Spirituality and religion

Originally posted by souverein
I cannot find this in my dictionary. 😉 What makes you think this?

It has to do with my own definition of "religion" as everything that is not part of our normal nature, i.e. supernatural things. Like believing in a god, reincarnation, heaven and hell, but also numerology, astrology, destiny, and so on.
Spirituality isn't a part of the normal nature, therefore it is a part of religion. If it was it would be one of the scientific branches. It is not.
As I see it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It has to do with my own definition of "religion" as everything that is not part of our normal nature, i.e. supernatural things. Like believing in a god, reincarnation, heaven and hell, but also numerology, astrology, destiny, and so on.
Spirituality isn't a part of the normal nature, therefore it is a part of religion. If it was it would be one of the scientific branches. It is not.
As I see it.

"Spirituality isn't a part of the normal nature, therefore it is a part of religion. If it was it would be one of the scientific branches. It is not."
Why is it not a part of the normal nature. Spirituality doesn't need to be in conflict with any scientific proven fact. True, science is usually not her field of exploration. Neither is art. Does that make them abject?

Originally posted by souverein
[b]"Spirituality isn't a part of the normal nature, therefore it is a part of religion. If it was it would be one of the scientific branches. It is not."
Why is it not a part of the normal nature. Spirituality doesn't need to be in conflict with any scientific proven fact. True, science is usually not her field of exploration. Neither is art. Does that make them abject?[/b]

I say spirituality is outside nature.

I usually don't put art into that genre. Do you?

Please give me a proper definition of 'spirituality', and I might consider change my view. Until then I still think spirituality and religion is very related.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I say spirituality is outside nature.

I usually don't put art into that genre. Do you?

Please give me a proper definition of 'spirituality', and I might consider change my view. Until then I still think spirituality and religion is very related.

I say spirituality is outside nature.
Yes I understood, and I wondered why you think it is outside nature. For me it is not. I see it as an inward journey to our nature/essence. This in contrast with science which is involved with the outward exploration of nature. Both are secular. Science aims to be objective, spirituality not. Spirituality is like music and love, a personal experience.
We can talk about it, explore it, criticize it or share it. But we can not claim that our personal spiritual experience can be univerally true.

I usually don't put art into that genre. Do you?
Yes I do, art and spirituality are one side of the spectrum, claiming no objectivity; religion and science are standing at the other side and claim to know objective truth.

I like science because it satisfies my thirst for understanding how things work,
I accept religion because it settled moral problems we could not solve ourselves; I reject their claim to be objective and universially true.
I thirst for spirituality because it brings me harmony
I enjoy art because it pictures a world in unexpected shades; it wakes me up. For me the best art is made by creative but also spiritual gifted people.

Please give me a proper definition of 'spirituality', and I might consider change my view. Until then I still think spirituality and religion is very related.

We may be tempted to turn our inward spiritual journey into a set of rules which have universal value. That is slippery path that leads away from spirituality, especially when we think that our experience has to do with a entity outside nature(God). When we institutionalize these subjective experiences into objective truths we have lost the spirituality and land into a religion. To avoid this slippery path I think we better talk about secular spirituality.

I found this definition of spirituality rather useful:

Secular spirituality denotes various attempts to recognize aspects of life and human experience which are not captured by a purely materialist or mechanistic view of the world, but without accepting belief in the supernatural. It is for example possible to regard many kinds of spiritual practice such as mindfulness and meditation as beneficial or even necessary for human fulfilment without accepting any supernatural interpretation or explanation. Indeed, there is no necessary connection between spirituality and belief at all. For some, the term simply carries connotations of an individual having a religious outlook which is more personalized, less structured, more open to new ideas/influences, and more pluralistic than that of the doctrinal faiths of organized religions, although whether it is helpful to call this view secular may be doubtful. While atheism tends to lean towards scepticism regarding supernatural claims and the existence of any actual "spirit", some atheists define "spiritual" as nurturing thoughts, emotions, words and actions that are in harmony with a belief that the entire universe is, in some way, connected; even if only by some mysterious flow of cause and effect at every scale. Some versions of Buddhist spirituality would also be examples of this style of thought since Buddhism, although conventionally involving the supernatural, is not theistic.

Originally posted by souverein
[b]I say spirituality is outside nature.
Yes I understood, and I wondered why you think it is outside nature. For me it is not. I see it as an inward journey to our nature/essence. This in contrast with science which is involved with the outward exploration of nature. Both are secular. Science aims to be objective, spirituality not. Sp ...[text shortened]... since Buddhism, although conventionally involving the supernatural, is not theistic.[/i][/b]

This is surely food for thought. I back from my previous statement and contemplate on this further. I thank you for your input.

Originally posted by souverein
[b]I say spirituality is outside nature.
Yes I understood, and I wondered why you think it is outside nature. For me it is not. I see it as an inward journey to our nature/essence. This in contrast with science which is involved with the outward exploration of nature. Both are secular. Science aims to be objective, spirituality not. Sp ...[text shortened]... since Buddhism, although conventionally involving the supernatural, is not theistic.[/i][/b]

I try again...

The RHP explanation of "Spiritual Forum" seems to be "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."

This means that RHP and I agree what is spiritual and what isn't. Art isn't, and supernatural is.

So I go back to my former statement that "Spiritual matters" and "Religious matters" are pretty much the same.

But I'm still open for other opinions.

Souverein, here is the only statement I object to:

I accept religion because it settled moral problems we could not solve ourselves; I reject their claim to be objective and universially true.

I am convinced all organized religious thought came from mankind and not some supernatural entity or entities. Therefore, it is only the form of religion that developed the moral authority to run our lives. I think the same moral authority could come from secular thinking just as well.

I like your post otherwise!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Souverein, here is the only statement I object to:

I accept religion because it settled moral problems we could not solve ourselves; I reject their claim to be objective and universially true.

I am convinced all organized religious thought came from mankind and not some supernatural entity or entities. Therefore, it is only the form of religion that d ...[text shortened]... e moral authority could come from secular thinking just as well.

I like your post otherwise!

I think perhaps the point can be made that back in antiquity, following the principles of some holy book or other served as the most pragmatic means to establish some sort of cohesive society and reduce the barbarism that would have been rife in such times, in lieu of a better system that would only later be ready for use.

As an analogy, oil lamps are an inferior means to illuminate rooms in general given we now have light bulbs; however prior to the discovery of electricity an oil lamp is still better than fumbling around in the dark.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I try again...

The RHP explanation of "Spiritual Forum" seems to be "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."

This means that RHP and I agree what is spiritual and what isn't. Art isn't, and supernatural is.

So I go back to my former statement that "Spiritual matters" and "Religious matters" are pretty much the same.

But I'm still open for other opinions.

Admitted, spirituality is a rather ambiguous word and you surely have RHP on your side. But it is not a very convincing argument. Is it impolite to suspect RHP's knowledge about these subject is limited?

Where would you place (secular) spirituality which is not interested in supernatural phenomena? Because that is the spirituality i am talking about.
And where belong discussions about metaphysical philosophers like Kant, Hegel Heidegger. Where do we discuss Wittgenstein, who teaches us there are certain areas we can not talk about (and he didn't mean supernatural things)

I never meant to say that art is supernatural. In contrary, I compared art with spirituality because in my opinion neither of them need the supernatural. Neither do they need science 😉

I wonder what you think about meditation. Do you think that has anything to do with the supernatural? Has the experience of silencing and calming the mind anything to do with the supernatural?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Souverein, here is the only statement I object to:

I accept religion because it settled moral problems we could not solve ourselves; I reject their claim to be objective and universially true.

I am convinced all organized religious thought came from mankind and not some supernatural entity or entities. Therefore, it is only the form of religion that d ...[text shortened]... e moral authority could come from secular thinking just as well.

I like your post otherwise!

Thanks. I agree with your post and with the reaction from Agerg.
All scriptures were man made. But that doesn't mean they were without value at the time of writing. You can question why God was needed in these moral (and sometimes immoral) stories. All cultures around that time believed in gods and spirits. So intuition and inspiration was easily connected with the voice of god.
And true, they are little help to us today Although I think many people would feel very miserable when they had to live without religion and god.

To souverein: I like the idea of a personal religon, but NEVER organized religon.
Do you subscribe to that idea, ie. a personal religon?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
To souverein: I like the idea of a personal religon, but NEVER organized religon.
Do you subscribe to that idea, ie. a personal religon?

I think that was what Einstein was talking about in his own ramblings about religion.
"Personal" religion was the rule 10 or 20 thousand years ago. It was a personal quest, maybe aided by the tribal shaman but always something to find for yourself. I have no problem with that. It is organized religion that burns in my craw. Personally I think most all of it is a waste of time, except where meditative techniques have been proven (at least in a paper I read) to have made the brain stronger, I don't know a better term. I don't know if smarter is apropos.

If meditation can make you able to control internal processes like anger, heart rate, relaxation and the like, it has to be a powerful technique for people to learn. I know, for instance, if I try to ease my mind into a meditative state, for instance, trying to visualize the color blue for a longish period of time, my own mind starts wandering off on tangents, showing I have a way to go to have conscious control of my mental processes. This to me is a fully secular way to self improvement. To be able to control focus at will, for me would be a boon, since I have adult ADD. Trying to meditate proves that. Don't know how to proceed though.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think that was what Einstein was talking about in his own ramblings about religion.
"Personal" religion was the rule 10 or 20 thousand years ago. It was a personal quest, maybe aided by the tribal shaman but always something to find for yourself. I have no problem with that. It is organized religion that burns in my craw. Personally I think most all of ...[text shortened]... , since I have adult ADD. Trying to meditate proves that. Don't know how to proceed though.

From my experience, I have found it actually to be beneficial for meditation to be difficult in the beginning. Like playing guitar, it is hard to learn, but once you learn how to ride a bike...
At the start I tried to do 30 mins or 60 mins, tried different techniques,ie. points of focus, counting, colours, etc.
Now I just like to centre myself whenever I remember to do so.(belly button)
My brain has been strengthened, no doubt. So has my back.
And dont worry about those wandering thoughts. They will drop off in there own good time.
Its harder to "do nothing" than one might imagine. If nothing else, meditation will make you realize how habituated our minds have become.
(I reckon you only need 25% of your daily thinking concerned with rational thinking. When I say "daily" I mean the parts of your day when not engaged in working.)
What to do with all this freeedom? Make money? I guess this is a luxury I can contemplate because I live on a pension.
People who have to work for their survival everyday dont have time to meditate.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
To souverein: I like the idea of a personal religon, but NEVER organized religon.
Do you subscribe to that idea, ie. a personal religon?

In the same way that people are free to dream whatever they want. But It becomes problematic when people enforce the content of their personal religions or dreams onto each other.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think that was what Einstein was talking about in his own ramblings about religion.
"Personal" religion was the rule 10 or 20 thousand years ago. It was a personal quest, maybe aided by the tribal shaman but always something to find for yourself. I have no problem with that. It is organized religion that burns in my craw. Personally I think most all of ...[text shortened]... , since I have adult ADD. Trying to meditate proves that. Don't know how to proceed though.

Personally I think most all of it is a waste of time, except where meditative techniques have been proven (at least in a paper I read) to have made the brain stronger, I don't know a better term. I don't know if smarter is apropos.

Meditation can make a person more centered and balanced. It is not that difficult to find out for yourself. Scientific studies support that now. Long time science thought the resulted happiness was subjective, a waste of time. I like sometimes to 'waste' my time and to explore my mind by going inwards 😉