than one way to be spiritual in this world. In my seminar, I defined the spirit as the pattern of information of which we are made -- our genes, proteins, memories, and personalities. In this sense, spirituality is the quest to know the place of our spirit within the deep time of evolution and the deep space of the cosmos. Although there are many paths to spirituality, I believe that science gives us the deepest possible sense of grandeur and wonder about our place in time and space.


I don't see the wide variety of possible meanings as something that makes the term meaningless. It suggests some possibilities, and rules out others. I think its vagueness is useful, as a way of politely communicating that one would rather not be precise about one's beliefs. The fact that it's so imprecise allows people asking the question (and when is "spiritual but not religious" ever heard except in response to a question?) to project their own beliefs upon the answer, and move on without becoming offended.

[DanishDynamite]

Does anyone know what this means? What do you think it means when you hear it? At least one person who was appalled when I told her I was atheist calmed down when it was established that I was "spiritual." I'm not sure what I told her, but as I'm keenly interested in morals, ethics, philosophy, psychology and all that good stuff, I think it was something along those lines.My understanding is that even though you are not a member of any organized religion, you can still call yourself "spiritual" if you have at least one woo-woo belief.

[articulett]

But even total skeptics have "spiritual" awe or reverence for things that humans are uncovering. It implies the fact that you can be moved without having to commit to what it is you are moved by. I see it as people hedging their bets... kind of like they do with the term agnostics-- it's like saying, "don't think of me as a woo or a fundie, but I'm not one of those militant atheists either."

I think atheist is such a loaded term that people use words to avoid saying they are such... and nobody wants to be thought of as a woo... so this is like saying, "I'm whatever it is you most approve of"... it let's the listener fill in the blanks as they wish.

I used to say that when I'd left my religious upbringing and dabbled in new age metaphysics. It usually represents someone who believes in some fad like "the secret" but nothing they want to be committed to or identify with.

If asked, I generally say I'm an atheist... or if amongst people whom I fear judgment of I'll say I'm agnostic. I'm both, of course. One comments on what can be known and the other on what one believes. People tend to hear things in your words that aren't there once they realize you don't believe in whatever it is they want to believe in.

[DanishDynamite]

But even total skeptics have "spiritual" awe or reverence for things that humans are uncovering. It implies the fact that you can be moved without having to commit to what it is you are moved by. I see it as people hedging their bets... kind of like they do with the term agnostics-- it's like saying, "don't think of me as a woo or a fundie, but I'm not one of those militant atheists either."
I have tons of awe for the Universe just by watching the starry sky at night. And I'm awed by the amazing concept of birth. There is almost no end to my being in awe of the nature around us. This does not mean I have some need to invent a "higher being".
I think atheist is such a loaded term that people use words to avoid saying they are such... and nobody wants to be thought of as a woo... so this is like saying, "I'm whatever it is you most approve of"... it let's the listener fill in the blanks as they wish.
I think the term "spiritual" is crap.
I used to say that when I'd left my religious upbringing and dabbled in new age metaphysics. It usually represents someone who believes in some fad like "the secret" but nothing they want to be committed to or identify with.

If asked, I generally say I'm an atheist... or if amongst people whom I fear judgment of I'll say I'm agnostic. I'm both, of course. One comments on what can be known and the other on what one believes. People tend to hear things in your words that aren't there once they realize you don't believe in whatever it is they want to believe in.
Next time someone asks, get some balls.

[articulett]

Well, I'm developing my cyberballs on line. I think the term "spiritual" is crap too. My sentiments are more that of dglas... but there was a time when I believed you could "feel" the truth or that the truth didn't matter... or that faith was good. I had been indoctrinated to be that way. And I feared "atheists"...

Believers, are by definition, not rational... I am a small person... I don't really like to give irrational people reasons to make my life harder. On this forum I expect that others believe like I do and when they don't, I mock accordingly. I think all woo is equally mockable even when it's labeled "spiritual" or "higher truth" or whatever. I think Limbo's nothingness is as mockable as edge's nothingness as Tom Cruise's nothingness as Homeopathic nothingness.

I don't defer to peoples feelings and opinions any more than they do to mine, but I know that people in the real world expect that I believe as they do and that people who believe like they do are the smartest or most moral or best. On this forum, I have the chance to feel similarly without reprisal, and I know that believers willingly came in here... often in attempt to shore up their beliefs by exposing it to skeptical scrutiny.

It's not balls I lack, just a general distaste for the reactions of the irrational and unpredictable. Of course, as a female I do lack balls-- and all that testosterone inspiring gumption-- but I am quite satisfied with my own set of gonads hidden away where they are less vulnerable to injury. :)

[DanishDynamite]

Well, I'm developing my cyberballs on line. I think the term "spiritual" is crap too. My sentiments are more that of dglas... but there was a time when I believed you could "feel" the truth or that the truth didn't matter... or that faith was good. I had been indoctrinated to be that way. And I feared "atheists"...
I don't need to "feel" the truth. I can show it.
Believers, are by definition, not rational... I am a small person... I don't really like to give irrational people reasons to make my life harder. On this forum I expect that others believe like I do and when they don't, I mock accordingly. I think all woo is equally mockable even when it's labeled "spiritual" or "higher truth" or whatever. I think Limbo's nothingness is as mockable as edge's nothingness as Tom Cruise's nothingness as Homeopathic nothingness.
I'm feeling a "but" coming up.
I don't defer to peoples feelings and opinions any more than they do to mine, but I know that people in the real world expect that I believe as they do and that people who believe like they do are the smartest or most moral or best. On this forum, I have the chance to feel similarly without reprisal, and I know that believers willingly came in here... often in attempt to shore up their beliefs by exposing it to skeptical scrutiny.

It's not balls I lack, just a general distaste for the reactions of the irrational and unpredictable. Of course, as a female I do lack balls-- and all that testosterone inspiring gumption-- but I am quite satisfied with my own set of gonads hidden away where they are less vulnerable to injury. :)
Ok, good.

Seriously, articulett, what exactly is your point here?

[articulett]

That "spiritual but not religious" is a way of saying "I'm whatever you want me to be-- don't judge me".

I think people use vague terms because they don't know what they believe or they don't want others judging them on what they believe (or don't believe). I am a strong atheist on line... ITRW, I'm silent or when asked I'll say I'm agnostic or what do you mean? or which god? I'm a little more cryptic... because people of faith demonize those who label themselves atheists... their faith teaches them to. You have doors slammed in your face (at least in America) before you ever say anything else... it comes with a load of attributes (militant, shrill, etc.) that people are ready to find even when it's not there... (which you may have noticed on these threads even.)

Someone asked Dawkins if he was spiritual, and he commented something like "yes, if you mean does nature fills me with awe and such..." Non believers think they are the only ones who have such feelings because they believe those feelings, just like morality, come from (insert woo). When you don't believe in their woo, they presume you don't have such feeling or morality or whatever. You become "other" --worthy of scorn.

I think "spiritual but not religious" is purposefully vague... a way of saying don't judge me by what I do or don't believe or "I don't know what the hell I believe". I think agnostic is often used the same way.

I'm just telling you what I mean and what I meant when I have used those terms in reference to myself. I suspect it's similar for others.
Ultimately, it doesn't mean anything much at all while pretending to answer queries or calm the feelings of those for whom belief or lack of it might matter.

[DanishDynamite]

That "spiritual but not religious" is a way of saying "I'm whatever you want me to be-- don't judge me".
So it just bollocks. I expected as much.
I think people use vague terms because they don't know what they believe or they don't want others judging them on what they believe (or don't believe). I am a strong atheist on line... ITRW, I'm silent or when asked I'll say I'm agnostic or what do you mean? or which god? I'm a little more cryptic... because people of faith demonize those who label themselves atheists... their faith teaches them to. You have doors slammed in your face (at least in America) before you ever say anything else... it comes with a load of attributes (militant, shrill, etc.) that people are ready to find even when it's not there... (which you may have noticed on these threads even.)
So, you secretely acknowledge it is crap but are too scared to say so in general. Got it.
Someone asked Dawkins if he was spiritual, and he commented something like "yes, if you mean does nature fills me with awe and such..." Non believers think they are the only ones who have such feelings because they believe those feelings, just like morality, come from (insert woo). When you don't believe in their woo, they presume you don't have such feeling or morality or whatever. You become "other" --worthy of scorn.

I think "spiritual but not religious" is purposefully vague... a way of saying don't judge me by what I do or don't believe or "I don't know what the hell I believe". I think agnostic is often used the same way.
I agree completely. It is the "out" for those without balls.
I'm just telling you what I mean and what I meant when I have used those terms in reference to myself. I suspect it's similar for others.
Ultimately, it doesn't mean anything much at all while pretending to answer queries or calm the feelings of those for whom belief or lack of it might matter.
I'm sure you feel this is the case.

[Tricky]

So, you secretely acknowledge it is crap but are too scared to say so in general. Got it.
LOL. Anybody who thinks Articulette is too timid to say anything about "crap" has not read many of her posts.:D

[DanishDynamite]

LOL. Anybody who thinks Articulette is too timid to say anything about "crap" has not read many of her posts.:D
LOL. You are the same, are you not?

[Tricky]

LOL. You are the same, are you not?
No, she's much more rowdy than I. I've never seen her back away from a fight.

[Stout]

You know...I never gave much thought to the meaning of the word spiritual until this thread manifested itself, I usually took the term to mean concerned with the metaphysical or at least concerned with phenomena from "the other world"

But after reading this thread, and exploring different people's perceptions of what the word means, I find myself in the camp of considering the meaning to be so subjective that I now class the word spiritual as useless.

I'm in agreement with dglas on the intention of elevating the importance of one's feelings, or elevating the significance of one''s thoughts to some sort of higher realm that lends a false sense of "deepness" to whatever experience one is describing.

Holy cow...did I just use the words "manifest itself" ??? It has been a rather woo oriented morning, and I just read a thread posted on by local hippies describing their "spiritual" experiences at a party they attended last weekend.

I can't say I agree with dglas's ideas that spirituality is socially isolating, as this is the type of language designed for the woo positive to identify with, and come together over.

Interestingly, I've been studying Buddhism over the past month. I wanted to approach it from a philosophical, or intellectual perspective and completely ignore the "spiritual" or woo component of the topic. I've met little resistance to this approach, and once you strip away all the religious trappings, Buddhism seems to boil down to what we in the west would call conventional wisdom.

Is my approach to Buddhism to be deemed a spiritual pursuit? I suppose, given the amorphous nature of the term, but I'm going to maintain it's an academic approach instead.

[Kahalachan]

I would consider a spiritual feeling to be one of transcendence and reflection.

So when I lay in the hot tub and look at the stars at night, things about how majestic the unverse is cross my mind. I think of how photons have travelled millions of light years to strike my eye, transduce into electricity that sends a message back to the occipital lobe, resulting in a cascade of thoughts, one of which being the very reflection of that photon. So that photon led to a series of events which both affirmed the existence of that photon and also allowed me to dwell on my consciousness.

Or maybe how I look at a steak, mashed potatoes, and some vegetables, eat it, and then ponder on the fact that some of that dinner will be me the next morning. Literally, it will be me. Inanimate food becomes animate life just by eating it. I wonder how and why does matter undergo this transformation and I think that I'm not this permanent entity, or even a form of intelligence that is fairly robust, but I'm this little mapped out segment in this constant changing flow of chemicals. Then this process leads to a chain of thoughts that baffle me.

I would call those spiritual thoughts because it focusses on the physical reality of our condition and then leads to metaphysical ponderings.

Religious means that you ascribe to a set of already established beliefs, but spirituality is your own personal reflection beyond simply affirming physical reality but on what this affirmation entails.

[bokonon]

after reading this thread, and exploring different people's perceptions of what the word means, I find myself in the camp of considering the meaning to be so subjective that I now class the word spiritual as useless.
Lots of things are subjective, but I don't think "subjective" is a synonym for "useless."

I'm in agreement with dglas on the intention of elevating the importance of one's feelings, or elevating the significance of one''s thoughts to some sort of higher realm that lends a false sense of "deepness" to whatever experience one is describing.
Since "thought" is a subjective experience, in what sense is the "depth" of that experience false? I repeated Shermer's account of the awe with which he experiences the tiny flash of understanding that represents his entire life, when compared with the truly unimaginable vastness of time and space. If someone retorts, "Yes, the universe is infinite; what's your next "spiritual" insight?" I'd argue that they're refusing to experience what Shermer is describing. That doesn't lend a "false" shallowness to their experience, or a "false" deepness to his, but I'd say his experience is more spiritual than theirs.

It's that general difference that most people have in mind, I think, when they use terms like "spiritual," whether they mean it in the sense of a personal relationship with the creator of the universe (which I would describe as "false" myself) or simply a wide-eyed appreciation for the billowing mystery of the universe.

[articulett]

No, she's much more rowdy than I. I've never seen her back away from a fight.

Listen, I ride my broom with pride online... I am much more barbed than Tricky... I look to him to tell me when to tone it down. If he's not telling me I'm being mean... I do not retract my claws. (There are others, too, whom I've really grown to respect the opinion of on line as well.)

In real life, I am much more timid, because of consequences I've experienced. Believers are not rational, and they hear you calling them an "idiot" whenever you assert that you don't believe what they believe. It's not that you ARE calling them an idiot... it's that they think those who believe different woo than they believe ARE idiots and so they extrapolate that from your message and react.

[bokonon]

In real life, I am much more timid, because of consequences I've experienced.
I suspect Danish Dynamite's call for balls may be the result of growing up in an environment which doesn't really require them. Being blunt and offensive is easy when the most dire consequences of such behavior is being crossed off guest lists for parties one doesn't care about attending anyway. I doubt his crusading cojones would be clanging quite so loudly in Europe under the Spanish Inquisition as they are in (I assume) Denmark where atheism is commonplace and tolerance is the norm.

Articulett can express herself clearly online, where her career won't suffer because of anonymous comments she makes, but prefers to stake out a fuzzier position where the negative consequences may outweigh the hypothetical advantages of "taking a stand." The vague generality of a word like "spiritual" seems to me to be useful for that reason alone.

[Stout]

Hi bokonon

Maybe useless is a bit of an overstatement. I've heard spiritual used to describe the metaphysical, the emotional, anything to do with self improvement, and things that "we" don't have an immediate explanation for. As a for instance, a few days ago when I was complaining that I think I might be developing arthritis in one of my knuckles ( because it always hurts ) the person I was complaining to said " I'd go spiritual on that, it's your thoughts that are causing the arthritis, you should see this person who...."

I've since determined that the pain was caused by my hyper extending my wrist when I'm lifting weights.

By false, I was meaning misplaced. Suppose you have an experience, and attribute that experience to being controlled by "something else" , like that experience was "meant to be" that the universe decreed that you should have that experience and learn something from it. You don't know what that lesson is supposed to be, but you just feel that there's something to be learned or some special insight to be gained.

Recently a friend of mine read a book on science and had a spiritual revelation in the knowledge that the atoms we as people are made up of were once atoms that made up other planets. I didnt find his insight to be all that "spiritual" and responded with a "well so ?? " He then proceeded to speculate that the atoms we are made of once belonged to other people, I also said, "well so??" and he then proceeded to speculate that maybe those atoms carry special knowledge. "Maybe....." I said. This, I would class as a false sense of depth.

But if we're using the word spiritual to be synonymous with awe and wonder, then I need to retract the word false altogether.

This is what I mean by the term being useless. it covers so much ground that it's now a word I have to ask. "what do you mean by spiritual ? " much like i have to ask "What do you mean by the word cult?"

Either that, or I've got to spend more time reading dictionaries and rejecting the stereotypical meanings of words I've come to identify with.

[bokonon]

I was complaining that I think I might be developing arthritis in one of my knuckles ( because it always hurts ) the person I was complaining to said " I'd go spiritual on that, it's your thoughts that are causing the arthritis, you should see this person who...."

I've since determined that the pain was caused by my hyper extending my wrist when I'm lifting weights.
I hope the person you were complaining to wasn't your doctor.

I once went to my doctor complaining about the heat rash in the inside of each elbow. The doctor said it looked to him like "turkey tracks," and that I should stop injecting drugs, and that pain was nature's way of trying to tell me something. I decided that such a stupid, useless, and incorrect diagnosis was nature's way of telling me that this man had no business being my physician.

By false, I was meaning misplaced. Suppose you have an experience, and attribute that experience to being controlled by "something else" , like that experience was "meant to be" that the universe decreed that you should have that experience and learn something from it. You don't know what that lesson is supposed to be, but you just feel that there's something to be learned or some special insight to be gained.
I can agree with that. I don't think "the universe" is "trying" to tell us anything, and anthropomorphizing it like that is almost certainly mistaken.

Recently a friend of mine read a book on science and had a spiritual revelation in the knowledge that the atoms we as people are made up of were once atoms that made up other planets. I didnt find his insight to be all that "spiritual" and responded with a "well so ?? " He then proceeded to speculate that the atoms we are made of once belonged to other people, I also said, "well so??" and he then proceeded to speculate that maybe those atoms carry special knowledge. "Maybe....." I said. This, I would class as a false sense of depth.
I agree with that too. I suppose if you drew a Venn diagram, with "spiritual stuff" in one circle, and "nonsense" in another, there'd be a big football-shaped area they both share called "spiritual nonsense." It's likely that knowledge-carrying atoms would be bouncing around inside that football.