ChieftheCef
Member
Can anything be spiritual, if so why and how?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What constitutes spiritual experience
- Thread starter ChieftheCef
- Start date
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
What definition of "spiritual" is being used when you ask this question?
ChieftheCef
Member
Hmmm... What are the definitions of spiritual? Why aren't they there own words?
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Words are famously slippery. Sure, words get the job done when we want to express something like "the groceries are in the back seat of the car."
But words fail us sometimes when we try to discuss more complicated or subtle matters. I would argue that "spirituality" is one such word. In some senses it is inextricably tied to religion. As others tell it, it is the remainder that is left over when you remove all the religious interpretation from a powerful inner experience. These two definitions are at odds. One definition depends upon religion. The other omits religion completely.
I'm not saying the question isn't a good question, or that the question can't be answered. But I think we need to have a working definition before we can proceed farther in a meaningful way. It doesn't have to be THE definition of spirituality. Just A definition that we agree upon for the purposes of our discussion.
But words fail us sometimes when we try to discuss more complicated or subtle matters. I would argue that "spirituality" is one such word. In some senses it is inextricably tied to religion. As others tell it, it is the remainder that is left over when you remove all the religious interpretation from a powerful inner experience. These two definitions are at odds. One definition depends upon religion. The other omits religion completely.
I'm not saying the question isn't a good question, or that the question can't be answered. But I think we need to have a working definition before we can proceed farther in a meaningful way. It doesn't have to be THE definition of spirituality. Just A definition that we agree upon for the purposes of our discussion.
ChieftheCef
Member
I dunno, can you give me a definition? What's the real difference between the two definitions? They seem to me to be pointing towards the same idea of spirituality
Sorry for being difficult.
Sorry for being difficult.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I don't think you are being difficult at all. It's the issue of how to define spirituality that's difficult. Some say: "I'm spiritual, not religious" which suggests that spirituality is separable from religiosity; the two can have an independent existence.
Others say that spirituality is precisely the religious experience and can't be separated from religion.
I could give you a definition if you'd like. Perhaps my personal definition, or maybe a definition I like from William James. But before I do that, could I get your perspective concerning whether spirituality is necessarily religious or not?
If you haven't decided (or'd rather not say) I'm fine with just giving my or James's definition and moving on from there. But I'm curious what you think.
ChieftheCef
Member
I don't believe it is.
I would say both fit, but spirituality can be separated from religion.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Here is something that might help (File attached). It's the latest scholarship on the question of "what is SBNR"; an empirical study where she asked people what that meant to them, and the results are interesting. Interview-based research. @vulcanlogician @ChieftheCef
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I would tend to agree with that. Of course, there's nothing wrong with having the two together. But I think there is a kind of experience (one that is "experienced" by both believers and non-believers) that we might call spiritual. Much like ordinary experiences.
Atheists and theists alike can perceive something ordinary... like a tree. Likewise, atheists and theists alike can have "spiritual" experiences. But now we are left wanting to distinguish what's the difference between a "spiritual" or an "ordinary" experience. Any thoughts on that?
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Nice! Looks interesting. I'll need a lil' time, but I'll try to look it over.
ChieftheCef
Member
I kind of intuitively know but I can't put it to words.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I mean, you can resort to haiku or something if you wanna. But I'd rather stick to prose.
But I don't think we need to do any of that. I think we can define "spiritual" experiences according to inner movements and processes that (inwardly) take us from one place to another. We already have a name for this type of experience: emotion... but we can easily differentiate a spiritual experience from simple emotion by noting that spiritual experience has some "extra qualities" that aren't present in emotion.
For example, emotions are always "about something." I'm happy that I got a raise." -- "I'm sad about getting fired." Things like that. A "spiritual" experience may feature emotions, but it also features something more. It is (perhaps) a realization about the universe that speaks to you deeply, but isn't necessarily a reaction to your current circumstances.
You may experience some cosmic being, like Yahweh or a bodhisattva... or who knows if it's one or the other? The experience itself (ie. I experienced a being of great love who peered at me with ultimate compassion.") THAT'S a spiritual experience. (imo).
"That was Jesus Christ"-- or "That was lord Rama." And "that being reinforced the truth of my scriptures." -- THOSE things I consider a religious interpretation of a spiritual experience, and, in themselves, they may not be very spiritual at all.
Last edited: