What exactly is "spirituality?"

[Darth Wong]

We often hear people use the phrase "religion and spirituality" as if the two things are immutably linked together. And I often hear people use phrases like "spiritual experience" and "religion" interchangeably. But I don't recall anyone ever giving a meaningful definition of what "spirituality" is. This strikes me as important because people often cite "the need for spirituality" as an important raison d'etre for religion.

So what is "spirituality?" According to Webster's, it's:

1 : something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
2 : clergy
3 : sensitivity or attachment to religious values
4 : the quality or state of being spiritual

That doesn't help a whole lot. If "the need for spirituality" is a raison d'etre for religion and spirituality is defined as aspects of religion, then the argument is wholly circular: we need religion because we need religion.

Perhaps the fourth definition might shed some might light, since it references "spiritual". So let's look at the definition of "spiritual":

1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2 a: of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
b: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

Nope, this doesn't help much. We run into the same problem. And strangely, these definitions do not really seem to jive with the way I hear the word "spiritual" used in conversation, where anything that nurtures your sense of mental well-being is often considered "spiritual".

So what do you think "spirituality" means?

[TithonusSyndrome]

I think it ought to be rigidly defined as "personal supernatural belief lacking in formal or traditional dogmas", but for a lot of people they use the phrase to serve as some kind of rough synonym for "transcendent". I'd prefer if the latter definition was abolished altogether, as it invites confusion and dishonesty like the kind Steven Weinberg tried to address in his "You can define God as being 'energy' but nobody wants to go to church to worship coal" quote.

[Kanastrous]

Wastebasket term for anything inadequately described (or for which the description isn't known or understood by the person in question) by the prevalent scientific models of the universe, for which that person feels the need to invent (or adopt an invented) explanation.

[Rye]

I'd propose the following:

Spirituality is a catch-all name for religious experience; religion is the cultural explanation for said experiences.

[Stark]

Is it possble this meanng has changed due to media use? As mike says it seems to almostbe a codeword for religion these days, and if someone says 'spirtual life' or 'need for spirituality' theymean 'religion'or 'god'. Stealth move to allowpeople to agree with an apparently general statement when a very specific meaning is really meant

[Starglider]

I'd say 'culturally sanctioned forms of delusion' but that's a bit too broad. Somewhat more specifically, it's reassuring yourself that a particular kind of culturally sanctioned delusion is correct; either belief in extraphysical intelligent entities (always closely but invisibly tied to human experience - religion in all its forms), or belief in physical theories with no empirical support but significant intuitive appeal (new age energies/resonances/psychic silliness).

Typical practical usage does seem to be more like Stark's suggestion; religious nuts trying to pretend to tolerate other faiths, or politicians and PR people trying to be as inclusive/inoffensive/noncommittal as possible.

[Samuel]

Isn't is just a buzzword that doesn't really mean anything?

[Stuart]

So what is "spirituality?"

In my line of business, spirituality is the inspiration that dawns upon a person when they are half way down a bottle of single malt whisky. Have you noticed that "divine revelation" and "delirium tremens" have a lot in common?

Seriously, quoting spirituality is a way of avoiding an argument by attempting to put the discussion on a plane where feelings are considered equivalent to evidence

[Modax]

In my opinion, a spiritual experience is simply any profound feeling of wonder or awe regarding existence, and the nature of life and the universe. People can interpret these feelings in a Religious or a Secular light. I remember reading about an experiment in transcranial magnetic stimulation, where stimulating certain regions of the brain would cause people to report religious feelings. Theistic types were more likely to report a feeling of "Being in the presence of God" whereas as more secular people would report a sort of Zen feeling of "oneness with the cosmos".

[Kanastrous]

I wonder how long it will be before such devices become available for home use.

[Samuel]

I wonder how long it will be before such devices become available for home use.

Well, it is already true for the Netherlands, but most of the world hasn't followed the lead of the Dutch.

[General Zod]

In my opinion, a spiritual experience is simply any profound feeling of wonder or awe regarding existence, and the nature of life and the universe. People can interpret these feelings in a Religious or a Secular light. I remember reading about an experiment in transcranial magnetic stimulation, where stimulating certain regions of the brain would cause people to report religious feelings. Theistic types were more likely to report a feeling of "Being in the presence of God" whereas as more secular people would report a sort of Zen feeling of "oneness with the cosmos".

Both are superstitious explanations, so I think you're misrepresenting what a secular person would interpret it as. IMO I'm inclined to agree with Zuul's assessment above. Spirituality is a "religious" experience but on an individual level, but for some reason people don't want to label as religious.

[Modax]

While they are both definitely religious experiences, they are on opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Supernatural belief is not black and white. If you compare the world's religious beliefs, each system posits a different level of supernatural involvement in the world. Buddhism is sometimes described a more of a philosophy than a religion, or as an 'atheistic religion' as it has no central deity, although it does incorporate various supernatural beliefs.

[Samuel]

While they are both definitely religious experiences, they are on opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Supernatural belief is not black and white. If you compare the world's religious beliefs, each system posits a different level of supernatural involvement in the world. Buddhism is sometimes described a more of a philosophy than a religion, or as an 'atheistic religion' as it has no central deity, although it does incorporate various supernatural beliefs.

God is not necesary for a religion- Raelism has no God but is a religion. Scientology fullfils the same criteria. The belief in reincarnation and Nirvana is enough for Buddism to be counted as a faith.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Based off my very limited experience in life. Spirituality pretty much means the embrace of that which is not tangible, observable, measurable, etc.

[Modax]

While they are both definitely religious experiences, they are on opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Supernatural belief is not black and white. If you compare the world's religious beliefs, each system posits a different level of supernatural involvement in the world. Buddhism is sometimes described a more of a philosophy than a religion, or as an 'atheistic religion' as it has no central deity, although it does incorporate various supernatural beliefs.

God is not necesary for a religion- Raelism has no God but is a religion. Scientology fullfils the same criteria. The belief in reincarnation and Nirvana is enough for Buddism to be counted as a faith.

You miss my point. Yes, Buddhism is a religion. So is Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Wicca and any other faith-based belief system we can name. My point is that not all religions are alike - they involve varying levels of belief in supernatural forces. Ancient, Animistic religions attribute supernatural causes to practically everything, and believe that spirits inhabit all physical objects. This is clearly a different level supernatural belief than, say, modern Christianity, which attributes _most_ phenomenon to natural or scientific causes. People will have different reactions to a transcranial magnetic stimulation experiment, or to LSD, or near death experiences, depending on the extent of supernatural involvement in their belief system.

[Samuel]

Christianty atributes all things to God in the end. It is just a matter of how far back you move the magic. Buddism does the same thing- there are souls behind all living things that are being tested.

[Modax]

So belief in a supernatural origin for the universe is the only prerequisite for a religion? Clearly Deism and Christianity are two very different types of beliefs, even if they both posit a supernatural beginning to the universe.

[General Zod]

While they are both definitely religious experiences, they are on opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Supernatural belief is not black and white. If you compare the world's religious beliefs, each system posits a different level of supernatural involvement in the world. Buddhism is sometimes described a more of a philosophy than a religion, or as an 'atheistic religion' as it has no central deity, although it does incorporate various supernatural beliefs.

Secular by definition excludes supernatural belief.

[Modax]

While they are both definitely religious experiences, they are on opposite ends of the religious spectrum. Supernatural belief is not black and white. If you compare the world's religious beliefs, each system posits a different level of supernatural involvement in the world. Buddhism is sometimes described a more of a philosophy than a religion, or as an 'atheistic religion' as it has no central deity, although it does incorporate various supernatural beliefs.

Secular by definition excludes supernatural belief.

No it doesn't. Secularism only states that religious beliefs should not interfere with politics or scientific inquiry.

[General Zod]

No it doesn't. Secularism only states that religious beliefs should not interfere with politics or scientific inquiry.

Ahem.

Main Entry:
1sec·u·lar Listen to the pronunciation of 1secular
Pronunciation:
\ˈse-kyə-lər\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
Date:
14th century

1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>2: not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>
— sec·u·lar·i·ty Listen to the pronunciation of secularity \ˌse-kyə-ˈla-rə-tē\ noun
— sec·u·lar·ly Listen to the pronunciation of secularly \ˈse-kyə-lər-lē\ adverb

Pay attention to the highlighted bit. Worldly or temporal affairs and not religious. Supernatural nonsense is neither worldly nor temporal.

[Modax]

Okay, you win. But the noun 'secularism' is distinct in meaning from the adjective 'secular' (not religious) and follows the definition in my above post.

[General Zod]

Okay, you win. But the noun 'secularism' is distinct in meaning from the adjective 'secular' (not religious) and follows the definition in my above post.

People can interpret these feelings in a Religious or a Secular light.

Try again. You used secular specifically in your very first post. Changing it to a plurality in an attempt at evasion does not alter your original point.

[Modax]

I found the article of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation that I remember reading. Guess What? It makes no mention of Zen, or oneness with the universe. Hence, this whole argument over Buddhism is my mistake. The article is well worth reading, though, given the topic of this thread.

link

The argument from religious experience is the argument from apparent experiences of God to God’s existence.

These arguments assume that religious experiences are a type of perceptual experience, i.e. a type of experience in which the person having the experience perceives something external to them.

Some, though, question this assumption, arguing that religious experiences involve imagination rather than perception, that the object of the experience is not something that exists objectively in the world but rather is something that exists subjectively in the mind of the person having the experience.

This suggestion might be supported with an appeal to the possibility of fabricating religious experiences, of creating artificial experiences of God.
Artificial Religious Experiences

The more we become able to understand the brain, the more we become able to control it. Scientists have developed a device, called a transcranial magnetic stimulator, that can be used to stimulate small areas of the brain. Depending on which area of the brain is stimulated, different effects are produced; for example, stimulating parts of the motor cortex causes muscular contractions.

The device can, for some people, be used to create religious experiences. Using the transcranial magnetic stimulator to apply a magnetic field to the temporal lobes can cause people to experience God. This phenomenon is not limited only to believers; even atheists can be caused to have religious experiences using the transcranial magnetic stimulator.

The fact that this works for some people suggests that the temporal lobes play a role in religious experience. This is supported by the fact that some sufferers of temporal lobe epilepsy, a condition that consists in having seizures centred around intense electrical activity in the temporal lobes, report that during seizures they have profound religious experiences. V S Ramachandran describes this:

“… most remarkable of all are those patients who have deeply moving spiritual experiences, including a feeling of divine presence and the sense that they are in direct communication with God. Everything around them is imbued with cosmic significance. They may say, ‘I finally understand what it’s all about. This is the moment I’ve been waiting for all my life. Suddenly it all makes sense.’ Or, ‘Finally I have insight into the true nature of the cosmos.’ … God has vouchsafed for us ‘normal’ people only occasional glimpses of a deeper truth… but these patients enjoy the unique privilege of gazing directly into God’s eyes every time they have a seizure.” [V S Ramachandran & Sandra Blakeslee, Phantoms in the Brain, Fourth Estate Limited (1998), p179]

Religious experiences, then, appear to be simply events in the brain; they need not be experiences of anything real at all.
Other Artifical Experiences

There is a limit, though, to how far this argument can take us.

First, there is no proof that these artificially induced religious experiences are not veridical; it is at least possible that stimulating the temporal lobes helps people to perceive God. If this is what is happening, then the transcranial stimulator is not inducing false experiences, but rather is facilitating experiences of reality. Just as giving a person a pair of glasses may enhance their ability to see distant objects, perhaps, stimulating their temporal lobes helps them to perceive God. The former does not cause us to doubt the existence of distant objects, so why should the latter cause us to doubt the existence of God?

Second, even if these artificially induced religious experiences aren’t veridical, that would not entail that no religious experiences are veridical. Other experiences that can be induced using the transcranial magnetic stimulator include the sense that there is a second person present in the room when there is not. We do not conclude from this that all sensations that there is a second person present in the room are false. Though it is possible create such false experiences, we remain confident that some such experiences are veridical. Why, then, should the fact that it is possible to create artifical religious experiences be taken as evidence that no religious experiences are genuine experiences of God?

[General Zod]

First, there is no proof that these artificially induced religious experiences are not veridical; it is at least possible that stimulating the temporal lobes helps people to perceive God. If this is what is happening, then the transcranial stimulator is not inducing false experiences, but rather is facilitating experiences of reality. Just as giving a person a pair of glasses may enhance their ability to see distant objects, perhaps, stimulating their temporal lobes helps them to perceive God. The former does not cause us to doubt the existence of distant objects, so why should the latter cause us to doubt the existence of God?

The fact that there is no existing definition of God that can be neatly falsified makes this a worthless argument. When they can define what God is, then they can make claims to his existence.