BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 04:48 PM

Spirituality must be accompanied by freedom of thought and freedom of choice or it is not real spirituality.

Religion does not engender freedom of thought - on the contrary, it regiments and punishes according to myth, dogma and shibboleth. So - religion is not spiritual, it is something else. Being Canadian, OTOH, is what you are by default. It defines you empirically, individually & collectively. As they say, you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.


*   

Just become one of the fruits isn't a banana it doesn't mean none of them might be bananas.

Well - we can say they're all religions anyway, and they are all, each in their own special way, bananas.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 05:19 PM

""I've never found a conflict between gut feelings and fact. Fact is indisputable or it would not BE fact.""

Unfortunately, what some term "a fact" can be, "in fact" be somewhat loosey-goosey in a more universal perspective.

What, at times,is defined as "a fact" can be perceived differently by different people, and what is seen as "a facts" does chage over time.

As Jerry Rubin stated in "just Do It" what one person sees as an ashtray, another may see as a candy dish. So, who is wrong, based on fact?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 05:22 PM

BTW, LH. I think you got too caught up on the "evolution" portion of the article and missed the broader points being made. Maybe you have been captured too much by the ever so many religious thread debates - this (IMO) not being one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 07:19 PM

Though I don't remember every word of the slideshow, I am pretty sure this is it. Please feel free to read it if you want to stay near the original topic.

The text of gnu's link

Your religion is not important

Yesterday friend of mine sent me an email with a a brief dialogue between the Brazilian theologist Leonardo Boff and the Dalai Lama, which deeply touched me. Here is what Leonardo, one of the renovators of the Theology of Freedom, recounts of this remarkable encounter:

In a round table discussion about religion and freedom in which Dalai Lama
and myself were participating at recess I maliciously, and also with interest, asked him: 

“Your holiness, what is the best religion?â€쳌

I thought he would say: “The Tibetan Buddhismâ€쳌 or “The oriental religions, much older than Christianity.â€쳌

The Dalai Lama paused, smiled and looked me in the eyes …. which surprised me because I knew of the malice contained in my question.

He answered:
 “The best religion is the one that gets you closest to God. It is the one that makes you a better person.â€쳌

To get out of my embarrassment with such a wise answer, I asked: “What is it that makes me better?â€쳌

He responded:
“Whatever makes you
more compassionate,
more sensible,
more detached,
more loving,
more humanitarian,
more responsible,
more ethical.â€쳌
“The religion that will do that for you is the best religionâ€쳌

I was silent for a moment, marveling and even today thinking of his wise and irrefutable response:

“I am not interested, my friend, about your religion or if you are religious or not.

“What really is important to me is your behavior in front of your peers, family, work, community, and in front of the world.

“Remember, the universe is the echo of our actions and our thoughts.â€쳌

“The law of action and reaction is not exclusively for physics. It is also of human relations. 
If I act with goodness, I will receive goodness. 
If I act with evil, I will get evil.â€쳌

“What our grandparents told us is the pure truth. You will always have what you desire for others. Being happy is not a matter of destiny. It is a matter of options.â€쳌

Finally he said:
“Take care of your Thoughts because they become Words.
Take care of your Words because they will become Actions.
Take care of your Actions because they will become Habits.
Take care of your Habits because they will form your Character.
Take care of your Character because it will form your Destiny,
and your Destiny will be your Life

… and …

“There is no religion higher than the Truth.â€쳌

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 07:25 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 10 Apr 13 - 11:14 AM

??? Am I wasting my time? I thought I was on topic.

(leaving town for 4 days on Friday morning, so I guess I can't fret about it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:29 AM

"Religion does not engender freedom of thought - on the contrary, it regiments and punishes according to myth, dogma and shibboleth. So - religion is not spiritual, it is something else. Being Canadian, OTOH, is what you are by default. It defines you empirically, individually & collectively. As they say, you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy."

You and I have very different views on religion and spiritually and especially on being Canadian.

I'm as Canadian as Little Hawk and our upbringing, our families, our education, were very very different. As far as I recall the other Canadians on this forum are as different from us as we are from each other. Not to mention all of the Canadians so different from us that they would never ever appear on this forum.

It is in my experience that people's religious views are as varied as our Canadianism. Your mileage may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:30 AM

The thing about being a Canadian was simply an analogy to demonstrate a point...the point being that you don't have to agree with every last detail of any given system of thought, philosophy or doctrine to find much of good value in it.

Bandiver - "Religion does not engender freedom of thought"

Blandiver, that you would say that simply demonstrates how very little you actually know about religion...or about a great many people who belong to religions and ARE free thinkers. Your belief that religion forbids freedom of thought is mere wish fulfillment on your part....kind of like a hardcore Nazi believing that "all Jews are greedy and evil"....or a religious fundamentalist believing that "all agnostics and atheists and pagans will burn in Hell". It's on that level of sheer ignorance.

This doesn't mean you're stupid! Not at all. Your writing ability makes it quite clear that you're intelligent. It just means you're ignorant of the actual nature of a great many religious people. You don't know who you're talking about. Some of the freest-thinking and brightest people I've ever known have also been religious people, highly educated people in the sciences in some cases....and they believe in science and logic just as much as you do. They question many of the root assumptions of their religion....just as I question, for example, the root assumptions of my culture. I've never stopped questioning. Don't assume that religious people hold all the rigid, primitive, ancient beliefs you imagine they do just because it's written that way in some Biblical passage. A great many of them do NOT hold those literal beliefs at all....but they do believe that we live in an existence that has a deeper meaning and purpose to which we can better shape our lives. The Dalai Lama touches on that in the video at the top of this discussion.

You don't need to worship "a God" to be religious, by the way. You just need to think there's a lot more to life than mere survival and competition games with other people and the environment. You need to start caring about others as much as you care about yourself. That's not easy! For most people who even bother to attempt it, it's a lifetime learning process and they repeatedly struggle with it and fall short. But at least they try.

And, yes, you can undertake the very same learning process without being connected to any religion. (if you are so inclined) Just thought I'd add that for Mrzzy's sake. ;-)

To dismiss all religious people as some sort of deluded morons, Blandiver, is as silly as dismissing all Black people, all Jews, all Gays, all women, all Frenchmen, all Southerners, all New Yorkers or all atheists in a similarly offhand and stereotyped fashion. As if they were all the same!!! ;-) It just shows you don't know who you're talking about, and probably have never bothered to get to know any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:32 AM

No Bill, I just thought seeing it print would help us all after I found it for myself! If you were asking me.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:03 AM

You don't know who you're talking about.

I've known & continue to know many religious people, a lot of whom are close friends, family members & neighbours. I don't avoid them, much less discriminate against them, and well I know (and understand) the nature of their thinking and faith as well as their points of personal 'crisis' when things don't quite match up, for whatever reason. People are people - the difference being that the religious (by definition) exhibit a willingness to accept a point of potentially divisive superstitious subjectivism over one of a more inclusive objectivism.

I've experienced many examples - from the proselyting antics of the Christian Union which once reduced a very dear friend of mine to a nervous breakdown during her time at university, or the Buddhist bus driver who would leave old people running in the rain on account of Karma. As we travel around the country bringing our music to select discriminating minorities, I routinely throw Gideon Bibles out of Travelodge windows (rock 'n' roll!) in dread of the more pernicious missionary attitudes engendered by religion amongst those who feel their way is the only way. I've seen lives & families torn apart by the Moonies, and I've seen Mormon missionaries reducing once vibrant elderly neighbours to despairing shadows of themselves. I've seen real tragedy in the name of Religion - and I've seen lives as casualties barely recovered having been raised in the darkness of Roman Catholicism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.

This is no mere stereotyping I can assure you. To this day I know Christians who feel discriminated against by science and secularism and yet openly pledge allegiance to questionable political doctrines in order to preserve what they perceive (without question) to be 'their culture' - just I know Catholics who look upon their faith as another person might their ethnicity and so regard any criticism of their faith as being inherently racist. Whatever you say about 'questioning', the core shibboleths of religion remain inescapable, so much to the point that (as I said in another thread) I'm wary when I meet a professed Christian of any persuasion who isn't a right wing, homophobic material ID creationist for whom dinosaur bones and the light of distant galaxies is paving the way for God's ultimate judgement of humanity. When I meet Christians who claim to be so enlightened, I ask them so what's the point? The Mythos of Religion depends on literalism, absolutism, funny hats, heresy and hoo-hah, however so personal the experience of that might be; hell, even I might be moved to tears by the mythic archetypes on offer at the various Masses of the Easter Triduum, but no more than by (say) Cheyenne's death in Once Upon a Time in the West.

Spirituality is common to us all - without exception; it is the human mulch out which Religion has been engineered to exploit some very basic issues & concerns of existence and turn them very much against ourselves by seeding the notion that they are somehow True. What is truth? Even Christ couldn't answer that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:21 AM

Blandiver -

Since there is a very wide spectrum of people who would, at least at some level, define themselves as "believing in a deity" (aka religious people), logic tells me that the term "stereotyping" (of these folks) in your last post cannot be ruled out?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:30 AM

>>>Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver - PM
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:03 AM

You don't know who you're talking about. <<<

I think that LH has some evidence to back that up. LH has said that you do not know what you are talking about. I sure as heck don't know. Can you try to us all what the heck you are talking about?

You call Religion "Pornography" and complain about others choosing potentially divisive beliefs.

You completely misuse the word "subjectivism" and miss the mark on "objectivism" as well.

"This is no mere stereotyping I can assure you. " Unless that you can prove that your opinions apply to all religious people it certainly is stereotyping.

You use a few anecdotes to paint all people of faith with one brush.

For your argument to be credible, we need more than your assurance.

Let me put it this way there are plenty of religious people a lot less subjective and much more than you. Whatever it is you believe.

And don't think that you can coherently explain your beliefs by pointing out the faults of Christianity and saying they are not that.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:05 AM

logic tells me that the term "stereotyping" (of these folks) in your last post cannot be ruled out?

It's self-evident that individual faith often arises from a yearning for belonging which, out of no little necessity, requires a willingness to conform on any number of levels, so the stereotyping is part and parcel of the religious experience.

*

LH has said that you do not know what you are talking about. I sure as heck don't know.

What he actually said was You don't know who you're talking about - a crucial point to understanding both his post and my response to it.

Can you try to us all what the heck you are talking about?

Don't know about ALL, I'm not aware of any ALL here, but I can try and tell YOU anyway...

You call Religion "Pornography" and complain about others choosing potentially divisive beliefs.

What I actually said was Religion exploits Spirituality in exactly the same way was Pornography exploits Sexuality. We are all of us Spiritual & Sexual beings; Religion & Pornography proceed from what we are, not the other round. They are both exploitative constructs designed to manipulate what is integral to our very natures which would, in any case, exist quite happily without them. It is, I think, better to get off on the diversity of reality than the illusory & offensive inhuman myths offered up by Playboy and The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You completely misuse the word "subjectivism" and miss the mark on "objectivism" as well.

Subjectivism is about individual experience & opinion and Objectivism is about collective experience & empirical (i.e. falsifiable, peer reviewed hard won) consensus on the nature of the reality we are all part of by dint of our very existence. If the earth were to crash into the sun tomorrow, we all would have our own subjective way of dealing with the objective crisis, but we'd all die as result. There would be no Rapture; and no exceptions.   If that is misuse, then maybe you'd care to tell me where I went wrong.   

"This is no mere stereotyping I can assure you. " Unless that you can prove that your opinions apply to all religious people it certainly is stereotyping.

What is there to prove? We're discussing the nature of belief and doctrine which out of some necessity involves more than a degree of stereotyping in order to more properly conform to whatever system one chooses to believe in - or has had forced upon you from birth. Maybe Uniformity would be a better word?

You use a few anecdotes to paint all people of faith with one brush.

Like Little Hawk, I'm offering a few personal anecdotes which (to a greater or lesser extent) have shaped the way I feel about the nature of religion & the religious. As with the stereotyping, it is the religious who are painting themselves with your proverbial brush - not I.

For your argument to be credible, we need more than your assurance.

Hey, I'm only one bloke here - if you don't agree then fine, it's not my job to convince you otherwise, much less roundly confront you over the nature of your beliefs as you appear to be doing to me here with your mob-like WE to answer to.

Let me put it this way there are plenty of religious people a lot less subjective and much more than you. Whatever it is you believe.

I disagree - not that I'm saying I'm Mr Objective or anything, just I've never met any Person o' Religion who've demonstrated any degree of objective tolerance for other perspectives because I guess that would cancel out their need for religion, or the credibility of their conviction. To be without religious belief is to appreciate the humanity of religion - the fact that it's all made up, that it's given us some fine buildings and music (and ghastly ones) that all of its spiritual truths derive from basic human nature etc. etc. Once God becomes anything more than a human construct then there's a whole heap of other stuff you must take on board, and its that 'other stuff' that not only precludes humanity but accounts for the darker aspects of religion which are very much with us today.   

And don't think that you can coherently explain your beliefs by pointing out the faults of Christianity and saying they are not that.

Culturally I'm very much a Christian I suppose - I'm of that Judeo-Xtian-Abrahamic tradition though as an Atheist I don't actually believe in any of it. I do however find much therein to delight and intrigue with respect of the folklore & the historical layers, particularly in the art, architecture & music of the Middle Ages & the more secular elements therein - be in the often grotesque (but never pagan) vernacular marginalia of misericord & manuscript, which have their counterpart in the songs of The Cantigas de Santa Maria & Carmina Burana (which are often pagan in a very different sense). I also take a keen interest in the underlying Dualism of Christianity, as manifest in Gnosticism in general and Catharism in particular, though I'd be wary in calling this belief as such, more of personal passion, same as I have for Traditional Song & Balladry, the Indo-European Folktale and the tradition of experimental electronica which begins with Daphne Oram. If faith I have it is an optimistic one in that I see both Anarchy (i.e highly ordered & efficient society without Goverment) and Atheism (Spiritual harmony & enlightenment without Religion) are the inevitable consequence of learning, which is, I guess, what we've been up to these past 50,000 years or so. Escaping Mob Rule and learning to think as individuals in celebration of that freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:21 AM

""It's self-evident that individual faith often arises from a yearning for belonging which, out of no little necessity, requires a willingness to conform on any number of levels, so the stereotyping is part and parcel of the religious experience.""


That is not at all "self-evident" at all to me, as you claim it to be.

I propose that the actual "religious experience" is personal, and should not be confused with social elements of belonging to an organized religion.

Stereotyping not only does a disservice to those who do not conform to your box (there are billions on the planet, whom you have never met), but also tends to limit the perspective of the person developing and imposing such a sterotype box.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:50 AM

Stereotyping is often based on a generalization and involves rigidly-held negative views on a group of people, often based on limited experience. It can leads to elitism, and associated beliefs that one's own group of people are in some way superior to others, (often spawning negative attitudes toward a group). Stereotyping defines what a group is like, prejudice tells one how to feel about that group (normally negatively). Stereotyping can be a barrier to communication, preventing a broader perspective when viewing another's point of view (on the other group).

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:53 AM

The problem with the notion of "spiritualism" is that it is not always defined and agreed with, nor is it scientifically verifiable. It is as vague as the name implies, a misty vapor, a ghost, or a indefinable essence which in my opinion is the hanging on of a religious point of view after leaving an organized religion.

I agree with Ed that there is nothing "self evident" about it but a construct of the brain which by the way can be induced with electrodes applied to certain areas.

Spiritualism also implies in a more limited sense consorting with people that have died.
I see no scientific conclusion for this view and it is "self evident" that there are a lot of charlatans out there who prey on the emotional needs of those who have lost loved ones.

There is a "Spiritualist Church" which means that it is a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:07 AM

As usual, part of the turmoil in this thread comes from a conflation of ideas that should be differentiated.

The word religion comes from a Latin word, religio, which means either "to bind" or "to read again" depending on which ety,pologist you ask.

In modern parlance the word has two major shades of meaning. One is "mindful of spiritual truths" and the other is "mindful of the obligations of the organization".

Private and personal seeking for spiritual truths has never harmed anyone. Organized belief has frequently done harm. Totally putting aside the insanity of pederasty and slaughter, one form this harm takes is the tendency of organized believers to try and inject their beliefs into the minds of others, justified by the notion that they are "true".

But they are not "true" any more than S&P stock quotes are "true". They are considerations, opinions, data agreed-upon, and so on. The only nearly-absolute truth there is is the consciousness that is asking the question. THis is an amusing paradox, but not a religion in the organized sense.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:12 AM

I agree Stringsinger.

Beliefs, (aka spirituality) even when associated elements are held broadly, tend to be a personal experience and are difficult to define, confirm or refute through traditional avenues.

For example, how would one confirm, or refute a person's personal belief that their partner is beautiful? One could put forward significant data with broad definitions of beauty - but would that register with (or even matter to) the person holding that belief? I suspect not, as it is a personal belief.

IMO, it is much easier to focus on what makes up a religious organization. But, is that what actually defines the god (spiritual) belief? I suspect not. People leave religious organizations, but I doubt that that ends the belief itself in the persons make-up. One could also present oodles of science doubt, that likely would have the same impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:45 AM

It would be helpful to the discussion at this point if some 'Mod' stepped in and corrected the title of this thread to prevent further confusion of what we're talking about here. Spiritualism is the sharp practise of exploiting the bereaved & otherwise gullible by means of slight of hand, seance, bells, tambourines, cold reading & unseemly ectoplasmic manifestations. Spirituality, OTOH, is our sense of wonder and beauty in the presence of the numinous - this can be anything from the laughter of a child to the roaring of a stormy sea and all points in between; it's going to be different for everyone & underlies the uniqueness of our life's experience which is underwritten by the yearning innocence that was with us when we were born and will sing the lullaby when at last we finally do drift off into the great unknown in the sure knowledge that life goes on.

Spirituality exists without Religion, but Religion cannot exist without Spirituality. It brings me to this, which sums it up quite nicely I think...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 12:16 PM

Stringsinger,

An additional thought on this matter.

Quite a few years ago, I took a course in the philosophy of science. In the course, the prof. expressed the difficulty of injecting scientific enlightenment into long-held beliefs, whether that be cultural, religious or personal.

He used the example of an area of Africa that experienced starvation when there were plenty of fish to be had olong the coastline. It seems that there was a "belief", for some reason or another, that fish was poisionous. A new white resident decided to debunk the myth, and cooked and ate a fish in the presence of the groups decision makers. After observing him for awhile, with no ill effects,the ruling was that fish was safe to eat for white people, but not for black skinned people.

When faced with threats to important beliefs, people often resist, ignore, belittle, and challenge the threats and those making them. If the threat is significant to membership numbers, and long-lasting, it may be accomodated, in some form or another into the beliefs.

It is interesting how resilient people are in todays world to accomodate or ignore what would once seem to be a significant threat at one time.

As to the numerous debates on here over religion on mudcat (most futile and regressive), IMO, they are bound to be fruitless. To measure anything, there has to be an agreement on the scale to be used (the test). Where this agreement is lacking, it is rare to have agreement. It seems clear to me that the "scientific evidence" scale, often promoted by those challenging religous beliefs is not one that is inappropriate, as it is not commonly accepted by those professing to have religious beliefs. No agrement on a common measure (test), no progress on measuring.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:02 PM

Fortunately spiritual insight does not require agreement. It is a restoration of source-hood in the individual, and restores self-determinism; it requires solely that the individual compare his own experience of the universe with data and be as honest as he can about what he has, himself, observed or experienced.

Religion in the organized sense tends to frown on this as it engenders a bit too much self-determination in the individual and makes him hard to control with mere language or cultural guilt trips and the like.

That's another important difference between the two major senses of "religion", the personal and the communal or organized.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:26 PM

I'd keep on with this, but my suffering wrists are definitely telling me not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:47 PM

Basically The Dalai Lama in the slide show said that the best religion for you is what makes you the best person.

I'm not sure the connection to spiritualism or spirituality unless gnu was saying that you can strive for the goals The Dalai Lama laid out without organized religion.

The whole idea of spirituality especialy Blandivers contributions in discussing the original video is very confusing to me.

spir·i·tu·al·i·ty
noun \ˌspir-i-chə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
plural spir·i·tu·al·i·ties
Definition of SPIRITUALITY
1
: something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
2
: clergy
3
: sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4
: the quality or state of being spiritual

spiritual

: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal
2
a : of or relating to sacred matters
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal
3
: concerned with religious values
4
: related or joined in spirit
5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

I

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 01:48 PM

For me, spiritualism is when the beer at party is not worth drinking I so I revert to spiritualism.

G&T if I need to function the next day and whiskey if I want to spend the night arguing religion politics, football and cricket.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 02:33 PM

Do you find that your faith deepens with the number of drinks consumed? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 02:45 PM

The incorporeal definition aspect in the light of science and evidence-based truths is where I think that spirituality is not a tangible element. Supernatural phenomena, not being verifiable is questionable as to its validity.

The wonder of the universe can be appreciated greatly by scientists without it being incorporeal. As humans, we all are edified by laughing children, etc. etc. We can experience wonder and awe without the notion of a vague "spirituality", an incorporeal essence or an unverifiable mist. The term has its problems.

The definition in the current use of the term has not been sufficiently established to give it credibility. "Spirituality" defined as being a product of a "spirit" is a tautology that doesn't help its understanding.

If a religion is therefore personal, can it be made up personally by the individual without being institutionalized? Can the worship of money or war constitute a religion?

Was Soviet Marxism a religion? How about fascism?

It appears that the dictionary definition above seems to tie "spirituality" to institutionalized religion.

The idea that it is self-evident and everybody knows what we're talking about here is pretty misleading.

So in order to define what it is (spirituality) we would have to know how each person thinks that it is and compare notes.   I think it's a substitution for institutionalized religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 02:55 PM

I think it is what the dictionary says it is.
There are several meanings in the dictionary.
If the one you are using is not evident from context.
Tell people what the flock you are talking about.

Is it an error to spout self-referential because you are using words that sound good to you rather than words that express your thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:08 PM

""Supernatural phenomena, not being verifiable is questionable as to its validity"".

Maybe when it comes to establishing such validity under the current the scientific method. So, there lies the dilema and the source of the differing perspectives (no ageeement on how to verify). Good luck on getting more from the mudcat discussion merry-go-round :)


Ever consider quantum mechanics, interconnection and the law of Non-Locality in the universe?

"..a scientist can have, almost approaching a religious experience, as to realize that we are children of the stars, and that our minds are capable of understanding the universal laws that they obey."
Michio Kaku

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:11 PM

Conflating institutional religion with spirituality is like conflating ballet with refuse-collection. Sure there are some specious similarities, but the differences are far more important.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:29 PM

LH. My faith deepens with every game since January. Sheffield Wednesday are the in form in the division at the moment.

Alcohol doesn't strengthen what was never there. Mind you I have been known to shout Oh My God before now. My self faith used to strengthen if I could manage others to make a similar proclamation but time heals all wounds. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 03:46 PM

Just as well I didn't say Religion is to Spirituality what Folk is to The Tradition. ;-]

There are many things in life that move our hearts & souls beyond dictionary definitions & the commonplace and yet unite us on a level that if often described as Spiritual in a none religious / supernatural way. These are the things that make live worth living, the numinous everyday things like love, sorrow, joy, music, inspiration, poetry, death, beauty, good food, wine, beer, fags & mountaineering* which, owing to their subjective abstract nature, can't readily be rationalised and even defined, let alone adequately described - just experienced. There's no accounting for taste after all. That we have these things in common (to a greater or lesser extent) is pretty well established, and that we experience them subjectively is in the nature of being human beyond which - who knows? Who cares?   

This thread seems to be predicated on such a dichotomy anyway - that Spirituality is opposed to Religion. Amen to that. Spiritualism, OTOH, is opposed to good sense.

(* A friend of mine used to claim smoking cigarettes was sacred in that it brought you closer to the creator by hastening one's death; mountaineer friends have made similar statements. One chap I knew & discussed this with actually fell to his death a few weeks later whilst climbing in the Grampians - seemed a novel enough way of committing suicide, and I was actually quite happy for him in a way, though it was a bit of a bugger for those he left behind.)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 06:50 PM

Amos, please post your definition of spirituality.

Blandiver, I am having a lot of trouble seeing the difference between your definition of spirituality and mine of emotion.

I'm tempted to say that your version of spirituality is easy to explain.

Chemicals in the brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 07:18 PM

I agree that the "things in life that move our hearts & souls beyond dictionary definitions & the commonplace and yet unite us on a level that is often described as Spiritual........are the things that make life worth living".

Quite so. Those are the things that I have sought....through music, through art, through relationships, in Nature, through prayer and contemplation, through books, through work and play, through a million different pathways. I don't insist that everyone else should use precisely the same pathways I do, but I think we are all ultimately in search of the same things.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 07:46 PM

I agree here that chemicals in the brain can produce an emotion known as "spirituality" by no means everyone feels it or if they do, feels it the same.

I don't agree that everyone feels the same about abstract concepts such as love, sorrow, joy, music, inspiration, poetry, death, beauty, good food, wine, beer, fags & mountaineering*. I assume by fags, you mean cigarettes?

it must be "self evident" that on Mudcat, people do not agree about music at least.
This attempt to "universalize" feelings and call it "spirituality" is futile.

Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson have articulated the sense of unity that comes from knowing that the chemicals in our bodies and earth come from outer-space bodies such as meteors. Kaku said "approaching a religious experience" which is not necessarily having one.

Dictionaries change from year to year as the meaning of words change. They are not Absolute. As language evolves so do meanings of words. The word "spirituality" for example has changed its meaning over the years. Now, there is great ambiguity as to what it means and Funk and Wagnall or Webster do not have a corner on the market as to a final meaning of every word. Definitions however can be expressed by individuals and if they are agreed upon by others do more to facilitate communication then a slavish reference to a dictionary. Also, as shown in the above dictionary example, sometimes the meaning of a word such as "spirituality" is at odds with different definitions. That's what this thread is about.

Having just witnessed a documentary movie about "Waiting for Armegeddon" made me understand just how delusional some beliefs in a god can be. "Spirituality" is open to the same problem, can it also be delusional?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 08:59 PM

Spiritualism/spirituality is a notion that is about as useful as a turd in a spacesuit. It is a idea manufactured by religion or quasi-religion to attempt to let people know that one is, somehow, in a way you riffraff can't be expected to understand, on a higher plane than the common fellow. "I'm a spiritual fellow and I can't expect you to comprehend the rather esoteric, transcendent flights that my mind is rather good at adopting, unlike you, you poor, earthbound soul". Well I'm neither religious, quasi-religious nor spiritual. But I can (and do) listen to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, privately, and my mind can wander into all sorts of wonderful places. But those wonderful places are here on planet Earth, and they are here on planet Earth because Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, most decidedly, were here on planet Earth. The most wonderful of Beethoven's late quartets is, in the end, a very earthbound vision, the very opposite of mystical. Mother Nature produces glory after glory, and you can lie down in a field of wild flowers (I often do, and I have photos to prove it) and revel. But those glories, even with your eyes shut and your imagination running riot, are incredibly ordinary, beautifully, and so normally, commonplace. No spirits, no mysticism. Put that superfluous layer on it for yourself if you really want to, but don't try to pretend that this lazy conception puts you above the hairy-arsed, wonderful realities of real life. If you do, you're full of bullshit and empty of reality. Get off your spiritual, dreamy, (cannabis-fuelled?) high horse and just look around at how those earthy hairy-arses are having such a great time while you're wasting yours hoovering out you spiritualistic, self-regarding navel!

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 09:13 PM

Whatever pulls a fella's string has no argument from me, Steve Shaw. What's important is it gets you to that special inner place (regardless of where you perceive it to be). Thanks for sharing your personal experiences. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 10:54 PM

"I agree here that chemicals in the brain can produce an emotion known as "spirituality" by no means everyone feels it or if they do, feels it the same."

No one has said that. Brain chemicals enable our emotional responses. You look at a sunset, you find it pretty, your brain floods with chemicals, not spirituality. Emotional response.

Of course not everyone has the same emotional response. People vary as individuals.

Frans de Waal speculates that when some atheists become atheists, their basic personalities do not change, that if they were dogmatic and argumentative before their conversion then they would remain so afterwards. Frans De Waal said that Hitchens missed his convictions like a severed limb.

With all due respect to stringsinger this seems to make way more sense than what he has been hinting at for a while that Atheists are logical and have special knowledge and believers do not. I mean come on! you were a believer at one point and thought one way, according to stringsinger, then you change your mind and your whole thought processes are revamped. Seems dubious.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 13 - 11:04 PM

It is easy to see how Steve Shaw channels his religious and spiritual impuses. What would Mr. Shaw want with a "puny made up God," when he has his magnificent, mind reading, smarter than Beethoven about music, self to worship? :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:03 AM

Exactly. ;-) And what use is a God you can't look at in the mirror each morning while you're shaving His face?

I know all about this, because my father acted like he was God for his entire life, and he didn't believe in God either. Not for a moment. No sir, no spirituality was going to be permitted in His space! It would have gotten in the way of him being the most important guy in the room...which status he remained quite certain of until, I trust, the actual moment of his death.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 04:48 AM

You look at a sunset, you find it pretty, your brain floods with chemicals, not spirituality. Emotional response.

The problem is here that our understanding of such things goes a long back before we came up with the notion of 'chemicals in the brain'. You don't look at a sunset and dispassionately conclude that what you are experiencing isn't, in fact, a sunset at all, but an optical illusion consequent on the ever rising western horizon of the third planet in the heliocentric scheme which results in the atmosphere becoming a light filter until the sun appears to be red, casting its light on the sea and clouds.

It's like sex and death - how do we rationalise desire & fear? They are primal, instinctive, impulsive, powerful and define pretty much everything we are no matter how much we think we know the mechanisms, chemicals, stimulus & responses. Sex is nature's way of conning us into reproduction, itself a random by-product of a procedure many of us regard as Holy Communion given the transcendent vastness of its significance, potency & influence upon our culture. And yet people dare to say homosexuality is somehow 'unnatural'.

Emotional response is only one small part of the Spiritual equation; it prefigures the notion for sure, but it doesn't define it. This has nothing to do with The Supernatural or the Mystical. Mystery there is, for sure, and Weird Shit happens all the time (ghosts, phantoms, UFOs, meaningful coincidence, visions & other such Forteana) but Human Beings are the only creatures on this planet who have come up with Religion, likewise the notion of a Creator. Religion derives from our Spiritual sense as we engage with our inner Nature vs Nurture debate (the classical dilemma between the head & the heart) and realise that Myth and Rationality are born from the same alchemical egg and are not (and never were) mutually exclusive. From whence our capacity to fear ghosts if there are no ghosts to fear? Oo-er...

I don't agree that everyone feels the same about abstract concepts such as love, sorrow, joy, music, inspiration, poetry, death, beauty, good food, wine, beer, fags & mountaineering*.

Absolutely, we all experience them uniquely, and most of us have specialism, be it an allotment or model railway or melodeon. I personally get nothing out of poetry (with few exceptions) and the very idea of mountaineering terrifies me, but whatever floats your boat.

I assume by fags, you mean cigarettes?

I do indeed. Sorry for the confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 11:47 AM

You don't need a tortured definition of a word lie spirituality to define the feelings evoked by a sunset. It is the simple emotion of pleasure. It is a baby smiling at a bright red ball. It is a dog wagging its tail after being petted. It is a thief grinning when an ATM give him someone else's money. It is an addict getting his next fix. It is dopamine and serotonin telling your brain "This is good."

"Spiritual equation; it prefigures the notion for sure, but it doesn't define it."

I think my question to you is what the flock does define it? You are using words the way Jackson Pollack used pigments spewing them over the canvas like piss over snow with barely a hint of intelligent design, thought or control.

Are the words on this thread meant to be abstract art or thoughtful communication. Because if you want to communicate, you need a common point of reference and norms and standards of meaning. I find dictionaries to be of use in that endeavour.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:00 PM

Emotional response is only one small part of the Spiritual equation

Why should emotional response be anything other than a very human, earthbound way of reacting to things? Why does it need to be glamorised by any notion of mystery? Or shall we call it "spiritual" until the day we discover those exact chemical pathways, then just call it "ordinary"? I don't want my emotional responses to be in any way divorced from the everyday, thank you. Just because we don't completely understand their biochemical basis there's no need to stick mysticism into the space. That's exactly what religion does. Hey, have I just spotted something? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:09 PM

No. ;-) You have not. You're like the sound of a piece of tin siding clattering in the wind. You are the antithesis of all that moves, breathes, and has sentient life, Steve. Before one like you, even the gods despair. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:27 PM

Stop agreeing with me Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:31 PM

Well you agreed with me to here.

Why should emotional response be anything other than a very human, earthbound way of reacting to things? Why does it need to be glamorised by any notion of mystery? Or shall we call it "spiritual" until the day we discover those exact chemical pathways, then just call it "ordinary"? I don't want my emotional responses to be in any way divorced from the everyday, thank you. Just because we don't completely understand their biochemical basis there's no need to stick mysticism into the space.

Then you demonstrated your lack of knowledge of and your stereotypes about religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:32 PM

You are using words the way Jackson Pollack used pigments spewing them over the canvas like piss over snow with barely a hint of intelligent design, thought or control.

Why the insults, Jack? I come here in good faith & humour, not to be belittled because you don't get what I'm saying. I've done you the good grace of addressing your various points by way of good natured discussion. So please, take a deep breath and stick to the positive before letting rip with your vituperations. Otherwise... I love Jackson Pollock, and regularly feature the Pissing in the Snow anecdote in my storytelling sets, whilst the very idea of Intelligent Design gives me the horrors - though I'm sure that's not the sense in which you use the term here.

So... once again, in good faith...

I think my question to you is what the flock does define it?

Nothing does I'm afraid. It's akin to Art and Music - very abstract concepts with no clear parameters as to what they are, except for those small minded few who are forever trying to tell us what music is, or, for that matter, what it isn't. Spirituality is even wider, it rushes into places that simple dictionary definition can't reach. It is fluid, mutable, organic; it is different things to all people. Maybe it's easier to say what it isn't? It's not mystical, supernatural or religious - but all these things proceed from it as we attempt to fathom the fathomless in terms of empiricism and intuition. It is that which makes it all worthwhile, and, like love, it belongs to every one of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 12:56 PM

Emotional response is indeed an artifact of the spiritual equation. The answer to your question, Steve, is that emotional response is intricately connected to mental imagery of present and past vectors, imagined scenes, aesthetic consideration, and individual decision points about what is true and what will be. The origin of all these things is not mechanical. Obviously the nervous system is intimately connected as well. But when you get down to sources you run out of mechanical links.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:01 PM

"Why the insults, Jack? I come here in good faith & humour, not to be belittled because you don't get what I'm saying. "

You did?   You came here in good faith? When you say "not to be belittled" do you also mean that you came here NOT to belittle. Because it looks like to tried to do some major belittling.

You said this.

" Religion is to Spirituality what Pornography is to Sexuality"

Which is a lot easier to take as a poetic spew than as "reasoned" expression. Am I now to understand that you thought seriously about that before you wrote it and meant to be as vulgar and insulting as it obviously was?

I meant the Jackson Pollack thing as somewhat of compliment. It is clear that you like to think and talk in abstractions. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on the pornography thing.

>>>>I think my question to you is what the flock does define it?

Nothing does I'm afraid. It's akin to Art and Music<<<<

I have no trouble defining Art or Music, or spirituality for that matter. I posted some dictionary definitions of the word, you didn't like any of them and wouldn't provide your own. You didn't try. But whether good or bad, you have communicated about as much about spirituality as Jackson Pollock has communicated about female canines in his painting

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:08 PM

Sorry... I hit submit rather than "make a link."

This She-Wolf

Some might think you have said something profound. Some might say you have said nothing.

I have not made up my mind. But I think a road side neon painting on black velvet has more to say than the any painting of Pollock's.

But I like my art to be pretty and communication to be clear.

Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:12 PM

If you want to insult Jack back, just say something intelligent. It often confuses him.

LH. Im rather concerned about something you posted above. Are you saying that you need a god otherwise you think you yourself to be too important?   I doubt lack of belief in fantasy is a sign of over inflated self belief. Not believing means not believing. It doesn't mean you place yourself where others place a metaphorical boss.

You know there is such as thing as not needing to believe. A bit different to believing in yourself in terms of self esteem. In that case I hope my track record fits with my achievements and failures.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 01:15 PM

Et tu Musket??

C!