ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

I am atheist/agnostic but I have found value in a religious or spiritual tradition that I did not grow up in.

This. I was a hardcore atheist growing up but I've since decided that there is so much more joy and wonder in contemplating the mysteries of certain spiritual practices ALONGSIDE the cosmic mysteries of scientific discovery than in Dawkins' dull dogmatism.

xp - like my first memory of religion as a thing was at this lady's house where i'd go for daycare after kindergarten. She was quite religious, and there was a Young Person's Bible that was basically easy reader style bible stories with hanna barbera-esque illustrations - and rather than take a nap at "naptime" - because i'd never be tired - I read this Young Person's Bible. I didn't really grasp that we were supposed to believe the stories. I thought it was kinda like Greek Mythology, which i was also a fan of at the time, where the stories are historically relevant but it's not something you're supposed to believe is true anymore.

The mysteries of spiritual practices are another testament to the fecundity of the human brain imo but yeah I wouldn't wanna just dismiss all that great music and architecture.

I am sure tho that societies reach a point where big R Religion is a negative drag on our possibilities as a species and we've long reached that point.

i think the fact that at least one of the disciples looked like Freddy from Scooby Doo also made me think they were just made up.

what are these other spiritual practices that people weren't raised with but that they're drawn to?

I am sure tho that societies reach a point where big R Religion is a negative drag on our possibilities as a species and we've long reached that point.

Oh for sure. If it isn't too trite, I tend to hang with the religious practices (and they do exist WITHIN say Christianity, Islam etc) which encourage broad-mindedness, goodwill to all and spiritual connection, rather than awed suppression and hateful control.

xpost

That box is awkward for me because I'm interested in "Eastern philosophy" qua philosophy but not at all interested in its use as religious practice which seems to me how it is mostly actually used in the real world.

"I am agnostic, and I haven't reached any conclusions about the role of religion in my life."

this is not what agnosticism means to a lot of people who consider themselves agnostic (myself included).

I am a hardcore atheist

No Cuddlestein Mountain in the afterlife for me :(

I find these poll options really awkward (and not just because none of the options really adequately describe my spirituality) - first, too many of the atheist or agnostic options really seem to overlap with one another. Second, there's no option for religious people who don't fall into a vague "easter and christmas specials" or "I'm just a new age" hippie - as if it's inconceivable that people could have a religion and be serious about it.

My first reaction was that this was merely a "what kind of atheist are you?" question since the entire varied experience of the world's religions is so easily dismissed. But my second reaction is that the atheist/agnostic questions are almost as bad.

Like this is a poll for people who don't really believe anything, and want to grade out how little they believe, rather than actually describing anyone's actual spiritual experiences.

I dunno. Some interesting points raised in the discussion portion, but really - Vague Poll Is Vague.

there's no option for religious people who don't fall into a vague "easter and christmas specials" or "I'm just a new age" hippie - as if it's inconceivable that people could have a religion and be serious about it

THIS. I thought that as well

I guess I'm the opposite from many of you in that I was raised as a radical atheist (i.e. one of my primary schools - I had lots because my Dad was in the RAF - recited the Lord's Prayer every morning, and I had to stand outside with a Jehovah's Witness girl) then changed around 13-14. I guess the early adolescent existential crisis can push people either way. That was just a straight belief in God, though; I didn't become a Christian proper until last year.

I do, however retain the belief in absolute separation of Church and State that I was raised with, and would very much like to see a disestablishment in Britain (actually, I think establishment is bad for churches, as well as an imposition on citizen's who are not members of that church. An established church finds itself complicit in the crimes of the State, such as under fascism, and the State can find itself complicit in the crimes of the church, as in recent child abuse scandals).

Made sure my minister matched my liberal Christianity before I got baptised. I was very lucky as she is pro-gay, pro-choice, and represents a strand of the Church of Scotland which denies the existence of hell, and takes a Universalist view of salvation. I would reckon that most people I see on a daily basis are unaware of my faith, because I have no real interest in preaching to people - I can get enough of that from the political side of life.

generic theist

kate otm

I'm an atheist who finds some houses of worship quite interesting and atmospheric.

I wouldn't describe myself as a hardcore atheist either, as I concede that there is a possibility that there is a god, I just think it's extremely unlikely. This position is stronger than agnosticism, however.

I never fully understand what people mean when they describe themselves as spiritual. I suspect it may be a bit of a cop-out term.

And yeah, the poll options don't begin to cover the range of attitudes to religion people could have.

Had to go with hardcore athiest although it's probably a bit more hardcore than I actually am, I don't mind looking around churches in a historical context, and yes obv I go to weddings and stuff.

And there's a bit of option 4 too - I mean there are plenty of good things in various religious texts, most obvious example being all that love thy neighbour stuff.

I wasn't raised in a religious house, although my mum recently became a born-again-ish Christian. Seems to make her happy so I can't really knock it. They don't seem particularly fundamentalist or anything. Although that whole speaking in tongues thing is a bit weird.

"Spiritual", I think, refers to "free spirits" - people who can't be tied down by long-term romantic relationships. Or at least there's probably some overlap.

kkvgz - i think it's related to yoga and pilates

Some time over the last few years I completely lost the ability to spell. Must be divine punishment.

I assumed spirituality related to tequila but that's posts v. much in character I guess.

^^ i am quite spiritual in that regard, NV

wouldn't even be worth polling ILXors on that front I guess

Um, no.

I know it's a bit like pissing in the wind, on ILX, trying to explain complicated concepts in a reasonable manner when others are just busy trying to have LOLs (even if this is at the expense of things that other people hold to be rather important.)

Spirituality is this idea that one has, well, emotional needs and experiences which are related to one's (metaphorical or literal) spirit (or some people use the term soul, though that has many uncomfortable associations with organised religion.) These emotions are often described as being awe, wonder, a kind of love and joy which speaks of connectedness, to other people, to a community, to the earth or cosmos as a whole. Some people experience this as being attached or related to a deity, some do not.

It is related to Religion, in that Religion is an organised structure to deal with, explain or share spiritual experiences. But it is not the same thing as Religion. It's kind of like "the concept of Justice" vs. "The Legal System" (especially valid in that legal systems vary greatly from culture to culture.)

People can still maintain their ability to need or experience these spiritual emotions, while accepting that most Religions are fundamentally flawed in the way that many large scale human endeavors are flawed by human failings. That's usually what people mean when they say they are "spiritual but not religious."

Dude, I wasn't even talking about you. Honestly just trying to have a lol.

I'm trying to think of what would be more valid poll options for me, but the thing is, I'm probably interested in different aspects. Like, for me, the options would be:

-I am an atheist, religions are wrong or misguided and I see no point in indulging them
-I am an atheist, personally, but I accept that the spiritual or religious experience may be useful to others
-I believe in some form of spirituality, religion or deism and those who do not are missing something vitally important
-I believe in some form of spirituality, religion or deism but accept that this experience may not be useful to others
-I do not know (or care) enough to decide either way, but I accept the other people do have certainty
-I do not know (or care) enough to decide either way, and I wish people would shut up about it

(OK, maybe that last one needs some work)

Partly this is a measure of belief/non belief, but it is also a measure of how people see their views as the *only* right one, or simply one among many possibilities. Which is what I am convinced is the most important dynamic.

James Hillman makes good arreligious use of the word "soul".

I do wish there were another term that didn't have the silly new age associations of "spirit" or the medieval associations of "soul" or weird psychological associations of "psyche" but still managed to convey the same concept. I suppose it's impossible because it is such a heavily imbued concept to start with - and how at odds it is with the current vogue for strict Materialism that has dominated thinking for the past century or so.

Like I said if you're not aware of James Hillman's work - he's some kind of Post Jungian I guess - he makes interesting play with "soul", "spirit" and "psyche" and manages to work in an area where they are not straight metaphors, not religious but not strictly material either. He can come across a bit New Age-y maybe at times but I get a sense of real rigorous thinking under his wordplay.

Yeah, I googled him after posting that, as I wasn't familiar with him (though I am generally interested in Jung and post-Jungians) so I will check him out, sounds interesting.

FWIW, the person who expresses most of what I think about these subjects is the philosopher Mary Midgley. She seems to tread a balanced line.

-I am an atheist, religions are wrong or misguided and I see no point in indulging them
-I am an atheist, personally, but I accept that the spiritual or religious experience may be useful to others

see even this is too binary. I'm definitely down with the first one, but not quite so arrogant or hubristic as to deny the second. organised religion might suck imo but that doesn't mean i'm completely blind to the benefits it might have for individual communities or people. and likewise as a diehard materialist i might think that spirituality is just a psychological phenomenon, but it's a real and potentially useful phenomenon nonetheless.

Yeah I am mainly interested in a Materialist Spirituality I think.

said material should be approx 80 proof imo

I think that would make you fall into the second of the categories, then, on account of the whole "it's a real and potentially useful phenomenon nonetheless" thing.

Maybe I should start another poll, but I dunno, I don't think ILX needs two religion polls at once.

I have just recently read the book "The Authoritarians" and I'm really interested in exploring a lot of these concepts of "authoritarian" and "dogmatic" and "fundamental" personality types that were discussed in the book. ACtually I should check if there was an ILX thread about that book.

x-post to Ledge

personal poll option for me would be i am an atheist but don't care about religion as long as it doesn't impinge either my daily life or the state i'm a citizen of in a detrimental way etc etc

As they say, sarahel, "beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy" ;-)

I am a materialist, but I'm obviously capable of deriving awe, serenity, joy and wonder from art, nature or even just seeing friends or whatever (as is everyone on the planet who is halfway functional). I don't think it necessary to describe these feelings as 'spiritual', I'm just into stuff. The word definitely has new-agey connotations for me, rightly or no.

I'm not trying to have a snipe though, I appreciate these terms are ill-defined, and any rational attempts to engage with them are welcome.

I don't think it necessary to describe these feelings as 'spiritual',

See, to me, this is the kind of necessary point of reclaiming the word "spiritual" from the woo-pedlers and the nutjobs? (i.e. people who have something to sell, or people who have some power to gain, to take the emotional content off those epithets.) That it is simply a definition. This is what the word means, these experiences. The error is in saying that the "spiritual" emotional or psychological or whatever experiences are solely the province of organised religion or new age hippies.

But, I do recognise that words can become irredeemably tainted. I just think it's a shame.

Fair point. I have no attachment to the word so am happy to discard it.

Also for me it implies that there are things going on beyond the physical realm of chemical reactions in my brain, which I don't think is the case.

When I have those 'spiritual' feelings, that is.

^ with chap on all of this.

See, I'm agnostic when it comes to Materialism. I simply don't know if this is the case or not, and I don't think it's within our current state of knowledge (about the state of consciousness, the actual workings of the brain, etc.) to really be able to definitively say.

I honestly don't have the data available to say if there is a "something else" or not. I've read a lot of the "consciousness is mysterious, quantum mechanics is mysterious, they must be related" type writing on the subject and I'm not convinced. But I do, as Mary Midgley has often written, think that strict Materialism is a clumsy simplification that takes into account a whole host of preconceptions, some of which rely on pretty shaky philosophical ground themselves. (I do not feel confident enough, though, to encapsulate her whole argument.)

depends on how you want to define strict Materialism but I wd have it in the ballpark of "we can only reasonably claim that what can be measured exists" and I find counter-claims a lot more difficult to rationalise

See I find it entirely satisfying an explanation that a system as complicated as the brain can lead to weird side effects like consciousness. There could be 'something else', but there doesn't need to be, IMO.

Like I've alluded to, I fully admit all my feelings on these matters are entirely suppositions, but suppositions based on a lifetime of thought and observation. I could be wrong, I suspect I'm not.

i'm not entirely immune to the 'consciousness is pretty fucking weird and not at all like anything material' line of argument myself. but i think it's possible to have those doubts without opening the door to the idea of a soul or spirit, or anything typically supernatural.

clapton is beelzebub

willing to believe in the devil, but not god tbh

while I'm an athiest (used to be agnostic), I'm a lot less 'hard line' about it than I was when I was younger. I was very combative about religion when I was just turning 21 and enjoyed flinging it in people's faces.

Now I'm much more content letting those who partake in religion partake it in peacefully, only interjecting if they bother to intrude on my own beliefs or act like complete and utter dicks about their own beliefs. And in the circle of people I keep close to me, there are few if any people who do the latter.

Obviously the world and America has given me much reason to dislike or despise religion, but essentially I was never meant for religion. I questioned God to my mom when I was 8 or 9 years old -- it didn't make sense to me. The concept of being subservient never stood well with me, and when I was in youth group growing up, some of the people around me flat out scared me. There were no freethinkers - original thoughts would die of loneliness in their heads. I didn't want to become that way.

With that being said, I have always had a lot of interest in studying religion in general -- just not following one.

Paul Tillich was just a latecomer in a millenia-long line of people who have elucidated similar ideas, starting with the semi-mythical Lao Tzu.

most religious people wouldn't agree with you, but i accept you are making a good faith argument. just one that seems to demand religion as a core to it when that seems unnecessary to the wider belief or ethos you're espousing.

I think we're bumping into a definitional problem regarding whether religion as an entity requiring a group of people who have developed a set of formalized beliefs, and the degree to which anyone accepts those beliefs defines the degree to which one belongs to that particular religion. This posits religion not as a basic human trait, but as a set of particularized "religions" defined by their differences from one another's beliefs. I don't see it that way.

sher god is anything really

Pascal’s Flutter