ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

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.

i dig and kinda envy how great religion can be, i just cant do it myself.

^^

i was brought up atheist, had a religious phase from about age 9 to 14, then returned to atheism, and i appreciate that experience for the stuff it taught me about the western tradition, more than anything else. religion seems useful to people! i appreciate that! but, you know, i just don't know how to believe in god, and i'm not all that good at being part of a ~community~.

it's funny, i supposed i'm just very unreflective, but it never crosses my mind to wonder about why or how I feel e.g. unbearable delight at something beautiful, whether that's purposeful or a fluke of the chemical reactions in my brain or something else -- the whys and hows seem entirely unimportant to me.

Hardcore and would never go to a cousin's wedding.

bcs of the religions or bcs of the cousins?

Religious weddings do make me feel a little uncomfortable, there's always some bullshit about being incapable of love unless you accept God in the service.

If there's hardcore surely it shd be at the stag?

daraghmac, both!

yeah feel u there jeff.

there's always some bullshit about being incapable of love unless you accept God in the service.

jeez. don't think we have that. i mean, yeah damned to burn forever and sorry about that what can you do, etc, but not denying the capability of love or anything that i recall

raised a catholic. used to go to church most sundays, unless i was playing football. last time i went to church was for my mum's funeral. don't believe any of it anymore, and don't think i ever really did truly believe any of it.

Haha, at the one I'm thinking of it was couched in very non-combative CofE language, but that was definitely the meaning. (xpost to Darragh)

Are there any Jewish ILXors reading who are atheist/agnostic but still at least semi-observant? My housemate's like that and has difficulty putting it into words why she is. It's something she genuinely wants to do, doesn't seem to be just for her folks' benefit or whatever. I don't know anyone who was raised a xtian who falls into this category.

I can't speak for Mrs V but she's a Catholic who still regularly attends church but doesn't have a strong sense of God afaik

Yeah, I was gonna say, there are probably a number of Catholics like that too. I had a room-mate who was an agnostic Jew. She would still light Hannuakah candels and sing prayers and make latkes. I totally respected her need to find value in latkes.

I'd like a religion that makes lattes.

but would you give your life to the lattes?

Ok, I would have to be secret atheist in the latte cathedral.

"it's funny, this guy shows up without fail every week for the service, but as soon as the lattes are dispensed he's nowhere to be found....."