Sprituality vs Religion

Originally posted by FabianFnas
To be 'religious' is stronger than just to be 'spiritual', I use to think. Like a degree of fundamentalism, so to speak.

To me, religion speaks more of organisation doctrine and practices and 'spiritual' speaks more of personal experience. But as I say, they are both quite broad terms.

Do you think (like me) that there is a border between religion and science?
I think they are completely different concepts. Science is the study of the world based on evidence. Region is belief without evidence. However, I see no reason why one cannot use science to try to check ones beliefs, or dispute others beliefs. I find belief contrary to the accepted evidence to be irrational (despite its prevalence).

Or are there situations in science where religion is useful? Or situations in religion where science is useful?
I don't think religion is useful in science. Of course one can still study religions scientifically. I do think religious people should not ignore science.
We must remember though that religion covers both the organisations and the beliefs. A very large proportion of members of religions are in it for the organisation more than the belief. I could easily see a situation where science could be used to further the aims of a religion (or even to create one and call it 'Scientology'. )

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But what happens with the soul after the death *is* supernatural and cannot ever be understood, nor be treated with science. Right? 😉

Science tells us that it is almost certain that no such thing as a 'soul' that can outlast death exists.

Originally posted by chaney3
The conscience is described as an 'inner sense' of what is right and wrong. It's this inner sense that should make one pause to consider that this is not merely a product of evolution. Being spiritual could just be a matter of recognizing that 'something else is higher than us, and is responsible for this inner sense'.

A scientist on the other hand could study it in detail and find that evolution predicts our sense of conscience remarkably well whereas religion generally fails to explain what we observe.
Your behaviour in recent threads for example is explained quite nicely by the science of sociology and evolution, but religion would just say 'God made a mistake when he made you'.
Or worse, many religions would blame your behaviour on another supernatural society of angels and demons which behave remarkably like humans and can also be well explained through evolution and sociology but religion just says 'they are' and has nothing further to say.

Originally posted by chaney3
The conscience is described as an 'inner sense' of what is right and wrong. It's this inner sense that should make one pause to consider that this is not merely a product of evolution. Being spiritual could just be a matter of recognizing that 'something else is higher than us, and is responsible for this inner sense'.

I will also add that the problem of reflecting on the 'something' that has given us our conscience comes when an individual or group attempts to tell you what that 'something' is, and that you could go to hell if you don't believe the same. That is religion.
Spirituality is personal.

Originally posted by FabianFnas...
With this, do you mean that to be religious cannot never be individual? Religion is always done in groups? Individual and personal religions are impossible?
On the other hand is spirituality on the other hand always individual experiences and never within groups (other than coincidences)?

Basically, yes a religion couldn't be individual. A theist is part of, or a member of, a religion. Even 'personality cults' start with a preexisting set of teachings and doctrine. Although a Christian alone on an island could of course continue to practice her faith all by herself, she is still part of the group - she is following the teachings and doctrines of that group.

On the other hand is spirituality on the other hand always individual experiences and never within groups (other than coincidences)?
Yes to the first part; no the the second. As far as I know, all religions involve spirituality, although individual members may merely be part of the group for social and/or doctrinal reasons and do not experience or exhibit spiritual awareness.

But psychology is anyway treated as science, isn't it?
Religion and spirituality involve sociology and psychology, which are 'soft' sciences, so this is a legitimate subject for the science forum, imo.

I think rather that science is about how the subject is treated, i.e. its methodology. Like falsification and such. Religion cannot be treated this way. So Psychology treated with scientific methods are science. Else it is just quasi-science. Like homeopathy, curry-lines, telepathy etc. Religion cannot be treated with scientific methods, as I see it.
If I understand you correctly, you're concerned about the 'faith belief' aspects such as belief in the afterlife, and to that extent you are basically right.

Science can and will study anything it can get its hands on, and if there is an afterlife it will be a while, if ever, before there is something to bring to your labs for scientific study. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
A scientist on the other hand could study it in detail and find that evolution predicts our sense of conscience remarkably well whereas religion generally fails to explain what we observe.
Your behaviour in recent threads for example is explained quite nicely by the science of sociology and evolution, but religion would just say 'God made a mistake when ...[text shortened]... hrough evolution and sociology but religion just says 'they are' and has nothing further to say.

Your behavior needs improvement. If you didn't have such a giant ego, you would know that.

Originally posted by chaney3
The conscience is described as an 'inner sense' of what is right and wrong. It's this inner sense that should make one pause to consider that this is not merely a product of evolution. Being spiritual could just be a matter of recognizing that 'something else is higher than us, and is responsible for this inner sense'.

I recognize that you are spiritually aware. Your second sentence, however, makes sense only if you are viewing reality through the lens of doctrine and 'revealed truth'. I'm saying you've been indoctrinated, and in a bad way.

Spirituality is natural.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.”

Yes, and the old Greeks thought that the first breath a newborn takes is when he breath in a spirit, a soul. Before that it is not living, but from then on he has a soul and lives until he dies and exhale the spirit again for it to search for a new baby to give life to.

Nah, this sounds too much relig ...[text shortened]... iritual thoughts, perhaps, but has nothing to do with how life starts and ends in a human being.

You've now turned this into a nonsense debate of semantics. Just because a word comes from a Latin word it means whatever "the old Greeks thought" applies to that word? It comes from the word meaning "to breathe" not the word meaning "to believe in God."

Spirituality should be thought of as a universal human experience. It has a measurable and reasonably well-defined neural circuitry regardless of religious affiliation [1]. For most of human history, the term was co-opted by religious doctrines to represent something related to a deity which breathes life into people. But it clearly does not have to be that to be spiritual. Regardless of whether you go to church or participate in religion at all, you are spiritual. Love, awe, compassion, empathy, purpose and meaning are spiritual experiences.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3957224/

Originally posted by twhitehead
Science is the study of the world based on evidence. Region is belief without evidence.

No simplistic bias there!

Originally posted by chaney3
The conscience is described as an 'inner sense' of what is right and wrong. It's this inner sense that should make one pause to consider that this is not merely a product of evolution. Being spiritual could just be a matter of recognizing that 'something else is higher than us, and is responsible for this inner sense'.

You've just highlighted my reluctance to use the word 'spiritual' to describe natural occurrences of 'sentience.'

Theists like yourself will immediately inject the word with religious connotations, when none are intended. - The inner sense you speak of is merely the consequence of us being highly evolved and sentient creatures, not some proof for the existence of the divine.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Science tells us that it is almost certain that no such thing as a 'soul' that can outlast death exists.

Science says no such thing. We shouldn't misrepresent science or it's findings.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You've just highlighted my reluctance to use the word 'spiritual' to describe natural occurrences of 'sentience.'

Theists like yourself will immediately inject the word with religious connotations, when none are intended. - The inner sense you speak of is merely the consequence of us being highly evolved and sentient creatures, not some proof for the existence of the divine.

See, this is where I always disagree.
The extent to which you (atheists) give such credit to evolution is quite remarkable. When all else fails, evolution did it.

I am coining a new phrase:
'Evolutiondidit'. Because that is your 'cure all' for everything.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You've just highlighted my reluctance to use the word 'spiritual' to describe natural occurrences of 'sentience.'...

A post or two above yours, wildgrass gives a much better definition for spirituality.

Btw, concepts such as 'free will' and 'spirituality' were around long before christianity, and it sucks to let them co-opt the words.

Originally posted by apathist
Science says no such thing. We shouldn't misrepresent science or it's findings.

Your ignorance of science should not lead you to dictate to others that they are misrepresenting it.

Originally posted by chaney3
The extent to which you (atheists) give such credit to evolution is quite remarkable. When all else fails, evolution did it.

You've got the cart before the horse. To everyone else, evolution is just another scientific theory (although an extremely successful, powerful, factual and useful one). But your church HATES it, since it contradicts your doctrine.

If your church hated Boyles law, then we would defend it, too.