Originally posted by JS357
No they don't. This forum was created to separate them.
"Spirituality: Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."
My impression as well. Yes, there was a thread here which referenced the separation several years ago.
Found it. "vistesd: February 6, 2012" Thread 145019
"Many years ago, the Spirituality Forum was split off from Debates, in an effort to keep debate on every subject from being derailed by religionists—it was interesting that one of the most outspoken opponents of the split was an atheist (Doctor Scribbles) who thought it was an attempt to discriminate against those who brought their religious beliefs to the table.
With the Debates/Spirituality split, the Spirituality Forum also became the de facto philosophy forum, though some religionists have occasionally complained. However, I think it is impossible to talk about such things as theology and morality without philosophical underpinning (e.g., metaphysics and ethics, as well as epistemology); and a logical contradiction does not become less a contradiction because it is couched in religious language. I also do not take a narrow of view of the word “spirituality”, and fail to see why expressions of the “human spirit” ought to be out of bounds.
Then there are those traditions about which people argue whether to call them religions or philosophies, such as Zen Buddhism or Taoism (an argument that I have little interest in). Bbarr once argued that any attempt to understand “the ineffable Real” could be considered part of “spirituality”.
I think the great religious/philosophical divide is dualism versus nondualism, often expressed in terms of exclusivist formalism versus a non-exclusivism that can embrace various forms. Does my nondualism, or the fact that I view much religious language as metaphorical, symbolic, or aesthetic—along with my ability to find meaning therein, and to express myself sometimes in Zen koans, sometimes in Sufi poetry, sometimes in Christic symbolism, sometimes in neo-Hasidic kabbalah, sometimes in deductive inferences, etc., etc. (no matter how well or badly I do any of that!)—which of those things excludes me from “spirituality”? According to whose definition? Whose “orthodoxy”?
I think I would be opposed to the split. On the other hand, I participate so little here these days, that my opinion should probably be discounted.
The following is especially for LemonJello, who will remember—
The great religions
are the ships,
poets the life boats.
Every sane person I know
has jumped overboard.
That is good for business,
isn’t it, Hafiz?
—The Sufi poet Hafiz (translated by Daniel Ladinsky)
So, is Hafiz being spiritual or philosophical?
Now I’m going to go and listen to some more roots reggae…"