https://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-religion/

84% of "Nones" (Atheists, Agnostics, Nothing in Particular) say that they often or sometimes feel a deep connection with Nature and the Earth.

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/44909-science-is-not-only-compatible-with-spirituality-it-is-a


"It is quite literally true that we are stardust. In the highest and most exalted way one can use that phrase. And so I bask in the majesty of the Cosmos. Given the chemistry and the nuclear physics of it all, not only are we in the Universe, the universe is in us. And I don't know any deeper spiritual feeling that what that brings upon me." Neil deGrasse Tyson

https://youtu.be/dP9uBJ0Bu9s

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” Einstein

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/422465-the-most-beautiful-thing-we-can-experience-is-the-mysterious#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20most%20beautiful%20thing%20we%20can%20experience%20is%20the%20mysterious,%3A%20his%20eyes%20are%20closed.%E2%80%9D

I consider myself the same. Even though I often attend a religious service at one of two churches, I'm not a member and I don't consider myself religious. I do it because I draw some spirituality from it, as well as from other sources. Two years ago this month was the rock bottom of my life. Trust me, there had been times that I thought I'd hit rock bottom, but it really didn't happen until my own children teamed up and pushed me to the bottom of the pit.

The old Wynona Judd song says "When you hit rock bottom you've got two ways to go--straight up or sideways." I couldn't go sideways. I couldn't stay in that pit. And amazingly, the resolve to climb out has been sweetened with some almost unbelievable good luck and serendipity. It's pushed me in a real spiritual direction and the more I embraced that, the more I experienced it. I call it God working in my life. Not the GodMAN in the sky. But the power outside me that has allowed me to find and corral the power inside of me and use it to recognize the good.

The first thing a religious nut will tell you is that he/she is "spiritual but not religious".

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The first thing a religious nut will tell you is
> that he/she is "spiritual but not religious".

This has not been my personal experience.

Maybe it has something to do with local geographical cultures?

I dunno, but where I live, people are generally fairly objective about the state (or non-state) of their religiosity.

What I enjoy about 'normalcy' is that I'm its only practitioner. I have a certificate to prove it!

Some of you come close, but no cigar.

Nice try. But, my normal is better than your normal.

Sorry man...

I checked with a recognized authority and was told that you're likely suffering from 'nearer my ghawd to thee' syndrome, where you can see Normal, but can't touch it.

Tragic, but in a funny way! I'm laughing with you, not at you, okay?

But 51% of dog groomers believe in my normality. Numbers don't lie. For the groomers who trim show Poodles exclusively the number is even higher---72%.

Aye, chi-hua-hua!

I'm guessing that the people who opt for "spiritual but not religious" were raised in a church. This will change as people increasingly are not raised in church-going families.

"Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR) was a phase for me when I stopped being a Baptist and thought maybe Animism was the thing for me. It wasn't. "Spiritual but not religious" was also an easy answer to give people who asked while I was still wrapping my mind around my lack of belief. I also wrote SBNR on surveys.

I starting questioning the existence of god when I was about 12 years old. I didn't write, "I don't believe in god" until I came to this board about 30 years later. After I clicked "post message," I waited to be incinerated. I'm happy to report that I'm still char-free. I'm not sure when I told my daughter. I'd like to think it was before I posted that sentence here, but maybe it wasn't. I'll ask her the next time we talk. If she calls. Which she needs to do more often. It's in the Kid Contract. She's in breach.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2020 06:08PM by Beth.

I felt the same way for a long time. I lost the religion but retained the spirituality. And now, it just seems irrelevant. What is, is, and whether I believe it or not doesn't really matter. I'm open to that changing, but at present, that's where I'm at.

I agree with Dagny, below, that the lovely things in nature fill me with what might be called spirituality. I like to think of it as appreciation.

Exactly, summer.

If I am around believers or people who might have a negative opinion about not having a belief (atheist), I might say I'm SBNR. It's just easier not to alienate myself with labels they don't understand the same way as me. I pick my battles and audiences when it comes to atheism due to sheer exhaustion sometimes.

Besides, to me things like nature, music, a flower, a puppy, stars, etc., are often a spiritual experience. So, in that sense, I am spiritual. I mean it as awe-inspiring without the religious connotation but people usually don't ask for too deep of an explanation.

Agreed. There are numinous things in life although they and the concomitant sense of mystery and joy qualify as a sort of spirituality--although I hasten to say I am not a member of the Cult of Pop Scientists.

Golf is a divine mystery, which I say in Hogan's name, amen.

I thought Hogan was a wrestler.

No. He's a hero.

Hogan was a POW at Stalag 13.

Exactly

No, no. That was neither a hero nor a duck but rather a crane who met an unfortunate end.

Exactly, dagny (yeah - you and summer get the same response)

I have new neighbors. Sooner or later they're going to ask me what I'm doing for Thanksgiving. I don't tend to celebrate turkey day, but if I *say* I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, I get a look. If I say I'm not doing anything, I get invited to someone's Turkey Day. Can't win.

The same goes for Christmas. Someone here or at work is going to ask me what I'm doing for Christmas. I don't celebrate it. If I say I'm not doing anything, people feel sorry for me. If I say I don't celebrate it, people look at me like I've grown another nose.

About five years ago we had a suicide cluster at work. It was overwhelming, and one was a murder suicide. Our #2 Boss Guy sent out an email saying that there would be chaplains in the office for grief counseling. Included in the email were the chaplains' bios. Choose a chaplain!

I was a union steward at the time. I emailed him and HR and asked if there would be straight up grief counselors available who were not affiliated with a religion.

I think it's important to point out that many (most?) of us in the office are veterans, and we're used to having chaplains all over the place.

Boss Guy: The chaplains will see anyone.

Me: Yes, but someone might not want to see a chaplain but would still like grief counseling.

Boss Guy: But the chaplains will see anyone.

Me: ::Headdesk::

He's a really kind and sweet man. I like him a lot, but he just wasn't getting it.

Me: I can't believe I'm about to out myself as an atheist. I don't believe in God. I don't want to pray with a chaplain, discuss an afterlife, or read scripture. I'm not seeking solace through religion because I don't find solace in belief. Can we get a regular therapist or something here for those of us who would rather not see a chaplain?

::crickets::

The next time something awful happened, we were given the phone number for the Employee Assistance Program counselors. Boss #2 said people didn't see the chaplains anyway.

I wasn't trying to be a pain. I really like this guy. But there are people at work besides me who don't want to talk to the chaplain but would like to speak to someone. Plus we're a friggin' government agency. You can't only bring in the chaplain crew.

I was scared to death when I sent that email.

Beth, I feel ya'. I may be spending Thanksgiving on my own this year, due to Covid, and I'm okay with that. My brother and his wife want to see their grandbaby in Maine, and I don't think it's wise to get on a plane to go there and join them. Rotten virus! I know that I could get an invitation locally, but I just don't want to do that. So I may have to come up with a story. We'll see.

I I am not religious. No belief in a God, or Angels or devils or mothers of Gods, or Ghosts Holy or Un.

I am spiritual. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the above.


In the dictionary this is the number 1 definition of spiritual:

"relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Exammple--"I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare"

Number two is spiritual as it relates to religion.

I resent the automatic assumption by some that spirituality is only tied to religion. A lot of people don't know their words very well.


When we say we're in "High Spirits" we don't mean there are angels hovering around. We mean we feel connected to the best of our selves.

When we want to "lift someone's spirits" it means we are kind and listen and are empathetic and supportive. It doesn't mean we have to be quoting the Bible to them or the BoM or encouraging them to "sin less so God can be with them."

Actually, I have never felt less spiritual than when in my youth I was doing the rote mandates of religion.


Of course people feel spiritual without religion. The thing about spirituality is stripping away the pre-conceived notions will bring you closer to connecting on a deep level with what matters and allow your senses to unclog. Religion always made me feel like I was getting a busy signal.

This raises the possibility of labeling a number of mormon prelates as completely without the spirit.

I think religious but not spiritual is rather common actually.

That is a wise observation.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I resent the automatic assumption by some that
> spirituality is only tied to religion. A lot of
> people don't know their words very well.

If you want to argue that "spirituality" or "the spiritual" can be experienced apart from religious faith (belief in God), that's fine. But doesn't spirituality imply some feeling or experience that reaches beyond ordinary human feelings to encompass some deeper connection with the universe? Suppose, for example, that you have a "spiritual" experience while watching a sunset. To be "spiritual" doesn't the experience have to provide some feeling that is beyond just the apparent lowering of the sun, or understanding of the motion of the earth? Isn't it that something extra that makes it "spiritual."

> Of course people feel spiritual without religion.
> The thing about spirituality is stripping away the
> pre-conceived notions will bring you closer to
> connecting on a deep level with what matters and
> allow your senses to unclog. Religion always made
> me feel like I was getting a busy signal.

Once you start talking about spirituality as an experience that involves "connecting on a deep level with what matters," you have left the mundane facts of ordinary experience and science, and are presumably channeling into something that is metaphysically deeper and more significant, as noted above. (Ordinary experience is one level, and spirituality is now going deeper than that; to use your language.) How is that different from the person who says that this "something deeper" is identified as God? What metaphysical facts or entities would you identify it with? Surely, a spiritual experience is not captured by appeal to a mere connection between the limbic system and the temporal lobes. By definition, it is addressing something "deeper" that we cannot understand.

In short, you may have "spirituality" without religion, but it is hard to understand how you can have spirituality without transcendence. It seems that if you want to remove that too, then the "deeper" aspect of the experience that you started with vanishes.

> Surely, a
> spiritual experience is not captured by appeal to
> a mere connection between the limbic system and
> the temporal lobes.

Why not? Can you prove that something more is involved?

I ask that seriously.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Surely, a
> > spiritual experience is not captured by appeal
> to
> > a mere connection between the limbic system and
> > the temporal lobes.
>
> Why not? Can you prove that something more is
> involved?
>
> I ask that seriously.

My comments were not about proof. They were about the nature of the "spiritual" experience, and how that experience "seems" to the person experiencing it. According to D&D, it seems like something "deeper" and more significant; whether it actually is or not; and it is that "seeming like it is something more significant" that makes it a "spiritual" experience.

Actually, you are misreading D&D. As he said below, he sees the significance as natural and not requiring transcendence. If you disagree with him, as he says you are free to "transcend away" although he won't go with you.

Totally agree!! If someone inferred they were 'spiritual' I would probably ask them about their 'spiritual experience' which could not be explained by science.

I talk around this stuff at many general settings where strangers are around and have never heard anyone infer 'spirituality' without an experience.

No one claims that there is "'spirtuality' without an experience." We all list the events that enabled us to experience the numinous.

What you are doing yet again is insisting that there must be something interceding between the experience-emotion complex that we all encounter from time to time. Since you insist on imposing an element that is not obviously necessary, it is up to you to proffer evidence of that additional "something."

Can you do that?

As you have illustrated right there, "Spirituality" is a chameleon of a word. The very idea of spirituality is that each person finds their own. Which means no one owns the concept, and no one gets to define it for anyone else--like say, linking it exclusively to religion. Spiritist also has assigned a specific requirement for spirituality telling others how it MUST be.

It is not hard for me to see spirituality working along side science or not. It is not hard for me to understand how you can have spirituality without transcendence, though it is for you.

Transcend away, then!

> Spiritist also has assigned a specific requirement
> for spirituality telling others how it MUST be.

Exactly. And that "requirement" seems superfluous to the vast majority of us. The burden of proof is on him: can he produce evidence that there is something going on besides the "event-emotion" that you and I experience?

I think the quest to define the indefinable requires more creativity than what I am seeing. I'm sure even Cousin Einstein would agree. No?

Of course, my definition of 'spiritual' would be different from a person 'devoid' of 'spiritual experiences'.

However, I would not argue with their defining themselves --- if they think their spiritual, or believe Mormonism is true, it's fine with me.

Yet neither D&D nor I are "devoid of spiritual experiences." Quite the opposite. We just note that the word "spiritual" does not require anything supernatural or transcendent.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is not hard for me to see spirituality working
> along side science or not. It is not hard for me
> to understand how you can have spirituality
> without transcendence, though it is for you.
>
> Transcend away, then!

You're missing the point. I agreed with you about your definition, which is why I pressed you. Just what is it about "spiritual" experiences (according to your own definition) that distinguishes them from mundane (non-spiritual) experiences? What is it that makes them seem different (i.e. "deeper") by YOUR definition? Again, like you said, what distinguishes them seems to be that they add something "deeper" about life, the universe, or whatever, than ordinary experiences do.

Stop for a minute and think about this. I am NOT making a religious claim; or even arguing for "transcendence." All I am talking about is the relationship between human feelings of a certain type, and the definition of a word.

He defines "spiritual" as consonant with mundane. You insist he doesn't mean that; you assert that he sees the spiritual as different from, and superior to, the mundane.

It is therefore you, and not he, who "is missing the point" of his experience.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He defines "spiritual" as consonant with mundane.
> You insist he doesn't mean that; you assert that
> he sees the spiritual as different from, and
> superior to, the mundane.

Remember, it was D&D that started all this by defining "spiritual," claiming that it was in some sense special, as a "deeper" experience. Whatever that may imply, it must imply something. And, frankly I think he is right about how people view these experiences, whether religious or not.

But, he cannot just leave the metaphysically laden term "deeper" dangling out there without explanation. This is because it is HE that is insisting upon a differentiation of "spiritual" that allows for its use outside of the religious context. If "deeper" doesn't imply anything religious, or transcendent, then what does it imply? Calling both ordinary experiences and spiritual experiences "mundane" obviously does not answer this question, even if it is at the end of the day true.

> It is therefore you, and not he, who "is missing
> the point" of his experience.

I am not missing anything. I am only asking D&D to tell me the underlying point of his deeper "spiritual" experience, since, according to him, it has nothing to do with religion. What does it have to do with? Apparently he doesn't know.

So, he makes a differentiation between ordinary and spiritual experiences, claiming that the latter are in some sense "deeper," but has no explanation as to what that might mean. Maybe it is just a different human psychology; some unusual set of neurons firing in the brain. But, that doesn't seem to capture the phenomenological essence of the term "spiritual" does it? (i.e. It doesn't tell us at all why a "spiritual" experience is special (or deeper) when contrasted with a non-spiritual experience.)

Now your argument has dwindled to the proposition that the word "deeper" implies something transcendent. But that is an arbitrary reading of the word.

Is Bach transcendent or supernatural because it strikes me more deeply than the Beetles? Is a fight with my spouse somehow transcendent because it hurts me more deeply than an RfM spat? Is there something spiritually different when one swims at a depth of 50 feet rather than 10? The answer to all those questions is "no." The word "deeper" is an intensifier that does not in any way imply transcendence.

You can keep asking D&D to accept your definition of "deeper," but he has already refused to do so. In his words above, "it is not hard for me to understand how you can have spirituality without transcendence."

That's his view. Asked and answered.