Can you be "spiritual" without religion?

[Lou Cypher]

They're called hippies vibe.

 

[MARIO_DRO]

OF COURSE. ..DUH

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Spirituality seems to be a word that gets thrown around and redefined every time someone mentions it. What is it exactly? Spirit can be defined as a ghost (soul) or Zeitgeist. Some people say it's becoming in-tuned with the universe. It seems everyone as a different aspect of how you go about doing that with meditation being one of the main aspects. I suppose you would have to give at a less broad definition because it can also be thrown in with religion. Are we talking energy or feelings here?

 

[Ajackson17]

Spirit means breath so its life in a sense and vitality. Religion is dogma and rules and beliefs and etc. You can be simply intune with yourself and still be a spiritual person. Most people can't take it apart from religion its due to their limited grasp of spirituality and the entomology of it is.

 

[Focal Point]

Yes and that's how it should be

 

[Bodhi]

Both of those words have different meanings depending on the person you ask.

IMO, spirituality seems to begin with you; it is looking within.

Religion, on the other hand, deals with your relationship to that which is without.

Modern dictionaries define "spiritual" as related to religious beliefs and define religion as the belief in and worship of god or gods.

Maybe a person should look inwards first before attempting to define their relationship with the universe around them.

My question is, should a spiritual person who manifests their spirituality through volitional action be called religious if that person does not believe in god or gods? Given the modern definition of "religion", a religious person has to believe in some sort of god, however that god may be defined.

A non theist, then, may have a "philosophy" and not really a "religion"..

A religion to a theist would be a theistic philosophy.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Both of those words have different meanings depending on the person you ask.

IMO, spirituality seems to begin with you; it is looking within.

Religion, on the other hand, deals with your relationship to that which is without.

Modern dictionaries define "spiritual" as related to religious beliefs and define religion as the belief in and worship of god or gods.

Maybe a person should look inwards first before attempting to define their relationship with the universe around them.

My question is, should a spiritual person who manifests their spirituality through volitional action be called religious if that person does not believe in god or gods? Given the modern definition of "religion", a religious person has to believe in some sort of god, however that god may be defined.

A non theist, then, may have a "philosophy" and not really a "religion"..

A religion to a theist would be a theistic philosophy.

Your defining religion narrowly. You don't have to believe in a God to be religious. This is why you have things called the cult of personality. One can worship and idea or a man and that man or idea can create a religion. This is why the new stealthy argument that science is a religion has come about. The practice of science is one of application of tools to investigate and discover but people can make a religion out of what's discovered. Spirits to me has always been applied to energy or manifestations that were once human alive or which exist within certain elements of life. Many religions dealt of tree spirits for instance. A spirit can also be attached to the theory that we have souls. Is this what you are saying? You would need to show me proof before is start agreeing with such things. Looking inwards requires introspection rather then spirituality. Meditation is good at focusing in on senses but it's still all physical.

 

[Bodhi]

Your defining religion narrowly.

As previously stated, I'm going by modern dictionary definitions in defining religion as such.

Meditation is good at focusing in on senses but it's still all physical.

Meditation is a spiritual practice.

 

[Bodhi]

"Spirit" is the vital essence of a person. In meditation, you focus inward on that essence. You can define that essence in many ways depending on your beliefs but ultimately whether you believe in a soul or not, meditation is spiritual at its heart.

In vipassana meditation, we focus on the breath; the interconnectedness of body and mind.

Science is not a religion; the argument that it is one usually comes from theists who attempt to lower science down to their level of understanding.

Systems of thought classically defined as "Religions" (like Buddhism and Taoism) are now considered philosophies rather than religion because they are not theistic.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

"Spirit" is the vital essence of a person. In meditation, you focus inward on that essence. You can define that essence in many ways depending on your beliefs but ultimately whether you believe in a soul or not, meditation is spiritual at its heart.

Science is not a religion; the argument that it is one usually comes from theists who attempt to lower science down to their level of understanding.

Systems of thought classically defined as "Religions" (like Buddhism and Taoism) are now considered philosophies rather than religion because they are not theistic.

The dictionary tends to have multiple meanings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Scientific discoveries can become the center of religious worship. People tend to take a discovery and run to the finish line with their own conclusions. This is how Sudo Science is born and i find that it has an airy semblance to theist religion. Baseless arguments are usually born in a glimmer of truth. For instance, people worshiping a discovery is immediately thought of as the practice of science being a religious practice even though the two situations are not mutual. People like to fill in the blank do to impatience with arriving at a genuine conclusion. I would rather define things by tangible definitions then speaking on an essence in a broad barely graspable sense. What do you believe an essence of a person is? Are we talking about learning about the traits of your personality or easing ones mind by quieting thought and memories? I just don't think we should apply these keywords when they don't lend to exact definition. It leaves too many openings to confuse peoples philosophy.

 

[Bodhi]

You said that man can worship ideas or other men and that can create a religion; thus, science has been argued to be a religion. But your statements after that showed that it is not science that can be defined as a religion but that scientific discoveries can create religions.. which is true but the definition of religion remains the same.

Anyway, I got that definition of religion from the dictionary.

Essence is defined as the intrinsic nature of a person. Some believe in a soul. I believe the essence is the five skandhas but that is because I am a Buddhist.

Definitions depend on the people using the words. What are you confused about?

 

[Bodhi]

The reason the dictionary has multiple meanings for one word is because the definition of the word largely depends on context. This works for a lot of words in English, even words as simple as "of".

Someone can say, "football is my religion". That usage would be in line with the dictionary reference you've given but that is not the correct usage of religion in the sense that were using it in this thread.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

You said that man can worship ideas or other men and that can create a religion; thus, science has been argued to be a religion. But your statements after that showed that it is not science that can be defined as a religion but that scientific discoveries can create religions.. which is true but the definition of religion remains the same.

Anyway, I got that definition of religion from the dictionary.

Essence is defined as the intrinsic nature of a person. Some believe in a soul. I believe the essence is the five skandhas but that is because I am a Buddhist.

Definitions depend on the people using the words. What are you confused about?

I specifically said.

This is why the new stealthy argument that science is a religion has come about.

I never lent credence to it's accuracy. Words still have relative definitions unless you decide to redefine it wholly do to language and period differences. That hasn't occurred with the word religion or spirituality. Both have relative definitions but i find spirituality to be more vague because people are trying to take religion out of it when it is obviously attached to religious aspects when you are honest about the definition of religion.

You probably missed the definitions that i posted that goes in line with what i am saying. Religion is not strictly defined even in the modern dictionary as one worshiping a God. Science is argued as a religion because people jump to that conclusion and confuse the overall methodology of science with scientific discoveries. It of course makes no sense but this is how people draw broad strokes and one has to actively argue these points because they are steeped in confusion. I'm just noting how we've come to this point. When you say the intrinsic nature, some find that letting yourself go and becoming mass murderer is truly becoming one with mans nature. Careful how you use those terms.

 

[Bodhi]

I specifically said.

You said that to elucidate your frustration with the "narrow" definition of religion. Your argument was that religion is and should be defined more broadly. However, you failed to grasp that the definition was used in such a strict way specifically because of context.

Words still have relative definitions unless you decide to redefine it wholly

Words in the English language may have a number of different definitions depending on the context in which they are used. Check your dictionary for proof of this.

i find spirituality to be more vague because people are trying to take religion out of it when it is obviously attached to religious aspects when you are honest about the definition of religion.

You are agreeing with my original post, here.

Religion is not strictly defined even in the modern dictionary as one worshiping a God.

In the context of this thread, it is.

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Here is what the OP said:

I seen this come up on my FaceBook feed, one of the pages I "liked" brought up a book written by an atheist, "Spirituality without Religion".

He said that he doesn't agree with that. That spirituality does have to do with religion. So, he cannot relate with that idea. He can only relate to reality and nature.

...

When you say the intrinsic nature, some find that letting yourself go and becoming mass murderer is truly becoming one with mans nature. Careful how you use those terms.

Again, you're using the word out of context. Nature, in this instance, means the basic constitution of a person. Vital means necessary. In other words, what is necessarily required for a person to be a person. That is the vital essence. As stated above, some believe in a soul. I believe in the five skandhas.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I'm looking specifically at this statement.

Modern dictionaries define "spiritual" as related to religious beliefs and define religion as the belief in and worship of god or gods.

Whether you made this statement in relation tot his post or not, it is not accurate that modern dictionaries only define religion as a belief in and worship of god or gods. When i say spirituality is attached to religion. It isn't necessarily speaking in terms of organized theistic religion. My argument is that religion should be applied more appropriately. It is actually far less broad then the aspect of spirituality which seems to have the ability to be applied to whatever the day calls for. Regardless, it is very not well defined and is probably one of the more loosely defined words we have because keep restructuring the definition to suite them. Regardless, it is still modernly broadly attached to theistic worship and concepts such as the holy spirit or spiritual. A differing application of the definition would be more in line with changing the word structure like spiriting.

You also said

My question is, should a spiritual person who manifests their spirituality through volitional action be called religious if that person does not believe in god or gods? Given the modern definition of "religion", a religious person has to believe in some sort of god, however that god may be defined.

Nope.

an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

You created the context for my argument.

The modern dictionary defines it to include practices without a God applied which is why i bought up the worship of scientific discoveries. It is lazy reasoning that has the same origin in the desire to co-opt the word spirituality to to apply to aspects of being that are as controversial as a belief in God. The five Skandha does not have to be defined as a spiritual approach. Buddhist didn't when they first defined it. Western culture decided to add that overtone. It creates confusion and allows for other unproven concepts to taint the well.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm looking specifically at this statement.

Modern dictionaries define "spiritual" as related to religious beliefs and define religion as the belief in and worship of god or gods.

Whether you made this statement in relation to his post or not, it is not accurate that modern dictionaries only define religion as a belief in and worship of god or gods.

Modern dictionaries do define religion (in the context of this thread) as belief in god or gods. The reason I gave that definition was to explain why there seems to be a problem with separating spirituality from religion given the definitions of both words and their relationship to each other.

I also gave my own personal definition of both words prior to that.

spirituality ... seems to have the ability to be applied to whatever the day calls for. Regardless, it is very not well defined and is probably one of the more loosely defined words we have because keep restructuring the definition to suite them. Regardless, it is still modernly broadly attached to theistic worship and concepts such as the holy spirit or spiritual. A differing application of the definition would be more in line with changing the word structure like spiriting.

^^^ This is what I said in the opening sentence of my first post (however more succinctly):

Both of those words have different meanings depending on the person you ask.

That is why I gave my personal definition and the dictionary definitions to give two different perspectives to compare and show the relationship between each concept.

You also said

...

You created the context for my argument.

Actually, I was still within the context of defining religion as belief in god or gods. That's actually explicitly stated in the quote that you referenced.

The modern dictionary defines it to include practices without a God applied which is why i bought up the worship of scientific discoveries.

And I showed you how using the word religion in that context for this thread makes no sense. In that context, painting or powerlifting can be someone's religion but that makes no sense when applied to this thread.

Per your definition:

an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

"Can you be spiritual without believing in god or gods being very interested in powerlifting?"

The five Skandha does not have to be defined as a spiritual approach. Buddhist didn't when they first defined it. Western culture decided to add that overtone.

That's because Buddhism doesn't come from Westerners and thus was not expounded in a Western language.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

@Oceanic People claim things like painting and bodylifting lifts the spirits. See what i did there? People speak on things touching their soul all the time. They actually especially project the deepest thoughts and furthest reaches of human perception and vigor. If you want to conquer the word and change it's application then so be it. The definitions that i used were indeed in a modern dictionary and are modern applications of religion sense people realized that people can join cults unrelated to Theistic belief which is a very modern concept. Just because people don't believe in God, that doesn't give them a pass to create other theories without proof. I find spirituality when applied in that sense to have the same issue as how it was defined in the "past" (or in greater abundance, now).

 

[Bodhi]

@Oceanic People claim things like painting and bodylifting lifts the spirits.

I see exactly what you did there. You are continuously misusing the terms. "Spirits" in that sense has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is spirituality concerned with the vital essence of a person and in some cases what can be called the supernatural.

In the context that you're using the word, it's defined differently, as:

: temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated

We're talking about a different "spirit" here. In the OP, a contrast was given that helps us determine what the author meant by spiritual. He said he can only relate to reality and nature, implying the rejection of its opposite, unreality and the supernatural.. which to an atheist is worship of God(s) in religion and thus raising the question of the possibility of spirituality without that (religious) aspect.

The definitions that i used were indeed in a modern dictionary and are modern applications of religion sense people realized that people can join cults unrelated to Theistic belief which is a very modern concept.

Except the definitions you are using are out of context.

In order to be considered a "religion" a cult must be in line with the definition of religion as belief and worship of God(s) as stated in the dictionary.

Just because people don't believe in God, that doesn't give them a pass to create other theories without proof.

That is not the issue.

Put this into perspective; What you are doing is similar to this:

If I say the sun is bright, what I mean by bright is specific and limited by one definition of the word although there exists several.

I do not mean that the sun is intelligent which is one definition of the word bright. Nor do I mean necessarily that the sun is beautiful, which is yet another definition. In context, I mean that the sun produces light.

You are debating me about multiple definitions that do not fit the context surrounding the words.

These things can be confusing but only to one that does not fully understand context and how definitions are drawn based on how a particular word is used. The problem is not in the words or the concepts but rather in your inability to comprehend how they are applied.

My suggestion to you would be to look up a word at any time you are ever confused about its meaning and then study all definitions for that word and their possible relationship with the rest of the text. Then use critical thinking to determine which usage best fits the surrounding paragraph or sentence.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

@oceanic In all aspects of using the word bright, it's foundation means to illuminate. Weather you are illuminating your intelligence (bright meaning showing or displaying ones intelligence) or you have a bright idea (signifies a light bulb to spread forth your idea). It's called etymology and most words unless they were butchered have a foundation that is similar no matter the context. Spirit is metaphysical regardless of how you push it. Whether it's the culmination of thought energy or some manifestation of ones inner being bought out (spirited from ones body) or expressed through spirited exuberance (expressed energy) it has a foundation in a root definition. What that energy is and whether it can exist beyond our physical form is the heart of the argument. I can't see how it can be applied differently. it still finds it's way into other religions (not god based) that express theories of existence and push them as absolute truth. I'm not speaking on individual religious approach to doing things. I'm speaking on people using the word to express their thoughts on what man is and forming cults around that. Are you saying cults can't exist without a god aspect?

 

[Bodhi]

That's all and well but we aren't debating the etymology of words. We are discussing the definitions of words as used today and how the context in which they are used changes those definitions. Regardless of what the etymology of the word bright may be, it has different meanings depending on its use.