Can you have a spiritual experience without religion?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker and Rhiannon,

Worms, Gods little cultivators, snail, slugs that's when you raise your eyes to heaven and say, your having a laugh big man, especially when that big fat juicy strawberry you have eyed, watch grow, ripen, only to find the pesky things got there before you

Gonnagle.

[Samuel]

I use 'spirit' or 'soul' interchangeably to mean 'inner person' - the things that make us who we are - and 'spirituality' as the practice of nurturing that.

I like that

I was thinking having read this thread that spirituality, like beauty, is simply a matter of taste. I've always considered it to be about the illusion that we are more than the sum of our parts. An illusion it may be but a apparently universal human experience that we have to learn to live with - hence spirituality. And it doesn't have to entail religion or the supernatural, simply whatever works for the individual, whatever helps the make sense of it and, as you nicely put it, nourishes them.

Its a useful term I think. So often its words that give form to our ideas, allowing us to wrestle with them. If we didn't have the word spirituality, we wouldn't be able to discuss the notion or attempt any kind of definition for those elusive feelings for which words like joy, happiness, contentment and self aren't quite satisfactory.

[Hope]

That's not entirely accurate, Hope. I use 'spirit' or 'soul' interchangeably to mean 'inner person' - the things that make us who we are - and 'spirituality' as the practice of nurturing that. But I don't have a belief that it exists outside of the physical or exists after death. It's possible, but it seems unlikely.

That's why I was fairly vague in my comment, Rhi.  As Shaker says in his post that follows yours, "Not if you define those words in your own way" - but, of course, anyone can define anything in any way, at which point discussion becomes meaningless.  I suspect that there's a 'fallacy' title for Shakes' suggestion.  (Unique definition fallacy?)

[Shaker]

That's why I was fairly vague in my comment, Rhi.  As Shaker says in his post that follows yours, "Not if you define those words in your own way" - but, of course, anyone can define anything in any way, at which point discussion becomes meaningless.  I suspect that there's a 'fallacy' title for Shakes' suggestion.  (Unique definition fallacy?)

It's not a fallacy of any kind - it simply relies on any other party/the audience being aware of the term and how it's being used. That comes about by careful explanation. After that, no problem.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Samuel,

I am getting the impression from this thread that we are all spiritual, its the words we use, Love, Happiness, Contentment, Mystery, Awe, Bliss, Joy, Connectivity, Wonder, the list is endless, they are all uplifting words, we also have words like, Empathy, Compassion, Pity, all spiritual.

But what about, Pain, Sadness, Sorrow, are they spiritual words, course they are, it is all about emotion, we are all spiritual animals and only because it is me, somewhere in all this, God is.

Gonnagle.

[Khatru]

By a total coincidence about an hour ago I finished reading Sam Harris's Waking Up: Searching for Spirituality Without Religion. (Clue is in the sub-title).

Sam Harris has been namechecked a few times lately - I'll definitely need to check him out. 

[Khatru]

Dear Khatru,

Who are these many believers? my only argument is that those experiences are God.

Gonnagle.

To me, "God" or indeed, gods are religious concepts used to try and explain or account for imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in our world any more than leprechauns.

I see it as a category where the whole idea of the supernatural belongs. 

Contrast that with the natural, which I see as covering everything that exists, including what we have yet to discover.

The term "supernatural" gives people a green light to not only make up whatever beings they want but also to endow these beings with self-contradictory and magical abilities.  I see it all the time with believers when they refer to their particular choice of deity as being uncreated and somehow living outside of and unaffected by the passage of time.  Yet their god still thinks and acts inside and outside of our natural realm. 

It's funny but it's often the case that once believers have given their construct a free pass by placing it in the envisioned supernatural realm, they then become quite rigorous about what must be true in the natural world - the only world we know.

From a point of reason, the whole thing comes over to me as a logical nightmare, excused by the one word - "supernatural".  It's a fallacy of special pleading whereby whatever the believer places in this supernatural realm gets excused from the scepticism and scrutiny.

 

[Leonard James]

To me, "God" or indeed, gods are religious concepts used to try and explain or account for imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in our world any more than leprechauns.

I see it as a category where the whole idea of the supernatural belongs. 

Contrast that with the natural, which I see as covering everything that exists, including what we have yet to discover.

The term "supernatural" gives people a green light to not only make up whatever beings they want but also to endow these beings with self-contradictory and magical abilities.  I see it all the time with believers when they refer to their particular choice of deity as being uncreated and somehow living outside of and unaffected by the passage of time.  Yet their god still thinks and acts inside and outside of our natural realm. 

It's funny but it's often the case that once believers have given their construct a free pass by placing it in the envisioned supernatural realm, they then become quite rigorous about what must be true in the natural world - the only world we know.

From a point of reason, the whole thing comes over to me as a logical nightmare, excused by the one word - "supernatural".  It's a fallacy of special pleading whereby whatever the believer places in this supernatural realm gets excused from the scepticism and scrutiny.

Superbly true post.

[Maeght]

Electric light bulbs in the house are separate as bulbs, are connected and share the same power.  Some may shine more brightly than others, some may be switched off or disconnected from the power source.  Perhaps this analogy indicates the difference between religion which thinks in terms of duality e.g. the light bulb and its connection to the power source (God?), whereas spirituality seeks for unity e.g. I and the power are one (I am the way, the truth and the life?).  It is similar to two of the Vedanta schools of thought ... dvaita and advaita (twoism or not-twoism, that is the question).

Yes the light bulbs are connected to the same power source by wires. How does this help regarding humans watching the same event?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Khatru,

Sam Harris, he doesn't like the words atheism or atheist, he prefers free thinker, are you an atheist or a free thinker, I am reminded of the lady on radio 2 yesterday talking about praying for Prof Dawkins, she was an atheist, not a free thinker, the subject was prayer, she turned it into a discussion about evolution.

Anyway

To me, "God" or indeed, gods are religious concepts used to try and explain or account for imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in our world any more than leprechauns.

Imagined qualities, is Love imagined, compassion, sorrow, happiness, pain, these are all words I equate with God, you wouldn't because you think there is no God, you would say, this is how we evolved, well that's fine, but I say thank God for helping us to evolve into Loving, Caring, Compassionate creatures.

Supernatural, once again, is Love, Compassion, Empathy supernatural, no they are real, just like God.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Supernatural, once again, is Love, Compassion, Empathy supernatural, no they are real, just like God.

Gonnagle.

Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc., are real emotions, firmly entrenched in the natural world of nervous responses.

We have nothing but guesses about what is meant by "supernatural".

[Shaker]

Sam Harris has been namechecked a few times lately - I'll definitely need to check him out.

Apart from The Moral Landscape I've read all his books (there aren't many) and it's well worth doing so.

[jeremyp]

I've skipped some of this thread, is there a post in it that defines the phrase "spiritual experience" in a way that achieves consensus amongst the posters? I think a definition is vital to answering the question of the title.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

Supernatural, that's yours and Khatrus word, not mine, God is as natural as the whole living breathing world, as natural as the Universe, as natural as you and me.

Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc., are real emotions, firmly entrenched in the natural world of nervous responses.

Yes, Thank God for our nervous responses.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

I've skipped some of this thread, is there a post in it that defines the phrase "spiritual experience" in a way that achieves consensus amongst the posters? I think a definition is vital to answering the question of the title.

I very much doubt it - if anything it seems to run the other way, and people interpret the term on an individual basis.

[jeremyp]

I very much doubt it - if anything it seems to run the other way, and people interpret the term on an individual basis.

In that case, for me, the answer is yes.

[Shaker]

In that case, for me, the answer is yes.

Same. I can't find anything to disagree with in Gonners' #104, for example.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc., are real emotions, firmly entrenched in the natural world of nervous responses.

We have nothing but guesses about what is meant by "supernatural".

Hardly surprising when we are Gods creation made from the elements of the universe.
However the antitheist mind such as yours is entrenched in a kind of romantic reductionist view that unconscious voltage and consciousness are exactly the same thing and that anything greater than voltage is an illusion....... To which we have to reply "what is being illuded?"

[jeremyp]

Hardly surprising when we are Gods creation made from the elements of the universe.
However the antitheist mind such as yours is entrenched in a kind of romantic reductionist view that unconscious voltage and consciousness are exactly the same thing and that anything greater than voltage is an illusion....... To which we have to reply "what is being illuded?"

You need to look up the word "voltage" in a dictionary.

[Shaker]

You need to look up the word "voltage" in a dictionary.

Or, indeed, most words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You need to look up the word "voltage" in a dictionary.

I'm sorry Jez but as you know all science reduces to physics.
Volta demonstrated that what people called the life force was in fact electricity.
And many have stuck with a romantic Mary Shelley view based on simple experiments such as Voltas.

[jeremyp]

I'm sorry Jez but as you know all science reduces to physics.
Volta demonstrated that what people called the life force was in fact electricity.

You are using "voltage" in a context which demonstrates that you clearly do not know what it means.

And many have stuck with a romantic Mary Shelley view based on simple experiments such as Voltas.

I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but Frankenstein is a work of fiction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are using "voltage" in a context which demonstrates that you clearly do not know what it means.
I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but Frankenstein is a work of fiction.

Yes its potential difference.

I'm not the one who romantically thinks that we are all unconscious robots worked by electricity illuded into thinking we are conscious.

Frankenstein is a work of fiction but it's central message of romantic reductionism is a prevailing world view.

[Leonard James]

Or, indeed, most words.

 

Thanks, Steve ... my first big laugh today. Although I confess to have been chuckling and grinning a lot, as I am rereading a William book.

[Shaker]

Always happy to oblige, youngster