The American Spiritual Bazaar: Something For Everyone

Oh "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Even most New Yorkers would know the first four flaws in Islam i.e.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies,

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Hello Daniel in the Lion's Den,

America is the hinterland of Big Apple, no? Those Manhattanites who have never been to Brooklyn or the Bronx and look down on Neeu Jooisee! Those Upper East Siders who have never been to Harlem!

Yes, New York is fabulous. It has everything. Museums, theatres, fashion, art, food from everywhere, though London has better and more Indian restaurants, New York has better Italian ones, and Paris has better North African and Vietnamese ones.

London and Paris is right up there with New York City, but both cities can't compete with New York in autumn with the crisp cool air, taking the Staten Island ferry from NJ coming into the city, passing by the Statue of Liberty. What a sight.

Pssst...don't tell New Yorkers but Hong Kong is also most impressive to behold from the water, and more spectacular for some with the skyscrapers wedged between the hills and the sea.

Best regards as ever.

"J"

The comment above was meant to be a joke, like, "cake is just a delivery system of icing.."

Jihadist

You mentioned all the places for people to go to satisfy their primary interests. What about New York City? Have you ever been there? I think that would satisfy many interests, except perhaps dairy farming. I have only been there a handful of times, the most recent, in November.

Wow! (I man that in a good way).

I think that America is just a "delivery system" for New York City.

Generation Faithful
Violence Leaves Iraqi Youth Doubting Clerics
By SABRINA TAVERNISE

Many young Iraqis, exhausted by constant exposure to the violence of religious extremism after five years of war, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders.

Article continues on Page 1, of today's New York Times.

Gideon;

The 9/11 terrorists, who are now having a wonderful time in Paradise with 72 virgins, blew themselves up for the great sky god who is now rewarding them for their faith and courage with life everlasting, and the best of everything, for ever and ever and ever.

Like you, these brave and well educated young men had no doubt at all that the sky god is an actual god who loves them and requires them to behave in certain ways. And they gladly killed themselves for him, and at the same time removed 3000 infidels from the face of the earth, which is of course what the great sky god wanted of them.

I can't help wondering if you have the same kind of faith as those gutsy young men, or is your faith a different kind of faith?

Maybe the suicide bombers had it right. Maybe this is what the sky god really wants us to do. Kill infidels. If you agree with this, then why don't you martyr yourself? If you don't agree with this, then what is it that says your beliefs are the correct beliefs, and the suicide bombers the wrong beliefs?

I myself believe in cute little fairies. They only appear when I'm stoned, which is why I keep smoking dope. To each his own.

Gideon,

If what you say has any objective merit whatsoever, why does it take faith to believe it? Why hasn't the Bible ever accurately predicted anything BEFORE the fact instead of "predicting it" after the fact?

Gideon,

Superstition and religion differ by quantity and historical origin. Both leave the realm of reason and ignore the chain of cause and effect. They construct cause-effect connections where there are none and replace the rifts by their "faith". The fact that billions of people believe in some religion only proves the plasticity of human minds which are inclined to obfuscate wishes, fantasies and reality and stir the three elements into an unrecognizable mixture, where anybody can "believe" just anything.

The bible did not prophesy anything: There are so many unproven stories to be found in the bible that after the fact you can connect any real event with the "prophesies". To which degree such "belief" can poison a human mind and can create real danger can be observed by "genetic disasters" like John Hagee: He and his fellow demented followers even intend to create the cataclysm they think have been "prophesied". They want to destroy the earth, just to confirm their specter of self-fulfilling prophesies.

Solange:
"Gideon;
Your gullibility reminds me of those poor gullible fools who followed the Rev Jim Jones down to Jonestown back in the seventies, drank his Koolade and accompanied him to Paradise. People can be made to believe the most ludicrous propositions. It pays to be more skeptical and to examine ideas with the light of reason. Superstitious propositions just don't cut it."

Religiosity and superstition are not one and the same. You do violence to the English language to suggest that they are.

I am far from gullible [(adj) : easily deceived or duped; naive, easily cheated or fooled
synonyms: fleeceable, green, naif, naive.]

I studied all the major religious texts in the world without being persuaded to any belief. It was only after a religious experience that I gained faith in God.

The Bible is the only prophetic book in the world and it is unerringly accurate. Having studied International Relations at the undergraduate and graduate level, I had sufficient background in history to see the truth of that salient fact on the first reading.

Of dozens and dozens of prophesies, three are particularly pertinent to our times: 1. Israel would again be on the world stage after 2,000 years of non-existence (and in the year 1948 as predicted). 2. There will be a great war in the Middle East (only the tinder has been lit so far). 3. John said, "I saw as it were a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea."

In this post, as in the previous, I am not trying to convince anyone. I am simply warning everyone. If the cataclysmic event fails to materialize, shame on me. If it does and catches you unawares, shame on you.

It is only in recent times that scientists have become aware of the belt of millions of asteroids that the earth passes through routinely, and the evidence of collisions of these in the past with the earth, wiping out most life on earth. How did John know about it? Not because he was superstitious, but because he believed God who revealed these things to him. BTW there's one headed our way which is calculated to pass between the earth and orbiting satellites. Just a slight error in calculation and...

If it doesn't happen, call me anything you like. If it does, I'll be the last thing on your mind.

Oh, "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

And where would Americans seeking freedom and truth and a listing of the flaws of religions go?

The On-Faith Blog:

e.g. The first four flaws of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies,

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Hello Gerry,

Thanks for the clarification on what you mean by "proportionally".

Pardon me if I do seem to be hair-splitting on words sometimes, but it is important for me to know so I will be clear in what context you or anyone is coming from. As you know, words means different things to different people and cultures, including in intellectual and religious traditions and usage.

Greenpeace is not a religion, but have a deep, passionate and committed belief that the environment is degrading incrementally every day due to industrialisation, deforestration, global warming etc. They are effective activists in the creating awareness on the environment and taking actions that draw the world's attention.

Got to go.

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Jihadist,

Would never have suspected you to be a Trekie...
Seven of Nine....OHMYGOD.....ooooooooooo....drooool

Arminius

Hello Chris Everett,

Thanks for the elaboration on Ethical Culture.

Actually, the first time I heard of Ethical Culture is from a book on J Robert Oppenheimer, called American Prometheus.

Deed not Creed is a good credo, a good motto of it. Actions speaks louder the words. Who can argue with that?

And yes, that benchmark of countries - "How Much I'd Like to Live There" is a good one. We have the Human Development Index, and now your Human Desirabily Index of a country to live in.

Most others in the world see the US as the land of freedom and economic opportunity judging by the number of people trying to get in there legally and illegally.

Where would Americans would want to go?

I think Americans who desire better health care would want to live in New Zealand.

For gay rights, in Scandavian countries.

For food and culture, France or Italy.

For spiritualism and mysticism in India.

For interesting sex in Amsterdam and Bangkok.

For good hashish in Kathmandu.

For private and secret banking in Bahamas, Switzerland, Monaco, Singapore and Dubai.

For stoning, hanging and beheading in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

For heroin, in Afghanistan.

For stolen church art, in Moscow.

For "hope" and "change", in USA.

For ridiculous politics on race and religion, in Malaysia.

...and the list goes

Thanks and regards
"J"

No, no, no, no, no.....Noooo!

Kirk was an impulsive twit.

Picard was a pompous brain cell.

Sisko was a bombastic moralist.

Captain Katherine Janeway was the best captain of them all in the Star Trek universe.

Janeway was in that quandrant where the Borgs originate.

She was in that quadrant where no man has gone before, especially Captains Kirk, Picard, Sisco.

She brings the rebels and the Star Trek pursuers together in one ship and work as one.

And she got the Voyager "family" home by one of those sci-fi wormhole shortcut while being pursued by Borgs.

...and Mr. Spock who? Data who?

Seven of Nine is so cool and so hot. Don't tell me dorks, nerds and geeks don't have flaring nostrils and heaving biceps for her - Resistance is futile the the Borg collective said.

I object to Seven of Nine being forced to switch specie/beliefs from human to Borg to human again against her will. Where is her free choice on this? Where is her lifeform rights on this?

Down with the Borgs! Down with humans!
For not giving free will and free choice to Seven of Nine!

Go ahead, I'm a Trekkie of the Voyager Denomination.

Seven, beam me up.

Jay Bernstein wrote:

"I converted to Christianity, because I enjoy the idea of Christian forgiveness and love. On a more pedestrian level, I never enjoyed the Hebrew language and have always preferred religious services that were in English."

With all due respect, those reasons seem kind of frivolous. I am not religious so it is hard for me to judge, but it seems to me that if you start off really believing in the Old Testament jealous God who killed all those people after they strayed to the Golden Calf, then you wouldn't want to turn your back on Him just because you "enjoy" an idea, or because of the language of the sermon. And if you didn't really, fully believe in the Jewish version of God, why believe any other? Neither of them seems more convincing. Is it just a matter of taste? I should think it would take some powerful, traumatic feeling of revelation -- a road to Damascus flash of light.

I think these comments illustrate why Americans change religions so often and easily, but I find them a little mystifying.

Regarding Jacoby's original comment: "These are not people who want to get up for temple on Saturday or church on Sunday morning, but they like to watch television shows about angels and teenagers who talk to God."

Such people also seems kind of frivolous, but harmless. Since they do not make a deep commitment to a jealous God in the first place, I wouldn't compare them to Bernstein. I see no harm in these people enjoying a little escapist religion on the side. Perhaps they take these television programs seriously, or perhaps they don't, but anyway, this level of religious sentiment will not cause them to fly airplanes into buildings or burn people at the stake. At worst it is a little irrational. We are all irrational about one thing or another, and it causes little harm. You might compare it to buying a $1 lottery ticket several times a year, which is a mild case of escapist irrationality (and nothing like a harmful gambling addiction).

Jihadist,

"proportionally" means: If the number of prisoners in US jails would mirror the percentage of atheists (8-15% is generally accepted), it would have to be FIFTY times more than it actually is.

Religion affiliation, by logic, thus increases crime (at least as represented in jails) by a factor of 50.

Again, Jihadist, I observe that you are approaching the question of religious truths by an operational, even opportunist measure, when you compare religion to Greenpeace and similar organizations.
Greenpeace never claimed to be a religion. Are you becoming worldly? My sincere congratulations to you!

Jay Bernstein:

"I converted to Christianity, because I enjoy the idea of Christian forgiveness and love. On a more pedestrian level, I never enjoyed the Hebrew language and have always preferred religious services that were in English."

With all due respect, those reasons seem kind of frivolous. I am not religious so it is hard for me to judge, but it seems to me that if you start off really believing in the Old Testament jealous God who killed all those people after they strayed to the Golden Calf, then you wouldn't want to turn your back on Him just because you "enjoy" an idea, or because of the language of the sermon. And if you didn't really, fully believe in the Jewish version of God, why believe any other? Neither of them seems more convincing. Is it just a matter of taste? I should think it would take some powerful, traumatic feeling of revelation -- a road to Damascus flash of light.

I think these comments illustrate why Americans change religions so often and easily, but I find them a little mystifying.

Regarding Jacoby's original comment: "These are not people who want to get up for temple on Saturday or church on Sunday morning, but they like to watch television shows about angels and teenagers who talk to God."

Such people also seems kind of frivolous, but harmless. Since they do not make a deep commitment to a jealous God in the first place, I wouldn't compare them to Bernstein. I see no harm in these people enjoying a little escapist religion on the side. Perhaps they take these television programs seriously, or perhaps they don't, but anyway, this level of religious sentiment will not cause them to fly airplanes into buildings or burn people at the stake. At worst it is a little irrational. We are all irrational about one thing or another, and it causes little harm. You might compare it to buying a $1 lottery ticket several times a year, which is a mild case of escapist irrationality (and nothing like a harmful gambling addiction).

"And Ben Sisko, who was the best Captain of them all"

Blasphemer!!

"As for Star Trek; Kirk was a womanizing swashbuckler who didn’t really know anything. He was the best caveman in space and it worked for him.

Picard was the smart philosopher. More brains than brawn.

Kirk grew into T J hooker and Denny Crane.

Picard became head of the X-men who was no body and all brain."

And Ben Sisko, who was the best Captain of them all, was viewed by the Bajorans as the Emissary to their Gods (the Prophets).

I converted to Christianity, because I enjoy the idea of Christian forgiveness and love. On a more pedestrian level, I never enjoyed the Hebrew language and have always preferred religious services that were in English. After all, it's my native tongure.

Jihadist,

Nice to see you've done some research on Ethical Culture. Yes, it was founded by a Reform Jew and rabinnical student, Felix Adler, in the late 1800's. It's a case of religion being the historical vehicle for ethical cultivation and social cohesion. The genius of Felix Adler was that he realized that THAT was the essence of religion, NOT supernaturalism, and that by decoupling religious experience from the supernatural, the supernatural became moot but the ethical cultivation and social cohesion remained. I recommend reading "The Humanist Way" by Erickson, which presents the history and philosophical background behind the Ethical Culture movement.

As to my statement about religion being a net negative and a trap, of course I haven't conducted a poll, nor do I think a poll would reveal it. The relevant quantity is the OPPORTUNITY COST of religion, which isn't possible for a religious person to quantify. It requires an objective basis for comparison, but religion, by its nature, DEFINES the basis by which its adherents assess value. Not surprisingly, the scales are always tilted dramatically in favor of religion (e.g. Pascal's wager).

To get a feel for what I'm talking about, imagine making a plot of the world's countries in terms of "How Much I'd Like to Live There" versus "Degree to Which Political Power is in the Hands of Religious Authorities". I suspect you'd see an inverse relationship (with outliers, of course - maybe China, for example). Where would the US be on that plot, and how would it be moving, particularly when compared to the nations of Europe?

"Most rabbis still refuse to participate in ecumenical marriage ceremonies because they know that every intermarriage weakens traditional Judaism."

Not having met most rabbis, I'm not qualified to say. It is possible that a Reconstructionist might.

That said, "ecumenical" is rather an odd word choice in this context. Also, how many priests, ministers,imams, et al, will perform intermarriages? Back off a bit on the christocentricsm. The world no longer belongs to you. Check facts first. They always help to make arguments more convincing.

"Most rabbis still refuse to participate in ecumenical marriage ceremonies because they know that every intermarriage weakens traditional Judaism."

Not having met most rabbis, I'm not qualified to say. It is possible that a Reconstructionist might.

That said, "ecumenical" is rather an odd word choice in this context. Also, how many priests, ministers,imams, et al, will perform intermarriages? Back off a bit on the christocentricsm. The world no longer belongs to you. Check facts first. They always help to make arguments more convincing.

Anonymous:

Even if some things remain forever unexplained, I see no reason to just skip over to Step Z and slam a supernatural explanation into the gap.

Tonio:

Some have speculated that the apparent need to believe is actually an evolved survival tactic. http://csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html explains it far better than I can.

Aloha x 2

Oh, "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Distracting yourself with elections, philosophy, ethics, Shakespeare and Proverbs will not make the flaws in Islam disappear. Once again, the flaws that continue to create such a great theological stench and a major threat to world peace:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Er, quick, light and the kitchen sink too response as I'm getting interested in elections in other countries, Russia Now is interesting, and ours coming this weekend ..

Hello Gerry,

You : We don't need any "holy books" to lead a rich and meaningful and responsible life.

Moi : Yes for atheists. And for believers, why not if it does give meaning? And there are atheists who are listless, wasted and lead a meaningless life too, no? Just as there are happy gays, and there are morose gays.

You : For me, as a "spiritual atheist", "spirituality" is the quest for the ideals necessary to live a life of dignity, curiosity, openness, and respect together.

Moi : If I did not know you are an atheist, I would have thought what you said about "spirituality" is from a spiritual religious believer's mouth - from a Sufi to a Buddhist to Arminius.

You : Religion has never "lifted" anybody from the "baser" human nature (50 times as many religiously affiliated criminals in prison than atheists, PROPORTIONALLY!),

Moi : It helps to put the fear of temporal and afterlife hell in some monotheistic believers who sinned, make them feel remorse, to repent and ask for forgiveness and do good afterwards.

Some stats also seem to indicate quite a number or those in the slammer found religion there. Take Mr. Charles Colson. He found religion in prison.

Proportionally as in percentage of all prisoners? Why not in percentage of the total number of atheists and believers?

You : Has religion "raised" the crusaders, the Inquisition, the 30 years' war parties or the 9/11 killers above the "baser" human nature?

Moi : We have learn nothing apparently. We are still on crusades against this and that - war on drugs, war on terror, war on theists, war on atheists.

Where there were once Inquisition as - "Why don't you believe in our own one and only true faith?" Now we also have an Inquisition as, "Why do you believe at all???"

9/11 is reminder of the consequence and cost of hardened heads and hearts, of willful blindness and deafness, of fanaticism, of extremism, of blowbacks, of non-communication and miscommunication, of rage and pride in full throttle.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Chris Everett,

You : Religion contains many noble ideals, but it suffers from so many flaws that on the whole, in the modern era, it is a net negative.

Moi : You do know that belief is personal, and institutionalised/organised religion derived its credibility from the appeal of its creed as well as its power from the support of its adherents.

Religion/denomination/sect switching is a borometer of how people regard faith and organised/institutionalised religion in their life.

If you must go on again on "flaws" in religion, so again:

(a) individual belief - which many believers would not recant even under pain of death.

(b) organised and institutionalised beliefs -
by authorised state religious authorities or acknowledged and recognised leaders of religious entities and organisations

(c) formulated and institionalised dogmas, creeds and interpretations which some believers also questioned, want to change or do away with, or which believers may endeavour to promote in the public square or impose in state policies.

Is it so difficult to differentiate the individual believer from the group or the head of religious entity, no?

There is a "religious test" that believers have for anyone pursuing a public office. He or she has to believe in the "G" or to be spiritual at least. But there is also a "religious test" some atheists have - one can't speak of one's faith in public, utter the "G" word or even have it inscribed in buildings and currencies etc.

You : In the first place, the ideals it contains are not what we value today. They are those of barbarian tribes, for whom slavery, subjugation of women and warfare were the status quo.

Moi : That would contradict with what scientists says on man a slightly more evolved animal and closest mamalian cousins of the apes as a specie. What was and is call tribes, is also ethnic groups, national groups. We still have slavery (cheap and forced labour), we still have subjugation of women (either by law or by social norms and expectations), we still have wars with better and more efficient killing tools. As you do know, one don't need to believe in God or be an adherent of any religion to wage war.

You : Those who disagree are merely projecting their own, more modern ideals, onto the ancient texts. In that case, why even bother with the texts?

Moi : Well, I hear that a lot - this projection thing. When one reads any book, say Toltoi's "War and Peace" or Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" or Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth" one does not project one's modern ideas or ideals in the text.

One recognise, if one does, the "truth" being said in those text on the human condition, human nature, human failings, human desires, human needs, human aspirations etc.

So do the holy books, the ones which first relate on man's eternal desire for "hope" and "change" and tabulation of what is good and what is evil in case some of us can't tell right from wrong, what is ethical and moral and what is not. We do bend, spindle and manipulate even lies - white lies is good.

You : Second is the superstition. I've gotten in to that enough. Corrodes the rational faculties. Third is the factual ignorance.

Moi: "Superstitions" as in tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, Santa Claus etc? I can see why some American believers are really irate with some American atheists in characterising and comparing their belief in God with such - implying that they are childish or childlike in believing in God.

Till the end of time, atheists will say to believers - prove there is a God. Believers will say to atheists, disprove it.

Knowledge acquired by science is limited to it as "facts" we know now and to then build up acquire new facts that may disprove old "facts".

The evident truth is that, there is still much we don't know, even whether Obama is the messiah bringing peace and prosperity as many hope for, or the end of days of economic well-being.

You : Fourth is the absolutism and the stifling of learning.

Moi : Well, looking at the reactions of believers, some of us must really be reading quite a bit on evolution to come up with creationism and now "intelligent design".

We chose to learn what is useful to us and what interest us most. Just because one got straight "As" in all science subjects back in secondary school does not mean one wants to pursue them at tertiary level.

From the posts of some atheists, one would think that all they read on are books by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins. And all they watch is Star Trek TV and movie series and Discovery Channel.

You : Fifth are the organizations of religion and their exploitation of the believers. And so on.

Moi : Sects and denominations, especially the local church, were and are the community unity centre for group mutual support and community action. Now we have secular NGOs and clubs to chose from and be members of in areas of concern and of interest to us in developed countries.

Churches in developing countries still serve the purpose for communities. There is a cost, a price for admission of membership, but the tithes is worth it for many. The churches are only ones giving education and health services. Is this really exploitation? And.....

...are evangelical groups and megachurches really exploiting believers in the US? Or do people saw in them a vehicle, a mechanism, a body of like-minded people to pursue what they all agree at the personal level and for public action?

These religious entities as NGOs. We can't say someone who is contributing to, and active in, say, Greenpeace, is because Greenpeace exploited them as environmentalists. It is all freely joined and participated.

One may disagree with the antics of Greenpeace and support staid and sober World Wildlife Fund instead. Likewise, there are faith-driven and faith-affiliated organisations with different focus, strategies and tactics. And they do cover everything from human rights to the environment unlike the secular NGOs which focussed on specific areas.

You : So religious texts must be cherry picked for whatever valuable nuggets they might contain, and must be unequivocally understood as the products of man.

Moi : This is an oft repeated complain by atheist - cherry picking. Is one only limited to quoting from approved texts and authors?

So, believers don't cherry pick and chose "nuggets" from everyone from Marx to Einstein to Hitchens. What is quoted are what resonates with us, what reaches us, what they mean to us.

Argue against the quotes, but to dismiss the quote because the source or text is deem to be "tainted" with "supertitious" claims and orgins is a wee far.

The Proverbs of the Bible has more truths and reason, and do stand better than some pronouncements such as, "I am an anti-theist".

You : Evidence shows that it is only a minority of people for whom contact with religion is a net positive. For the vast majority it is a trap.

Moi : Was there any survey done on this? Of course if Pew did a survey, and it turns out many say their belief is a positive force in their life, some atheists will not accept that, countering that these believers are so deluded and trapped that they don't even know it. What was it George Orwell wrote in 1984? Ah, "Nothing is your own except the few square centimetres inside your head." There I go, cherry picking on quotes.

You : Nowadays, a much safer, truer and deeper reservoir of wisdom exists in the world's great literature (Shakespeare et al). So why turn to religion at all?

Moi : Shakespeare is one of the thousand authors in the world. Just reading him is not enough. He represent a literary benchmark in the Anglo-Saxon world,but his themes is universal. One would also learn much to read, say "The Tale of Genji", "the Arabian Nights/One Thousand and One Nights etc.

But not even Shakepeare can come out with the debate/dialogue as between Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. Is this a literary or spiritual or religious text? Or just a text on ethics and values?

Nor did Shakespeare came out with verse spirituality and spiritualism as such:
"Light upon light! God doth guide whom It will to Its Light."

Do believers need Enligtenment? Too much reminders in the holy books already to seek and be Enlightened in learning from others, in questioning what to do and the consequences of one's acts. And there is a sign by a road I once saw in the US : "Walk with light." Very apt - to have a torchlight for the dark and unlit road. To have the inner light of humaneness/spirituality in the path of life.

You : I think one of the challenges with spirituality is that it ultimately isn't about ideas, but about lived experience. Maybe it's just about cultivating good habits - avoid obsessive thoughts; cultivate empathy; help out.

Moi : As you are an adherent of Ethical Culture, surely you would agree that ethical culture is really ethics and values derived from religion to do good with the belief in God thrown out.

Ethical culture sprang from Reform Judaism. The key words here is "reform" as in change, and Judaism, which is a monotheistic religion. The history of of the origins of Ethical Culture is telling in that it was forged due to awareness of and experiences of discriminations because of race/religion, and the desire to be mainstreamed and assimilated. It was in the second half of the 19th century that Ethical Culture started. Right?

Surely a believer or atheist can be ethical without subscribing or even knowing of and about Ethical Culture or in attending an ethical culture school? Surely we don't have to insist people give up their beliefs in a deity/deities to be inbued with an ethical culture? After all, non-believers do complain that there is too much talk of ethics and morals and values in the holy books, and stringent ones too.

Spiritual secularism? Spiritual atheism? Looking at the history of Turkey and America respectively and currently on seperation of church and state..... the last Sultan, the last Caliph of the Ottomans, seeing what Kemal Ataturk is doing to Turks and Turkey, noted, "It is not the Constitution that form souls, it is souls that form the Constitution."

What does that mean to you?

It would be interesting if On Faith pose this question - "Salman Rushdie noted there is a God-shaped hole in modern life. What does that mean to you?"

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Good point, Neal. It's unclear why anyone would assume that "consciousness, emotion, intuition, cognition" would involve the supernatural in the first place. There's nothing about these that seem supernatural.

Hi Arminius,

As I said before, there's no pressure. Putting something THAT personal on a site like this can be really disheartening if people decide to pick it apart. There are some really angry people out there. If you do put it here I hope that won't be the case. Please don't feel you have to if it doesn't feel right.

Blessed be. :)

Priver,

I'll see what I can do. It ain't exactly earth-shaking. No conversing with burning shrubbery, no Road to Damascus, no stone tablets, or anything like that.

Actually, it might do me good to recount it.

Arminius

HI Neal,you said this:

"Until consciousness, emotion, intuition, cognition and other such concepts can somehow be demonstrated to exist without dependence on the proper functioning of one's noodle, I'm compelled to assume they're natural phenomena and can be eventually explained without appeal to the supernatural. "

I agree with you and I'll take it one step further- that what if even those phenomena that are currently called 'super'-natural might be just aspects of nature that science hasn't figured out yet?

Just my opinion.

Hi Arminius,

Then I shall await with bated breath.. the story of Arminius.

Told as are all great stories in the shadows of the Bards of old, complete with music. (I don't have a harp, will an almost professional singing voice do?) :)

Exuberance is a good word. It seems to be missing in a lot of places these days. We call it 'reverence and mirth'- and it's a huge part of it for us.

And afterwards, the feasting will begin!

Bring your own ale. ;)

I don't know where in Italy my father's folks came from so there *may* be a little bit there if they're from the North. I have no idea where my grandfather's parents were from- he doesn't either. Making the research hard to follow.

I've got Italian, Russian, Polish and who knows what else. Go figure.

In an effort to surrender to the actual topic for once...

Until consciousness, emotion, intuition, cognition and other such concepts can somehow be demonstrated to exist without dependence on the proper functioning of one's noodle, I'm compelled to assume they're natural phenomena and can be eventually explained without appeal to the supernatural.

I agree with others that the term "non-religious spiritualists" seems to be not so much a contradiction as it is a statement of degree. By sharing a belief in the supernatural, many spiritualists seem to be religious people at heart...just without the leaders, dogma and hats.

Aloha

the spiritual and not religiouos crowd isnt just looking for an out, hedging out bets.

personally, i believe in some sort of higher power. i belive that it took some divine act to create everything. i cant believe it just is, i need to belive in something more.

its a need and desire to belive in something, and also part of human nature. we fill in blanks in our knowlegde with divine beings, higher powers.

but as an educated person, i cant belive in any religion ive been exposed to. the specifics are to often ridiculous or contradictory. but i cant help but belive in sommething.

thats human nature.

the spiritual and not religiouos crowd isnt just looking for an out, hedging out bets.

personally, i believe in some sort of higher power. i belive that it took some divine act to create everything. i cant believe it just is, i need to belive in something more.

its a need and desire to belive in something, and also part of human nature. we fill in blanks in our knowlegde with divine beings, higher powers.

but as an educated person, i cant belive in any religion ive been exposed to. the specifics are to often ridiculous or contradictory. but i cant help but belive in sommething.

thats human nature.

loco_moco:

Some good stuff there! "When the student becomes receptive, the teacher appears." Perhaps that is what happened to me. I did not know I was receptive, but I certainly was.

Also, you said, "...I likewise feel no need to justify myself by trying to fit my personal experience into anyone else's paradigm so they will accept it as valid."

Exactly. As you say, a personal seeking. The difference here between you and me, a difference which is no problem, is that I have taken the path of Christianity. The difference between me and those who have been in that religion all their lives is that I came back into it from the outside. And I came back into it with a mountain of skepticism. It took four readings of the Gospels before I was convinced. Note that the Old Testament, and the book of revelations, had no bearing on my decision.

Thanks, let's keep up the dialog.

Arminius

That sentence in my last post should be, "Perhaps 'naturalistic' would be a better term/"

Susan, as much as I admire your writings here, I see your point about social disapproval as missing the larger issue. Theistic religion has claimed a monopoly on questions regarding death, suffering, morality, ethics, the nature of being, and so forth. A big part of the mission of skepticism is to break that monopoly, to establish ways of contemplating those questions without any claims or beliefs about things beyond the material.

Priver,

I will consider relating my experience. If you do write a book about such things - and I think that would be a good thing - I will most certainly tell you about it. Funny thing about it - no big thing on the surface, the big thing was its effect on me. I have described it here on 'On Faith' once before. I need to word it better.

Celtic, ah, yes. Where's my claymore and usquebaugh? From my father's side, Irish and Scot. I am of Clan Scott. I have no problem with Taffy's viewpoint, but the history of Celts, that people of poetry, creativity, and exuberant religion, is fraught with spiritualism. I apparently am in thrall by it, to some extent at least.

With respect,

Arminius

I concur with Arminius on the power of personal experience. Perhaps he'll allow me to paraphrase a quote from a different lineage: "When the student becomes receptive, the teacher appears."

Now, naturally, some of those who have not themselves experienced this sort of paradigm shift are likely to respond that this so-called "evidence" is nothing more than anecdotal.

Far be it from me to dispute this, yet I'm not bothered by it in the least; for I have no desire to convert those folks -- believing, as I do, that only their own personal experience could precipitate a similar conversion.

The corollary is that I likewise feel no need to justify myself by trying to fit my personal experience into anyone else's paradigm so they will accept it as valid.

I am one who counts myself as a spiritual seeker and pilgrim who isn't particularly tied to one liturgy or catechism. Spirit is eternal, but these others are fungible. I'm far from the only one who holds this opinion, and I offer it as one quite benign explanation of why Americans are recently more prone to church-hopping.

"Spirituality can be instinctive, but it is mostly a conscious quest for a state of mind, a state of being just, compassionate and caring, a way of being closer to God and fellow men in pursuing the the Rigth Path for one without transgressing on others."

Jihadist, that is close to what I have in mind. That should work in a naturalistic framework, without any claims about supernatural beings. Part of my point is that there are six billion Right Paths, but too many religions insist that there is only one Right Path for the entire human race.

"secular spirituality...does sound like a state promoted project, a state imposed and sanctioned state philosophy for all its citizens regardless of their personal beliefs."

Why does that sound state-related to you? I was simply using "secular" as the opposite of "religious doctrine about supernatural beings." Perhaps "naturalistic" would be a better terms.

"It is really personal to the individual as how he or she regard the human existence, the human condition, the state of society and what to do about it."

Absolutely.

"Humanism as ethics and values would suffice to be applied for all who pursue an ethical and compassionate life regardless of the sources and reasons for his or her ethical and moral values."

While I agree, my definition of "the nature of human existence" also includes the topic of dealing the inevitability of death and suffering. That's somewhat separate from humanism.

"The experience that led me out of non-belief to belief was not a little like a Pagan event, or at least one a Pagan would appreciate."

Now you've gone and piqued my curiosity, but if you don't want to post it here I will certainly respect that. You really might be surprised, dear Arminius. Try me, if you wish. :)

It's the one thing that I am absolutely curious about, too- and hope to base a book around someday with the permissions granted by those who have had such experiences.

A wise person told me once that 'The universe speaks to us in whichever voice will get us jumping off our duffs and making gigantic changes in our lives'.

My path is also Celtic based, thanks to an amazing Celtic shaman and teacher- even though I don't think I have a drop of Celtic blood in me. It's really odd to me how that worked out. :)

If I can, I'll answer any questions to the best of my ability. :)

And Taffy:

Not all Celts have to be superstitious. You are loved just as you are.

I'm a Celt, from Wales; from a long line of Celts from the Welsh coast...Dylan Thomas country.
I'm a happy atheist. Don't believe in gods or fairies. Why you think a Celt should necessarily be superstitious is beyond me.
Reality is interesting enough for this Celt. I don't feel a need to make things up and believe in magic; the real world is breathtaking just as it is.

Priver, Well Met!

The experience that led me out of non-belief to belief was not a little like a Pagan event, or at least one a Pagan would appreciate. I have many Pagan/Wiccan friends on these blogs. And I must confess to an interest in things Pagan. In my blood, maybe, got a fair bit of Celtic in my background. It resonates....

Arminius

MMA Arminius, you said this:

"The third type is someone who has experienced something in his life that can only be explained by the existence of something beyond the material. Something that turned his whole life around, made a believer out of a three-decade atheist. I am one of the third type. No proof. I can't even rationally explain it. I can relate what happened, but it does not really describe what happened to me. All I can do is leave it at that."

I have had experiences that are very similar to what you describe.. and that led me to Paganism.
Isn't interesting that similar events in two different people can lead to differing conclusions?

I think it's wonderful and should be celebrated as an indication that the Divine loves diversity.

Blessed be. :)

Arminius;

If Newton had been into astrology it would not have surprised me; though I'm inclined to accept Chris's view that he wasn't.
The best and wisest of men are often still men of their time, with the prejudices and beliefs of their time.
Most everyone before about 1850 believed in gods,withcraft, astrology, ghosts and all manner of supernatural phenomena. In those days I probably would have believed it all too. The West was, after all, still Christendom in Newton's time.

But these are enlightened times. No philosopher or scientist these days would consider astrology has having any credibility at all. Ditto other supernatural phenomena.

Chris,

I did a short web research on Newton and astrology. It seems you are correct, and I was misled by false reasoning. Alchemy, yes. Thanks for the reminder.

Regarding spiritual. There is a third type of person beyond those who are into signs and portents, and beyond those who meditate, chant, and examine their navels. The third type is someone who has experienced something in his life that can only be explained by the existence of something beyond the material. Something that turned his whole life around, made a believer out of a three-decade atheist. I am one of the third type. No proof. I can't even rationally explain it. I can relate what happened, but it does not really describe what happened to me. All I can do is leave it at that.

Arminius

Arminus,

I'm fairly certain Newton was not into astrology. If you have any sources I'd like to see them. I've read several biographies of him and have browsed around on the Newton Project website, which has all (or nearly all) of his writings on line, and I have never seen any reference to astrology. He was, however, deeply interested in alchemy and spent far more time on alchemical experiments than on math or physics. He also was an arian (sp?) who denied the trinity and spent enormous amounts of time trying to "reconstruct" true religion from the study of a very broad spectrum of different scriptural traditions. He considered it idolatry to equate Jesus with God.

On the topic of "spiritual but not religious," I associate that term with people who are superstitious in that they believe in the supernatural, but do not want their beliefs to be constrained by any particular religious dogma. They want the freedom to develop their own loose dogma based on their own intuitions.

I associate the isolated term "spiritual" with two different types of people. One type ascribes supernatural meanings to concrete events. These are the people who see signs and portents, practice astrology, interpret dreams, or believe they are psychic. Superstition run amok. The other type comes from eastern traditions, and are those who are interested in understanding, observing, and cultivating their conscious awareness. They are the chanters and meditators. They may be superstitious or they may simply be interested in the nature of subjective experience.

Solange:

You said: "Your gullibility reminds me of those poor gullible fools who followed the Rev Jim Jones down to Jonestown back in the seventies, drank his Koolade and accompanied him to Paradise."

My reply: I don't agree with Gideon either, but I submit that your reply was a bit harsh. A reasoned argument would have been more appropriate, rather than a screed.

You said: "People can be made to believe the most ludicrous propositions."

My reply: Indeed, many can. Witness astrology - although Newton was a fan of that, oddly enough. Also witness our current president and the war in Iraq.

You said: "It pays to be more skeptical and to examine ideas with the light of reason. Superstitious propositions just don't cut it."

My reply: It is possible to be spiritual and religious, and also skeptical. I am accepting of the spiritual, but more than a bit skeptical when I approach the religious.

Arminius

Gideon;

Your gullibility reminds me of those poor gullible fools who followed the Rev Jim Jones down to Jonestown back in the seventies, drank his Koolade and accompanied him to Paradise.

People can be made to believe the most ludicrous propositions.

It pays to be more skeptical and to examine ideas with the light of reason. Superstitious propositions just don't cut it.

Lisa:

Agreed on the charm school bit; I, for one, could certainly benefit. If only we could convert Marie Osmond or Vanna White...

GaryD:

I wouldn't know a proton from a quark if they hit me the face, but it doesn't take a physicist to doubt the existence of invisible fairies in her or his crab-apple tree when, among other things, *all* the books on fairies are contradictory and "feelings" aren't accepted as "evidence".

Incidentally, the best proof I've found for the existence of a god with a sense of humor is the fact that William of Occam was a Catholic monk.

Neal:

I'm not saying atheists are grumpy, therefore God exists. I'm saying that there's nothing that would help the cause of atheism more than charm school.

I start reading Ms. Jacoby's column and 2 sentences in, I'm bored. Same old stuff - believers are idiots who are ruining the world. Snore.

GaryD, "It seems to me that the only default position would be the agnostic - I don't know and in fact can't know."

I don't know, and can't know, that vampires and werewolves are fictional. Nevertheless, not believing in them is something I don't need to qualify to anyone. It's assumed as a given, unless explicitly stated otherwise. In fact, if I made a point of telling you that I'm agnostic about the existence of vampires and werewolves you'd probably think I was a bit odd.

When it comes to the question of gods, people suddenly feel they have to (and are often pressured to) split hairs. That has little to do with logic and everything to do with the social pressure exerted by the religious.

"I don't know and in fact can't know" is true about all supernatural claims that have ever been made, or ever will be made. It's only with god that people have to spell out the obvious as if it were some kind of enlightened stance as opposed to simply an obvious truism.

Being an optimist I figure this century has to be religion's last.
We have access to information in this modern era, that our ancestors could only dream of.
Just a hundred years ago newspapers were just beginning, not everybody could read, electricity was in few homes, automobiles were happening, and a whole new world was just taking off, leaving the darker ages behind for ever.
Now we have it all; computers, the net, radio and television,CD's, DVD's, IPods and Blackberries,newspapers,magazines,books, and a greater knowledge of the world, and a greater mastery of science and technology than the most optimistic could ever have hoped for.
We are becoming too literate and too knowledgeable to take religious thinking seriously for too much longer. More and more people are having second thoughts about the irrationality of it all, and, since 9/11 we see how terribly dangerous it is too.
As the world becomes more educated and literacy levels rise, and computer and internet access grows worldwide, religious superstition would seem to be a commodity increasingly unreal,and irrelevant; a relic of our weird and brutal past.

As there is no god,
Insisting that there really is one
is kinda schizophrenic and delusional.

Alfred Hitchcock. 1952

Quit blaming every Christian on the face of the earth for the sins of the Roman Catholic church.

I am dead set against the notion of a theocracy, be it in the name of God or not god. What I and every other Christian and most other people of whatever religious belief are sick and tired of is the incontrovertible fact that when we present different ways of looking at the evidence you keep citing for the non existence of God never mind that none exist we keep getting treated as if we're some sort of idiot's step child for disagreeing with atheists many of whom know even less about science than we do.

Quit blaming every Christian on the face of the earth for the sins of the Roman Catholic church.

I am dead set against the notion of a theocracy, be it in the name of God or not god. What I and every other Christian and most other people of whatever religious belief are sick and tired of is the incontrovertible fact that when we present different ways of looking at the evidence you keep citing for the non existence of God never mind that none exist we keep getting treated as if we're some sort of idiot's step child for disagreeing with atheists many of whom no even less about science than we do.

If one disagrees with the person saying "There's a God who loves us and created the universe" etc.,then one is being rude and insulting to the beliefs of that person, and should be thrashed soundly and boiled in oil until he retracts the insults and promises to believe that God is a reality and to pray to him for forgiveness five times a day facing Mecca.

Lisa:

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but you seemed to making an Argument From Grumpiness, so to speak, i.e. atheists are grumpy, therefore god exists. Forgive me if I was wrong. (I also do not see how "style vs. substance" does not equate fairly closely to "talk vs. walk", but that's a minor point.)

While I would disagree that all atheists are "rude, fanatical and obnoxious", as you seem to imply, I can certainly understand why some might be. After all, simple, straightforward requests from atheists for *any* falsifiable evidence for *any* god's existence, since at least the time Epicurus, have been consistently answered with either vague, shifting suppositions and hand waving (if they were lucky) or torture and death (if they weren't.) Under those circumstances, perhaps you'd be a little less than charitable too.

I find it interesting and encouraging that you don't know of John Hagee, but do seem to know so much about atheists. While Pastor Hagee can't be happy that so much of his evangelical seed has apparently been spilled upon the ground, I take this as a sign of better times ahead for the non-believing crowd.

Sorry Gerry but that is the risk you run when you oversimplify.

Why must the default position be that there is no God given that it least one God has said that only though his efforts would you come to know him? It seems to me that the only default position would be the agnostic - I don't know and in fact can't know.

The same by the way would be true to one extent or the other for any God who supposedly created this Universe since to have done so would mean that such a God must have existed before this universe and must have his existence external to it.

The default position on the god question has to be that there is no god.
Surely it is that simple and that straightforward.
Some say there is a god. But where is this god?
It would seem that god is either a metaphor,a hypothesis,a pipe dream,or a delusion.
There is no evidence to suggest that any god ever existed, anywhere, anytime, outside of our imaginations; while at the same we know there's no limit to what our imaginations conjure up for us all the time.(Apollo,Zeus,Thor,Krishna,Amun,Balder,Wotan Isis,etc,ad infinitum).

It's no stretch to conclude that the current god too is made up,like all the others. As Voltaire said,"If there were no god,the people would have to invent one".
It seems we've invented hundreds of them.It's what we do.
The people need a god,so they invent one; it seems they always have. The cosmos and existence are great puzzles which we may never solve.In lieu of a solution,we make-believe there's a Bigdaddy in the sky who made everything,and who loves us and will assure us that we will never die. A comforting,but infantile fairy story,which is believed by only the fearful,the desperate,and the deluded.
And it certainly helps to be indoctrinated when you are a little child;when there's no option but to believe whatever the grownups tell you; especially when it's reinforced by the community. You will grow up to believe it's true, even if it's not.

If the atheists prove to be correct, that there is no god, then nobody will ever know it because everybody will all be dead. "The dead know nothing."

If the (true) Christians and Jews are correct, the atheists will never know it, but the Sons of God will live forever in Paradise while the thoughts of this world will no more come to mind.

Then, there's those tweeners, who moan in their graves and haunt the earth as demons, waiting for eternal punishment. "Terror shall chase them into the darkness, and the smoke of their torment shall rise up forever."

There is no argument sufficient to persuade either camp, but when you see an asteroid or meteroid or comet the size of a mountain plunge into the sea, as St. John prophesied, you'll be pretty sure who got it right. Until then, there's no point in discussing the matter.

Be sure to watch computer animations of the event on the Discovery and Science channels.

DANIEL IN THE LION'S DEN:

"...nothing new under the sun..." is from Ecclesiastes.

Neal:

1) I have no idea who John Hagee is.

2) I don't see it as a matter of style over substance. I see it as a matter of talk vs. walk. Atheists may be rude, fanatical and obnoxious, but at least they're consistent.

After reading these posts and pondering them, I realize to my surprise that I am not spiritual.

If being spiritual means having to believe in a skygod and a devil, and a Heaven and a Hell, and all the rest of it, then I'm not spiritual.That's all so laughably childish I'm surprised ANYBODY can believe any of it.

But I know people do believe such nonsense, and even blow themselves up for their beliefs. That's the part that scares me.
I think it's time we put aside such childish nonsense and grew up. God is no more real than Mickey Mouse.

Chip,

you are right: The poster Gary D misunderstood my position in exactly the way you describe, alas.

Since the essence or the value of communication is decided on the receiving side, I have to adjust. I must simply omit the "spiritual" epithet, leaving the word "atheist" as just what it describes very precisely. It does not describe any value nor any deficiency, just an operational fact.

Thanks.

Gerry, I was sure you didn't mean spiritual in the disembodied spirit sense. I agree that language is fluid, unfortunately. It leads to so much misunderstanding and the dilution of our ability as people to understand one another. It creates many unintended consequences - The atheist/agnostic divide being my favorite example. Imprecise use of language has led one group of people to become two when for all intents and purposes they're still exactly the same. I dislike the word "spiritual" because when someone such as yourself uses it you give a great deal of leeway for the religious to hear what they want to hear instead of what you're really trying to say. Yours is a position that deserves a more precise definition.

Whether or not there's a God is simply a matter of opinion.

And in my opinion there is no God.

There endeth the lesson.

Garyd,

thanks for the instruction. The "is" question (I said "in part", because it was an important religious issue for Luther, hence for protestantism, understand?) was not one of the 95 theses, which I had the pleasure to see at the church door in Wittenberg a few months ago (in Latin). But thanks for enlightening your stupid contemporaries, we never stop learning.

The theses were attached to the Wittenberg church door in 1517, the 30 years' war was from 1618-1648.

I don't wear hats.

Gary D.

You said ”The reality is that a person who claims to be spiritual but not religious isn't a person who is otherwise a secularist but one who really hasn't found a place to hang his or her hat yet.”

Not so.

I hang my hat here.

• We are all divine beings; an actual part of God. In essence we are God.
• We are all one at the supra-conscious level (God consciousness)
• God is both the creator and the created
• God, life, love and change are interchangeable.
• Freedom is paramount.
• God has no need, including a need for us to believe in him/her.
• Linear time is an illusion. Everything that can and will happen all ready has happened.
• We manifest as individual beings so that God can experience what he is not which is separate from anything else.
• Heaven and Hell are not physical places, but at best a state of mind
• The physical world is a relative world. Opposites can not exist without each other; hot/cold, good/evil, black/white. Nothing is inherently bad, including evil. Without evil we can not know good.
• No human is any more worthy than another.

While atheist will say how can I prove any of this. I can not. I base my beliefs on everything I have read and on personal experience. I constantly challenge my beliefs by asking is it possible? I apply logic to my beliefs and theories and explore from there.

I am not a secularist in spiritual clothing.

I admire secularists for their logic. I will take an atheist over a fundamentalist almost every time.

On a personal note I have comment that comes from very low consciousness. I think Hagee is a nutcase.

GaryD,

Luther could have saved us a lot of time by publishing only the following five theses:

1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

Lisa: --"Personally, I don't think it would take much to move people into the secularist/atheist column - the biggest hindrance there being stridence and fanaticism of public atheists. I sometimes wonder if these apostles of skepticism realize just how negatively dripping scorn, smug condescension and insults come across to the average person."

If it's just a matter of style over substance, I'd still rather spend three weeks in a canoe with Christopher Hitchens, at his worst, than three minutes in one of John Hagee's pews.

The reality is that a person who claims to be spiritual but not religious isn't a person who is otherwise a secularist but one who really hasn't found a place to hang his or her hat yet.

Gerry there were ninety-five thesis not one. The thirty years war is vastly more complicated than you make it out to be. You've got everything there from nascent nationalism, to religious restoration all rolled into one enormous ball of worms.

Chip and Meg,

I think we have to agree that there are often different meanings in a word. If someone is "in high spirits" he doesn't necessarily have to believe in ghosts.

But then, Chip, of course you are right, if one understands "spiritual" as having to do with ghosts, with individual entities apart from a body, I am not spiritual. But in the sense of "concerning an open, free mind", and in the sense of overarching natural systemic principles we all depend on and are embedded in, I regard myself as spiritual.

Language often deceives us...

Alone the word "god" has millions of meanings, and to describe them people again have to use arbitrary misleading words that lead to wars and hatred over concepts neither party has a faint idea what they are talking about. Many describe "god" as the "undescribable", so we better just leave it there.

The 30 years' war was in part fought over the meaning of the word "is" (no, I don't refer to Billy, lol!): This "IS" my flesh etc, or this "MEANS" my flesh etc. To defend the meaning of "is", religious sophists invented the curious concept of "transubstantiation". As curious as the concept of "trinity". Has anybody a real concept what "trinity" means? I have never found anybody, lol! All you get as an answer is a barrage of empty meaningless word tinkling.

Religion always obfuscates clear thinking, therefore I stay an avowed a-theist. I regard the ability to think clearly as the most valuable "god-given" present we have. Look what happens with religious "thinking" (quotation marks indispensable!) as we look at a "dead end point" of evolution like Hagee!

Daniel.ITLD

Hi Daniel.You quote "There's nothing new under the sun".

Really?

That may have been true for the middle-eastern gent who first said that, but he never saw an automobile.
He never saw a camera or a bicycle. He never saw an ocean liner or a jet plane or a ball-pen or a watch.
He never saw a light bulb or a newspaper. Or a television set or a computer or a DVD player or an Ipod or a Blackberry or a pair of sunglasses.

All he saw under the sun was sand, camels, and some palm trees.

Just a thought.

I guess I think of spiritual life as what goes on in my mind, as opposed to things that go on outside it.
Like Descarte,(and everybody else) I 'think'. I ponder. I consider this,and analyze that. I imagine and hypothesize. I plot and scheme. I fantasize and dream.
But perhaps religious folk don't see that as being spiritual. So ok. Maybe I'm not spiritual. But as an atheist it's the best I can do.

Gerry, I have to ask, why use the word "spiritual" at all? Words do have literal meanings after all, and spiritual quite plainly means "of the spirit." The spirit or soul is a purely supernatural concept that has its roots firmly planted in religion and magical thinking. It's a necessary concept for those who wish to believe that they can somehow live on and transcend the death of their physical body. It's not at all a necessary concept for simply having a sense of awe and wonder, an emotional connection to nature and the universe, a thirst for knowledge, and an open mind. In fact using the term to describe such people does them a disservice by implying that one must be open to the supernatural in order to embody those qualities. I respectfully suggest you find a different word. Spiritual atheism is an oxymoron and it obfuscates the commendable state of mind you're trying to elucidate.

Spiritual Mongrel:

A really good post, thanks, I am in agreement. I will comment on one thing you said:

"I think spirituality is about both ideas and lived experience. Ideas take us in new directions and life is the feedback loop that tells us which direction we go next. It is an endless cycle.

It is these types of ideas and concepts that transcend religion that we need to focus on. They are useful to both the atheist and theist. They work whether God exists or not."

The spiritual is indeed about ideas and lived experience, and their interaction. But, in my view, it can be more. It is about a seeking, a quest, about what one's life is all about and how to live it. And, as you said, it is unending. Religious texts are not a bunch of rules, but a series of doorways. And it ain't easy.

Arminius

Chris Everett.

I agree Jihadist’s post was well done and I may comment on it yet.

I thought your post was phrased quite well.

“Fourth is the absolutism and the stifling of learning.”

This does a great disservice to humanity. Obviously this is a scourge to humanists, but I would argue it is even a scourge to theists. Assuming God exists I think we are so woefully lacking in knowledge about the true state of God that we must strive to expand our knowledge. How do we move forward as a race/civilization if stifle learning?

You also said religion should be “cherry picked for whatever valuable nuggets they might contain”. I couldn’t agree more.

The other point you made that I wanted to comment on was

“the challenges with spirituality is that it ultimately isn't about ideas, but about lived experience. Maybe it's just about cultivating good habits - avoid obsessive thoughts; cultivate empathy; help out.”

I think spirituality is about both ideas and lived experience. Ideas take us in new directions and life is the feedback loop that tells us which direction we go next. It is an endless cycle.

It is these types of ideas and concepts that transcend religion that we need to focus on. They are useful to both the atheist and theist. They work whether God exists or not.

The work because we are all one and when we work as if we are all one we see tremendous results.

Ms Jacoby:
I believe the gist of your article is to have the silent majority be alert and resist the tendencies of influential minorities, such as the Christian Fundemantists, to push the country toward a Theocracy. You want to affirm the separation of Church and State.
We are seeing now the fruits of such systems around the world, and if we are stupid enough to opt for such barbarism then we deserve that punishment.

Concerning the word 'spiritual': it is apparent that there are several definitions at play here.

First, Gerry's definition of 'spiritual atheist'. I can now accept that, as applied to Gerry and others who agree with him. But I do not accept it as a universal definition.

Second, me. I am spiritual and religious, as I have said before. Thus, to me, spiritual means something that transcends the material world but is in it too. I do not ask that anyone else accept that definition as the only one, it is not; I only ask that they accept that it is one of several definitions.

Yes, some people who say they are 'spiritual but not religious' are employing a defense mechanism. But others that I have known mean just that - a belief, of some sort, without the ritual trappings.

Finally, as to those 'nasty non-believers'. In my experience, the vast majority of non-believers are by no means nasty. But some are, and they often write books. I hasten to add that Ms Jacoby is NOT nasty. Sarcastic, yes, to a fault. But not nasty.

Arminius

Ooops please correct the typo in, "one warmongering, hallucinating, greed and lust driven, ILLITERATE, Arab whose stench continues to threaten world peace."

Oh there "Reality challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

You noted:

"After all, all the religious texts and the works of the Enlightenment figures and philosophers throught the ages all deal with human existence, the human condition and the meaning of life."

That is hardly the case with the koran, a book filled with hate for anyone not following the dictates of one warmongering, hallucinating, greed and lust driven, illiterat Arab whose stench continues to threaten world peace.

Jihadist,

Eloquent post.

I believe that Humanism best supports man's quest for meaning in an honest way. Religion contains many noble ideals, but it suffers from so many flaws that on the whole, in the modern era, it is a net negative. In the first place, the ideals it contains are not what we value today. They are those of barbarian tribes, for whom slavery, subjugation of women and warfare were the status quo. Those who disagree are merely projecting their own, more modern ideals, onto the ancient texts. In that case, why even bother with the texts? Second is the superstition. I've gotten in to that enough. Corrodes the rational faculties. Third is the factual ignorance. Produces "intelligent design" and all that. Fourth is the absolutism and the stifling of learning. Fifth are the organizations of religion and their exploitation of the believers. And so on.

So religious texts must be cherry picked for whatever valuable nuggets they might contain, and must be unequivocally understood as the products of man. Otherwise... BOOM! A religionist is born. Evidence shows that it is only a minority of people for whom contact with religion is a net positive. For the vast majority it is a trap.

Nowadays, a much safer, truer and deeper reservoir of wisdom exists in the worlds great literature (Shakespeare et al). So why turn to religion at all?

I think one of the challenges with spirituality is that it ultimately isn't about ideas, but about lived experience. Maybe it's just about cultivating good habits - avoid obsessive thoughts; cultivate empathy; help out.

Those who are spiritual but not religious might be trying to state a view: that all religions are
interconnected on the "religious path", but that there are other paths to God...science, philosophy, art etc. Those who are spiritual but not religious see the endless battle between religious dogmas and therefore the uselessness of getting into that war.

Those who are spiritual but not religious may be trying to say that the separation of church and state is necessary because of this endless war of sects, dogmas. BUT, spirituality (which can be defined as anything which uplifts humanity) is essential in political life because politics is (or should be)the art of bringing people together to enhance expression of spiritual aspiration.
This is Obama's secret weopon...he is speaking to human spiritual aspiration.

Ethics and morality are not enforced by religion, or else we would have a lot more ethical and moral behavior. Human behavior is essentially based on cause and effect...and whether you call it karma or "sowing and reaping", or "what goes around comes around"...what you think or do does come back to you. People know this instinctively, and even when religions say you can get a pass by stating your belief in so and so, people know the truth...thank goodness.

All of the isms, including atheism, agnosticsm, Catholicism, Prebyterianism, Buddhism...all the isms are coming to an end and something new will evolve out of human spiritual aspiration. What will it be? Hint: Maitreya is the Buddha's brother and the 5th Buddha, Maitreya Buddha; Jesus is Maitreya's disciple, a Master of Wisdom; Jesus gave the Koran to Mohammed, who was Jesus's senior disciple; Maitreya manifested as Krishna; Jesus came to the Jews as their Messiah, and was a disciple through whom Maitreya (the Christ)worked..thus Jesus became Jesus Christ.

We are entering a new enlightenment which is far more extensive than most realize. It will change the world, if we don't destroy the world beforehand.

Dear Susan,

I am an atheist, one of those "nasty non-believers". I don't fend off (don't have to fend off) any social disapproval. But still, the meaning of the word "spiritual" does not (maybe outside the US) describe a belief in anything "supernatural". It describes the desire to think, research, learn, use one's brain to the highest possible degree, stay open to new knowledge and surprises. It is "geistig" in German, and does not have the slightest religious implication, as compared to "geistlich", meaning belonging to a religion, mostly used for priests.

That is why I stick to the concept of "spiritual atheist". The implication you suggest as describing a lukewarm coward was a surprise to me and certainly is not valid for me at all.

Cheer up, Ms. Jacoby. The US and indeed the world, is packed to the gills with functional atheists if not nominal atheists. If you asked the majority of people who profess to believe in God how much they thought about God, considered God in decision-making, ordered their priorities around their devotion to God, are motivated to action out of love for God, I think it would quickly become apparent that we are a God-ignoring culture no matter what statistics may say about church attendance and religious affiliations.

Personally, I don't think it would take much to move people into the secularist/atheist column - the biggest hindrance there being stridence and fanaticism of public atheists. I sometimes wonder if these apostles of skepticism realize just how negatively dripping scorn, smug condescension and insults come across to the average person. But after listening to some speeches and reading columns such as the one Ms. Jacoby writes every week, I've come to the conclusion that they can't help it.

I agree with several bloggers who have suggested that declaring oneself to be "spiritual, but not religious" is often a way of fending off the social disapproval that adheres to Americans who say openly that they are atheists who do not believe in any supernatural being. Or beings. This translates as, "Even though I don't belong to any church, I'm not one of those nasty nonbelievers."

While WAPO readers discuss America's religious infidelities-- The Iranian parliament is discussing a new penal code, under which citizens who convert from another religion will face execution. People wake up!

THE PRICE OF FAITHLESSNESS

Iran to Punish Apostasy with Death

Apostasy -- or the formal renunciation of religion -- is already punishable in Iran with death. But now, Iran wants to make the death penalty for apostasy part of the penal code. The European Union is concerned and has asked Iran to reconsider.

The European Union this week sent a letter to authorities in Iran expressing its concern over a proposed change to the penal code that would make apostasy punishable by death.

The EU is responding to news that the Islamic Republic is planning to subject "apostasy, heresy and witchcraft" to the Hudud -- the body of fixed punishments assigned to crimes that are considered violations of the "claims of God." Other Hadud crimes include alcohol consumption, theft, highway robbery and illegal sexual intercourse.

As the news agency Reuters reported earlier this week, the EU, which opposes the death penalty as a matter of policy, expressed "acute concern" over the proposed penal code revision.

"These articles clearly violate the Islamic Republic of Iran's commitments under the international human rights conventions," Slovenian leaders, who currently head the rotating EU presidency, wrote in a statement.

"The EU calls upon the Iranian authorities, both in government and parliament, to modify the draft penal code in order to respect the obligations."

The death penalty has already been applied to apostates in Iran -- but this was never, since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979, institutionalized as a matter of legal practice.

Iran typically dismisses Western criticism of its legal system, claiming that Islamic law is fundamentally different.

The main concern seems to be arising from the Baha'i faith, which forms a religious minority in Iran but, unlike Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, is not officially recognized by the regime.

On Thursday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the Baha'i community in Germany is particularly worried about the fate of three Iranian Baha'i, who were arrested in 2006 in the southern Iranian city of Schiras for having founded a center for Baha'i children and youth. They were sentenced to four years imprisonment and are said to be in a secret service rather than normal prison.

At the beginning of February, the EU officially protested the sentence and expressed its concern about the "worsening situation for ethnic and religious minorities in Iran, in particular that of the Baha'i." The Iranian court defended its decision on the basis that the Baha'i, in promoting their faith, were spreading propaganda "against the Islamic regime."

The Baha'i faith developed out of Shia Islam in the 19th century and its followers have been subject to discrimination for generations.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,538466,00.html

Jihadist,

I appreciate your gradual turn away from the superstitious angle of religion in your last reply to Tonio and other posts towards a more open and free discussion of the issues, taking possibilities into account instead of "truths". Thank you for this.

Only, when you say:

"...spirituality" is the quest for the ideals as laid out in the holy books for us to rise above the baser human nature, to have individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions affecting us and others" -

I must sharply contradict. We don't need any "holy books" to lead a rich and meaningful and responsible life. If we take all the baseness, terrible "divine" murders, "divine" crime, "divine" jealousy, "divine" revenge, "divine" genocide and above all "divine" superstition in those "holy books" as an example, we are creating "hell" on our little earth.

(For each occurrence of "divine" try to substitute "human" to show the real nature of religion.)

For me, as a "spiritual atheist", "spirituality" is the quest for the ideals necessary to live a life of dignity, curiosity, openness, and respect together. Religion has never "lifted" anybody from the "baser" human nature (50 times as many religiously affiliated criminals in prison than atheists, PROPORTIONALLY!), and of course we have "individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions affecting us and others" (well said!) without having to resort to the stick and carrot corruption religions offer us to wield their power over brain-washed people who never got beyond their Santa Claus stage of reality.

Religion produces such monsters as John Hagee, who proves to me that a civilization that does not put such dangerous idiots into the insane asylum for the rest of their life is doomed. McCaine endorsing this monster does not bode well for the US.

Has religion "raised" the crusaders, the Inquisition, the 30 years' war parties or the 9/11 killers above the "baser" human nature?

I look forward to you doing the next step in realizing that religions (human historical artifacts) were a means to cut the greater moral necessity into a smaller, manageable ritual at a time when little information about reality, even "spiritual" reality, was available.

Hello Tonio,

You : "I'm simply proposing a secular spirituality as a goal. How would you suggest we get there? What kind of conversation can we have about human existence in a naturalistic framework?"

Secular spirituality? That's a thought.

From the belief and perspective of a believer (a Muslim one anyway), "spirituality" is the quest for the ideals as laid out in the holy books for us to rise above the baser human nature, to have individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions affecting us and others.

"Spirituality" is not prayers. Praying is devoutness. Spirituality can be instinctive, but it is mostly a conscious quest for a state of mind, a state of being just, compassionate and caring, a way of being closer to God and fellow men in pursuing the the Rigth Path for one without transgressing on others.

Admittedly, I do leave philosophical, economic and political theories, Islamic history and jurisprudence I've read in universities in my current life and work. They are only references and guidelines and not cast in stone.

As I do ignore some Suras of the Qur'an, many quetionable Hadiths and am most doubtful on Shariah applications, I have no compunction in ignoring some of what Voltaire or John Locke or Nietzsche et al wrote.

The reality during the time of the Hadiths compilers and that of the Enlightenment figures is not the same as the reality and needs in our own time.

The general principles of the Enlightenment figures who recasted the general principles of the holy books on man and human existence are pertinent where relevant for our times. Many believers remain guided by their respective holy books on spirituality, ethics and values.

The holy books are still very important references on spiritualism and in fostering an ethical and moral culture. The interpretations of these is another matter and a contentious one for the better.

Which bring us to "secular spirituality". It does sound like a state promoted project, a state imposed and sanctioned state philosophy for all its citizens regardless of their personal beliefs.

Why not good old "humanism" and "humanitarianism" and "activism"? It would not make both believer and non-believers wince and flinch.

Both believers and non-believers love a humane person, a humanist, a humanitarian regardless of his/her personal belief or non-belief. An "activist" of course, is only loved if one agrees with his or her views and actions.

Both believers and non-believers by individual temperament, by personal conviction and by choice can be humanists and engage in humanitarian activities - as environmental activists, as human rights activists, as aid workers, as donors for charitable causes, as humanitarian workers, as advocates in writing, in mobilising good common cause etc.

Religion is sectorised by faiths, sects, denominations. Politics is sectorised by political parties. Political parties and systems as well as religious entities, do tailor their activities in the public square in line with their respective political ideologies and religious theologies/beliefs and in their own interests.

Believers, in fact, are highly individual and personal in their beliefs and choices. They do not necessarily agree or comply with their denomination/sect/church's formal stance on issues. Even believers have different views on creationism vs evolution, pro-life vs pro-choice, seperation of state vs faith-based state.

Would it not be more realistic to speak not of one's personal belief or religious affiliations or otherwise, but on social, political, economic, environmental and human rights issues and where one personally stand on them?

Or course, there is much to chose from under these general categories of social, political, economic, environmental and human rights issues under their respective myriad sectoral issues. E.g. human rigths issues into the rights of women, children, ethic and religious group, labour, prisoners etc.

For any believer and non-believer, the question is, which of these issues do we personally want to get involved in to do right by our personal convictions and beliefs, whether faith driven or otherwise?

It is really personal to the individual as how he or she regard the human existence, the human condition, the state of society and what to do about it. Activism is pragmatism and positivism to attain ideals of justness.

Ideologies and theologies, beliefs and non-belief, antheism or theism are just that if not translated into action for better or for worse.

An atheist and a believer, or people of diverse religious and ethnic groups, never have any problems cooperating and acting in tandem on issues we have common concerns and cause for action - from the environment to human rights.

If spiritual humanism is about accepting, tolerating, accomodating and respecting the personal beliefs of others - from Hari Krishna to Sufism to Atheism-Buddhism, perhaps we say we are all spiritual humanists.

If secular humanism is about fighting for, ensuring and protecting the rights of all regardless of race, religion and gender; for seperation of church and state; for everyone to be free to belief what they want to without harassment from the state, then perhaps there is secular humanism.

Perhaps there is no need for spiritual humanism or secular humanism. Humanism as ethics and values would suffice to be applied for all who pursue an ethical and compassionate life regardless of the sources and reasons for his or her ethical and moral values.

After all, all the religious texts and the works of the Enlightenment figures and philosophers throught the ages all deal with human existence, the human condition and the meaning of life.

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Neal,

You are right. Anyone who claims that Christianity, or any religion, has a lock on morality is not looking at his fellow man very much. Also, I suppose these 'Christians' will have to throw out the parable of the good Samaritan from the Gospel of Luke. The fact that the Jews and Samaritans despised each other makes this parable all the more important: Jesus stated here that compassion - morality - is to be found everywhere. Gonna be interesting to see how Ken tries to twist this one around.

Arminius

Ken:-- "Except right and wrong have no meaning for an atheist who hasn't imported his morality from a Christian world view."

From where did Christianity import its morality? From where did the Jews import theirs? From where did the Sumerians? The Eqyptians? What kept the cavemen from bashing each other's heads in long enough to survive to invent religion? Is it possible that "morality" is a naturally evolved system based on the real benefits of mutual cooperation i.e. "Do unto others..." etc.? It must be noted as well, that apparently many Buddhists do not suffer from a lack of morality despite their non-belief in any gods.

-- "Moral valuations are incomprehensible and unsupportable from within a purely materialist world view."

If we proved tomorrow that, in fact, there really isn't a god, would you start killing or stealing or coveting your neighbor's ass, or ox, or whatever?

Gaby.

I like consciousness best because that I can explore. I don’t see myself flying out side the solar system in my life time.

As for Star Trek; Kirk was a womanizing swashbuckler who didn’t really know anything. He was the best caveman in space and it worked for him.

Picard was the smart philosopher. More brains than brawn.

Kirk grew into T J hooker and Denny Crane.

Picard became head of the X-men who was no body and all brain.

A coincidence… I think not.

Though I find Denny Crane to be politically incorrect and extremely funny.

I am an atheist, & I am more than proud of it. ALL religions try to sell you an after-life, but yet no one can verify the existence of such place, nor that of the single God they pray to. Personally, I think all religions are malign b/c they only work as barriers among believers & non-believers, & also between believers of different sects. Until we die, we won't know what comes next. My guess is dirt & maggots.

Ken you wrote

“Except right and wrong have no meaning for an atheist who hasn't imported his morality from a Christian world view. Moral valuations are incomprehensible and unsupportable from within a purely materialist world view. There is no possible way to logically infer oughts from what merely is. This fracture between the morality we all intuit and the inability of atheism to account for moral valuations from within its own circumscribed view is one of atheism's fatal weaknesses.”

I don’t agree. First we would need to assume that any definition of God by any religion is completely correct. That is a stretch.

My belief of God is that God resides within in everyone, even an atheist. You need not believe in God to have God work for you. I believe God works at all levels of consciousness; subconsciousness, superconsciousness and supraconsciousness. A person would not need to be conscious that God “is there” for God to influence their life.

Assuming that God doesn’t exist and atheist can determine or learn through life experience what works and what does not. One can observe that being kind, caring, “moral” and forgiving creates a world that is pleasant. They can see that be what you want to create works. It can have nothing to do with God.

Moral is a relative term derived by humans. I can supply endless lists of scenarios that traditional religious text can not provide an answer for.

As for violent criminals. 9/11 was commited by men believing in God.. oh wait sorry they believed in the wrong God. Imagine my head shaking in dismay that thought.

How about George W and the right wing conservatives? How’s that working for us?

Religion guarantees nothing.

Tonio wrote:

"Knowledge about the mental universe is gained through subjective methods such as meditation. Empiricism cannot show us any subjective knowledge about the mental universe, and meditation cannot show us any objective knowledge about the physical universe."

The latter is true I am sure; after thousands of years of meditation and philosophy people knew practically nothing about how the physical universe works.

The first assertion, that we can only learn about the mental universe by thinking . . . Well, that used to be true, but in recent years progress has been made in understanding the brain. I expect that sooner or later our machines will be able to probe mental states, and interpret them, and we will understand what causes them. Thoughts, emotions and so on are, after all, electrochemical biological phenomena. However complex they may be, they must have a detectable physical manifestation, and there is no reason to think we will not eventually understand them in detail. We already understand other highly complex biological processes.

The emergence of mind-reading machines is kind of creepy, but it has enormous benefits. There are already tests underway in which paralyzed patients control control computers and physical objects by thought alone.

This should also be a big help in interrogating criminal suspects and prisoners of war, although it does introduce ethical concerns, to say the least. It is better than torture, I suppose.

No one should imagine that understanding how the mind works and being able to read thoughts will somehow degrade us, or "reduce" us to "mere machines." We already understand in detail other biological functions such as aging, death, and sex, but that does not make sex, love or passion any less real, or death less frightening. An enlightened person is never afraid to learn more about how any part of nature works, including how we ourselves work.

Ken, one last point--sorry I'm doing this at work and lose my place sometimes,

I could prove to you that posts headed Jeff P are written by me. It is empirically provable. It would take some effort on your part to travel and watch me write them, but it could be done.

I could prove to you that Susan Jacoby wrote a few books--easily done. Her manuscripts could be retrieved, her publisher interviewed, etc.

I could prove to you that George Washington existed, beyond what he wrote, empirically.

However, I couldn't prove to you that we're not in the Matrix.

Have a great evening everyone!

Ken,

before spreading such an untenable nonsense about atheist criminals, you should collect some information. The US atheist prison population is one fiftieth (!) in PROPORTION of what it should be, statistically, if atheists had the same degree of criminality or "morals" as your pious ilk.

"Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)." From:
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Religion, thus, statistically increases crime by a factor of 50.

It gives me the creeps to have to read such condescending rubbish as the "well-mannered atheists".

"Moral valuations are incomprehensible and unsupportable from within a purely materialist world view."

Atheism is not identical with materialism in the pejorative sense you employ. Matter is a form of energy. Energy is almost an abstraction. Therefore I describe myself, like Gaby, as a spiritual atheist, "spirit" encompassing everything that makes for human dignity through thinking, observing, comparing, studying, communicating, feeling, loving, evolving.

If atheist morals are incomprehensible for you, that is your problem, not ours.

The "fatal weakness" you ascribe to atheists is an impertinence. We don't lack anything. It is the contrary: Religionists have the fatal weakness of being unable to imagine a non-personal, non-religionist cause-and-effect connection in the grandeur of nature. They stick to the projection of their own narrow individualism towards a fictional superhuman, but still human-like entity they call god, with all their human attributes like hatred, jealousy, revenge, punishment, reward (generally referred to as corruption) and, of course love. But atheists love without hope for reward, without corruption. There is the rub, the basic difference of morals between religionists and atheists.

"Logical Positivism, the reduction of knowledge to that which can be directly observed and quantified is too slim a reed and the claim to be solely guided by such is delusional."

But no one here is making that claim. It's more accurate to say that empiricism is the only source of knowledge about the physical universe. Knowledge about the mental universe is gained through subjective methods such as meditation. Empiricism cannot show us any subjective knowledge about the mental universe, and meditation cannot show us any objective knowledge about the physical universe.

Oh, I forgot to mention (and I know I'll get an earful for my next statement), I "know" that the consciousness exists, the same way I "know" I love my family.

Spiritual Mongrel:

"Was captain Kirk right and space is the final frontier or is it Consciousness. Which will we prove (or disprove) first the existence of extraterrestrials or spiritual entities/entities in another realm?"

I believe it is Conciousness. Space may be the final frontier in the natural world, but it is consciousness in the spriritual world, IMO.

I am one of those "spritual, not religious" people Susan describes. I truly believe that our consciousness survives our bodies to join with the greater consciousness. (May I liken it to the Borg, in S.T.: The Next generation?)

"We" may never prove or disprove it, but each of us will know when we die. That is good enough for me.

By the way, I loved Capt. Kirk, but I adored Capt. Jean-Luc Picard.

Ken:

Granted, we might all also exist in the "Matrix." I would appeal to you that there is some knowledge that is better than other knowledge, some evidence that is better than other evidence. I would suggest that if the evidence for the gods were all that intuitive, there would be no non-believers.

Evidence reproducible by the scientific method seems to be the best tool of "knowing" that has come our way. As weak and boring as it is, it's the best we have. I agree with the premise that some hypothesis are generated without much empirical evidence. Einstein seemed to have pretty good hypotheses despite measurable evidence until years after his death. However his hypothesis were built upon observable physics. I concede that point to you. But I also think it's fair game to demand, as we do with any other factor in the public sphere (excepting certain political rule) reasonable evidence prior to claiming knowledge.

And morality, ethics, and such have their beginnings way before Christianity, or Christian ideas. Morality, ethics, and laws evolve. Evolution. There have been so many discussions revolving around the contigencies of morality relating to religion--I won't bore anyone reading, just search the archives. It's all been laid out, sometimes eloquently.

I hope I haven't sounded angry. I appreciated your post.

Ken wrote:

"Except right and wrong have no meaning for an atheist who hasn't imported his morality from a Christian world view."

This is incorrect for two reasons:

1. Right and wrong are meaningful for all healthy, sane people, and for many other species as well. Morality is inborn, like our desire to have sex. This has been shown in many clever biology experiments with various species.

2. For the sake of argument, if right and wrong are imported from Christianity, that would imply morality did not exist before Christianity, or that it cannot be found in other religions or irreligious philosophies such as Confucianism. That's a controversial assertion!

". . . it needs to be said that the majority of violent criminals, however their unexamined interior lives might find credal profession, live as if there is no God, and must therefore be regarded as practicing atheists."

I think it would be safer to say they should be regarded as practicing hypocrites. Hypocrisy is common among all sorts of people, believers and atheists alike. Or perhaps they suffer from multiple personality disorder or a split personality.

I am glad that Ken is no longer an atheist, because his arguments are so weak they would give atheists a bad name.

"I wish that the large number of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion would think seriously about secularism and atheism."

I did exactly that and that's why I am no longer an atheist. The epistemological quicksand I discovered atheism rests on led me to rethink my positions.

" would be very eager to know of some empirical, reproducible evidence that could undergo the rigors of the scientific method here to suggest your claim. "...evidence that suggests we are more than our bodies..."

Neither is their "empirical,reproducible evidence that would undergo the rigors of scientific evidence" that JeffP posted those remarks on this blog. Nor that George Washington was the first elected president of the United States or that Ms. Jacoby ever wrote a book. There is ample documentary and historical evidence however. Empiricism is useful and valuable within its limitations. Logical Positivism, the reduction of knowledge to that which can be directly observed and quantified is too slim a reed and the claim to be solely guided by such is delusional. Even its adherents rely on other epistemologic methods.

"Every Atheist I have met, have been honest sincere people, who do the right thing because it is the right thing , not for a pass into imaginary heaven. "

"None of this has anything to do with whether one can be moral without being religious. Of course one can be moral, and charitable, without being religious. "

Except right and wrong have no meaning for an atheist who hasn't imported his morality from a Christian world view. Moral valuations are incomprehensible and unsupportable from within a purely materialist world view. There is no possible way to logically infer oughts from what merely is. This fracture between the morality we all intuit and the inability of atheism to account for moral valuations from within its own circumscribed view is one of atheism's fatal weaknesses.

While it might be true that philosophical atheists might be well mannered and kindly disposed on the whole, it needs to be said that the majority of violent criminals, however their unexamined interior lives might find credal profession, live as if there is no God, and must therefore be regarded as practicing atheists.

Jeff P.

Good dialouge. I will work on the healing of an amputee. I'll put my best people on it :)

If I have time I will try and work in some world peace at no extra charge.

Peace.

Well, it was Carl Sagan who referred to the adage: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... so it'll have to be someone smarter than I who determines the answer to your question. However, I do have one criteria by which I would undoubtedly have to reconsider my non-belief: if God would heal an amputee...

By the way, I LOVE Star Trek! Here's to Captain Kirk! Again thanks for your comments.

Or no, maybe it is from Ecclesiastes; I just don't know why I never memorized the Bible.

Jeff P.

I have always been fascinated with consciousness. Was captain Kirk right and space is the final frontier or is it Consciousness. Which will we prove (or disprove) first the existence of extraterrestrials or spiritual entities/entities in another realm?

I can see the argument for the onus of proof to be on the claims of existence without evidence. I guess the problem here is what is considered enough evidence? I think that differs with each person. Is it enough that there is evidence enough that the majority believe? Democracy would say 51% is enough.

That being said I am thankful for separation of church and state. Someone posted to me once “Everyone thought the world was flat at one point. They were wrong.”

We should be free to constantly explore and consider what is; be it law, spirituality, religion, economics, sociology, science etc.

There is always more to learn.

I am all for dissecting ideas. That’s how we evolve.

As the saying goes questions are creative, answers are not.

Spiritual--

thanks for your response.

I took the bait! Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate your post. I've read recently that out-of-body experiences can be reproduced nicely in lab settings, although I don't know the details. I find the science of anesthesiology to be fascinating--for long stretches of time, the brain can be totally unaware of time's passage. There is some science regarding the separation of impulses from the front-brain portion to the hind-brain areas that suggest when this connection is interrupted, we lose consciousness.

And I know it's an old argument that one can't "prove or disprove" the existence of an invisible, non-measurable entity, although I have to side with most philosophers who suggest that it's up to the people who claim the existence, without evidence, to support the argument.

One thought I had over lunch: people have suggested that Susan's post launches an attack on personal character. I believe that, on a forum like this one, people need to set aside that sensibility, and be able to understand that non-believers aren't all that interested in attacking human character--they are interested in dissecting an idea. Some ideas are good ones, others need review. Thank goodness that a forum like this one exists where ideas can be discussed.

I expect the Pew study says this but . . .

I would like to caution readers that it is very difficult to accurately measure public opinion about controversial and personal issues such as religion. Various surveys have estimated the number of atheists in the U.S. between 6% and I think as high as 15%. One on-line source says the number is 0.4%, with the caveat: "Estimates of the numbers of Atheists are hopelessly inaccurate . . ." This wide range is caused by many factors such as:

* How the question is worded.

* What other questions were asked.

* The social group or situation of the respondent.

Many people feel ashamed to admit they are atheists, and some feel social pressure to hide that fact.

* Who is asking, in what context.

For example if an affable Unitarian asks me whether I believe in God, since I am not inclined to be rude, I may make polite noises and say I believe in an Einsteinian God, as described by Dawkins. Most people would say that isn't God at all. On the other hand if a loudmouth fundamentalist asks, I may say "no" just to get his goat.

Surveys about uncontroversial subjects produce more reliable data, but you can never tell what a person will find controversial. And you can never tell when someone might lie. For example, the Census Bureau asks how many bathrooms people have in their houses. Some people exaggerate the number because having lots bathrooms is a status symbol.

For more information, see the book "How to Lie with Statistics."

Disclaimer: I am not a public opinion researcher at the Census Bureau or anywhere else, but my late mother was! And let me add her Standard Disclaimer: "Hey, we didn't choose to ask how many bathrooms you have, okay? Don't complain to us. Congress dictates every question on the Census Form."

Jeff P.

I knew some one couldn’t resist and would take the bait LOL. I like your word evidence which when taken as meaning a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment, is accurate.

Proof I gladly admit I would not be able to provide. Similar we can not prove or disprove that God exists. This would assume we know what we are really looking for to begin with or to say it another way we would have to know what God truly is to be able to pin him/her/it down. If we think he is a chicken and really he is an elephant we won’t find him in the chicken coup.

The best evidence that I have encountered is the research into consciousness that the Monroe Institute does. The institute was found by Robert Monroe who is one of the out of body experience pioneers. He supposedly could leave his body at will.

They measure his brain waves during his episodes and where then able to allow people to manipulate their brain waves to reproduce the conditions that Monroe could produce naturally. They defined numerous levels of consciousness and each level had certain experiences attached to them. Hundreds of people have been able to reproduce similar experiences on their own. Better yet they have been able to reproduce them under more scientific conditions at the institute.

Consciousness unto itself may mean outside the body. This doesn’t need to mean supernatural it could just be how the universe works we just don’t know how it works yet. It may end up merely being some virtual reality we create in our brains, but it may end being that consciousness is something more than just the brain. Could it be the brain is a receptor that tunes into consciousness? I find either explanation possible. It “suggests” that there “could” be something more to us than just our bodies. I choose to believe we are more.

To set the record I am far from being an agnostic or atheist. I have definite beliefs on what I currently think God is. In my world there is no need for people to believe in God.

My problem with religion is when people put blinders on and can’t think for themselves. I think the Pew study indicates more people are willing to take the blinders off.

Jeff I liked the words you used; contemplative, reflective and appreciative. Those attributes would serve anyone well.

I empathize 100% with the post from others that atheists don’t like being seen as incomplete because they do not believe. That is a ludicrous thought in my mind.

I believe that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I believe that there is nothing new under the sun. (That is from Proverbs, isn't it?)

I do not think that people now are any different than they have ever been. Some people are very interested in spiritual things, and others are apathetic. In former times, the theological script was severely enforced, so those with a natural apathy were forced to go along. It is that way now in Islamic countries; people who feel apathy towards Mohammed and Allah feel compelled to put on an outward show of religion, though inwardly, they may not really care.

Nowadays those same people are not forced to do anything, and their apathy shows more plainly. As Susan pointed out, people with an apathy towards religion do not want to go to all the trouble of attending church; after all, it does require some minimal effort on a regular basis to get into the church-going rythm; if a person doesn't care, than he is not going to do it. But these same people say that even though they only go to church for Easter, weddings, and funerals, that they are nevertheless spiritual and that they believe in God. But I would add, tentatively, apathetically. Maybe these same people do not call themselves agnostics or atheists because, on these issues, they are also apathetic. (They just don't care enough, one way or another).

When I say a person is apathetic towards relgion, I am not meaning that as an insult, or as a condemnation; it is merely a personal quality. Alot of people love football, but some people feel apathetic towards it; that does not make them bad people.

I think, overall, it is a healthy situation when people are allowed to be themselves more freely, and not comply with the man-written theology that they "should" believe.

Let's face it, theologically-scripted religions are not going to fare very well in a pluralistic democracy. Alot of the resistance to democracy in Arab countries comes from the resistance of the keepers-of-the-theology, because they know that their power and influence will fade away like the fog of a misty morining, when their societies become democratic.

Drew,

And I have no argument with the atheist like yourself that sees me (a person of faith) as a fellow rational human being. Atheists don't like be seen as "incomplete" (to quote another poster) because of their beliefs and neither do I.

For my part, I have never criticized an atheist for his or her lack of belief. I have, however, criticized those atheists who find it necessary to denigrate people of faith.

Robert B

An atheist sees himself as a realist, or a naturalist. He believes in the real and the natural.
As far as we know there is only the real world, and the atheist sees no reason to believe otherwise.

The atheist can enjoy fiction and all works of the imagination, and can be spiritual in having an inner life of dreams and fantasy, just like everybody else.

This atheist sees religion as cultural indoctrination and speaks out against it not simply because it is irrational, but because, as 9/11 showed us, it is perhaps as great a threat as global warming.

I seriously believe that gods are fiction and death is simply the end of life. It makes sense that people would wish to deny these realities and would prefer the pipe dream of a big friendly skygod to care for us in Heaven when we die.

But an atheist accepts reality as it is, in all its splendor and all its horror. No pipe dreams.

I think for many people the "spiritual but not religious" claim is a way of deflecting potential criticism from people who would look down on them if they admitted frankly that they have no interest in religion and if they admitted to themselves that they're closer to disbelief than belief. If atheism was accepted as part of the mainstream and didn't inspire such revulsion among the religious I'm sure a fairly large portion of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd would be atheists. It's part and parcel of the same phenomenon that makes so many people claim to be agnostic rather than atheist, as if they were different things. That dynamic seems likely to change over the next few decades since atheism is becoming more socially accepted and religion is losing its grip.

The part of the Pew poll that was most interesting to me is that the fastest growing category is people who've abandoned traditional religion entirely. Combined with atheists/agnostics that makes 1 in every 6 Americans, or 16%, up from around 5% in 1990. I found it humorous that every article I read about the poll results attempted to downplay that statistic, like this quote from the New York Times - "The rise of the unaffiliated does not, however, mean that Americans are becoming less religious. Contrary to assumptions that most of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics, most described their religion 'as nothing in particular.'" Pfffft.

Spiritual Mongrel:

"I think there is evidence that suggests we are more than our bodies, but that is a discussion for another time."

I would be very eager to know of some empirical, reproducible evidence that could undergo the rigors of the scientific method here to suggest your claim. "...evidence that suggests we are more than our bodies..." deserves some discussion if there really is some evidence. In my searching, I have found none. Please enlighten me!

Additionally, I'm with Jihadist on this one: I see no reason a non-believer needs to be "spiritual" on any level. Comtemplative, reflective, appreciative, etc. are all better words. And Sam Harris has received considerable flak regarding his meditative stance. Although from a purely medical angle, meditation seems to have some physiologic benefits apart from any spirituality. Biofeedback for some conditions has reproducible, empirical evidence for benefit.

I have read somewhere that "spirit" means "breath," and that in nature the wind is symbolic and demonstrative for that. Then (so the explanation goes on to say) since wind is actually material (atoms moving against our skin,) in that sense "spirit" is actually a measurable and natural phenomenon. Symantics aside, I personally see no need to try to incorporate "spirituality" into the vernacular with secularism.

Although the term "religious naturalism," as used by Ursula Goodenough, seems to have some appeal.

wordplay. When one switches from religion to no religion one doesn't actually switch anything but friends/family. Do they suddenly go out and break every rule they'd been taught to use to order their life? Religion is the doctrine or order in your life that you live by. Ms. Jacoby, you are ordering yours by the shame your family had of being Jewish. Its easy to figure out why people are leaving mainline denominations, people started reading the bible for themselves and discovered that there are alot of things in there that don't get talked about and alot of things that aren't in there that do. Why do you belittle so many other people in this article by making polite little caricatures of the beliefs they hold very near and dear to them, their very identity? Combatting other people's beliefs is doing just what you claim is evil, walking along with the fundies and hyper-conservatives. What chemical reaction did you have that gave you the understanding deep enough to define mainstream America's religiosity?

To Stevedid --

You wrote "They are offended by our beliefs , but never think 2x that we may be offended by crosses on Public lands or Govt buildings."

I'm not offended by atheism. I'm offended by anti-theists who love to spout off about how people of faith are irrational, deluded, hateful, etc. I'm also offended by the caricature of people of faith popularized by such people. As I indicated above, I find that Ms. Jacoby's atheism sometimes manifests as anti-theism and I will continue to call her on it when I feel that it's warranted.

And by the way, I too get offended by crosses on public lands or government buildings. I'm very fond of the separation of church and state; as a medievalist, I know what happens when the two are combined...

wordplay. When one switches from religion to no religion one doesn't actually switch anything but friends/family. Do they suddenly go out and break every rule they'd been taught to use to order their life? Religion is the doctrine or order in your life that you live by. Ms. Jacoby, you are ordering yours by the shame your family had of being Jewish. Its easy to figure out why people are leaving mainline denominations, people started reading the bible for themselves and discovered that there are alot of things in there that don't get talked about and alot of things that aren't in there that do. Why do you belittle so many other people in this article by making polite little caricatures of the beliefs they hold very near and dear to them, their very identity? Combatting other people's beliefs is doing just what you claim is evil, walking along with the fundies and hyper-conservatives. What chemical reaction did you have that gave you the understanding deep enough to define mainstream America's religiosity?

The problem that everyone has with Ms. Jacoby , is that she is honest and speaks from her heart. It's not the Atheists doing the attacking. It's the relgious right. They attack the freedoms of people who are Atheists by forcing us to deal with Religion in politics and in Public forums. They are offended by our beliefs , but never think 2x that we may be offended by crosses on Public lands or Govt buildings.

Every Atheist I have met, have been honest sincere people, who do the right thing because it is the right thing , not for a pass into imaginary heaven.

If you want to be relgious, there are churches and mosques and temples on every corner of every city, go there and do your thing , fair enough. It's not like anyone cares to change their behavior. We just don't want it crammed down our throats. Seems simple enough. I meet and work with people of faith all the time , and it never comes up. So why divide when we need to be united more than ever. Sorry it just seems to me Religion divides.

A.C.Grayling;

"Defenders of religion believe that without it humanity would lose a grip on two treasures; morality and spirituality. This belief is a measure of the extraordinary success the Church has had in making us forget that traditions of thought far richer than its own exist to teach us about both; two and a half thousand years of philosophy; the arts and literature; overflowing with insight and instruction into the deepest and most beautiful possibilities for human life, little of it depending on belief in Zeus or Osiris; Brahman or Baal. Indeed, superstition has been a barrier to our benefitting from this wealth; only the free mind has a chance to do so; though happily that wealth itself is the resource for helping the mind to become so.

A.C.Grayling."The Form Of Things".pp120

It would seem that the porousness of religious boundries and the fluid ease with which people either switch denominations or drop an interest in religion altogether points to religion as a pure socio-cultural phenomenon, and no different dynamically from any other institution in modern developed societies.

Recent polls show that 1 in 4 people now fail to specify a particular religious allegience - in other words, no particular religious denomination, although they may still declare a belief in God or a supreme being. Religion in modern society plays a far different role from the religion found in more 'primitive' or undeveloped pre-industrial societies. Here the religious world view predominates and clerical figures often wield great power.

We see this is not true in modern democratic secular societies, with the USA and Western Europe as primary examples, although religious authority was a dominant force in Europe throughout the Middle Ages.

Religion and religious behavior in the USA and elsewhere remains fertile ground for the social sciences e.g. sociology, psychology, social psychology, social anthropology and comparative religionists -professionals and researchers in these fields of study know well that the forces, principles and dynamics that govern social institutions (in this case religion) are not uppermost in the minds of practitioners of a religious faith - who nevertheless are deeply influenced by prevailing if little known social forces that govern both individual & group behavior & bind groups together. Or in the case under discussion, cause the glue of common beliefs & behaviors to decohere.

For example, as we see in the above article, religious affiliations are often the result of convenience rather than conviction. Social arrangements often determine religious memberships.

The validity of religious beliefs and religious metaphysics is seldom if ever the main concern where religion is studied academically - human behavior in all it's variations is invariably the phenomenon under the looking glass.

In my previous post when I say "our perspectives" I mean human kind's perspective. I didn't want to be misinterpreted as suggesting atheists are focused solely on themselves.

The point was if some focuses on self and another who focuses on the whole then their actions will be significantly different.

I'm an atheist and a proud one. Atheists of course are spiritual too, how could it be otherwise?
I live in my mind as I live in the real world.

I think; I fantasize; I imagine; I ponder;I dream.

I simply do not believe in the existence of a supernatural world; or gods.

Are we to suppose that only those who believe in magic have spiritual lives? That is ridiculous.

I am an artist. Not a very good one I confess. But still an artist who attempts to express what may be inside me with passion and flair,as other artists do. You do not have to be religious to have an inner life. Everybody has one.

Ms. Jacoby.

You responded “There is another reason why I object to the "spiritual but not religious" formulation. It implies that the moral and intellectual qualities sometimes called "spiritual" are in some way set apart from our biological qualities and capacities as human beings. In fact, all of our potential as human beings--for good and for evil--is part of our biology and genetics as a species. We do not need to think of the spirit as something opposed to the flesh in order to call upon our higher capabilities and capacities.

I think there is evidence that suggests we are more than our bodies, but that is a discussion for another time.

What is important is calling upon our higher capabilities and capacities whether that is biological or spiritual is in some ways irrelevant.

Agreement on what those higher capabilities are seems to be one of the issues the human race is trying to deal with.

The other major issue is do we as humans consider the whole (human kind) to be more important that the self. Our perspective on this generates vastly different worlds.

My concept of "secular spirituality" needs some explanation. I'm not talking about belief in something transcending matter, because my concept would include none of that. My goal is to find or create a way of discussing the human experience that honors both scientific naturalism and the separation of church and state. The subject of the human experience should not require any beliefs in the immaterial or the supernatural. I would suggest the alternate term "naturalistic philosophy," except that the latter word often is used to talk about immaterial or supernatural beliefs.

Susan, I appreciate your participation in the Comments section.

"It implies that the moral and intellectual qualities sometimes called "spiritual" are in some way set apart from our biological qualities and capacities as human beings. In fact, all of our potential as human beings--for good and for evil--is part of our biology and genetics as a species. We do not need to think of the spirit as something opposed to the flesh in order to call upon our higher capabilities and capacities."

I agree. I was talking about something quite different, which is that the physical universe and the "mental universe" are separate realms. While our consciousness has a biological basis, we perceive it as another world separate from the one we know from our senses. If one imagines a pink elephant, the pachyderm exists only in one's mind. (Unless one genetically engineers such an elephant or body-paints a standard elephant.)

While you're right about the general principle of sarcasm, I would urge any non-religious person to avoid denigrating the intelligence of religious people, intentionally or unintentionally. Bad enough that some religious people go around threatening hell on others, even on other religious people. I do agree that sarcasm is sometimes warranted, such as when dissecting the logical contortions of young earth creationism or premillennial dispensationalism.

I would like to clarify my comments about people who identify themselves as "spiritual but not religious," since so many of you seem to have been offended by them or misunderstood them. This phrase is generally used by people who do, in fact, believe in the supernatural but simply do not channel their belief through organized religion. Less commonly, the formulation is also used by people who really do not believe in the supernatural but who have absorbed the pejorative American midset toward those who openly declare their absence of religious faith. "Spiritual but not religious," for someone who is really an atheist, is a social copout.

None of this has anything to do with whether one can be moral without being religious. Of course one can be moral, and charitable, without being religious.

There is another reason why I object to the "spiritual but not religious" formulation. It implies that the moral and intellectual qualities sometimes called "spiritual" are in some way set apart from our biological qualities and capacities as human beings. In fact, all of our potential as human beings--for good and for
evil--is part of our biology and genetics as a species. We do not need to think of the spirit as something opposed to the flesh in order to call upon our higher capabilities and capacities.

As for sarcasm, I recommend a moderate dose of it on a daily basis. If you don't enjoy sarcasm, then you must take care to shield yourselves from Shakespeare, Philip Roth, and "The Daily Show" as well as from my admittedly less brilliant and biting asides.

And still the "reality challenged", Obfuscating Jihadist fails to address the real issues i.e. the basic flaws of Islam. We have been waiting for her response for months and still silence from the Islamic front.

Conclusion: The Jihadist and all other Muslims out there admit to the basic flaws of Islam thereby vitiating any commentaries they might have on any subject.

Arminius

I was not being sarcastic in my comments about Ms Jacoby. I was trying to give her a friendly compliment to give a little balance to all the criticisms.

I do not believe that I have ever read anything of hers on this forum that really bothered me, yet alot of people seem to be very bothered by her.

I was just wondering about that.

(And also, I noticed that she had disappeared for a few days, and I was glad that she was back).

Tonio,

I must agree with Jihadist that 'secular spirituality' seems like an oxymoron. But we may have a problem of word meanings here too.

It depends on the meanings of 'secular', 'religious', and 'spiritual'. For example, I consider myself a spiritual Christian, meaning I have one foot in either camp, so to speak; I am primarily spiritual in my belief, but also religious. Note that spiritual strongly implies a belief in something beyond the material. OK, there are two other types to view. The non-spiritual religious person, exemplified on these blogs by Angela, for example. Then we can easily have people who are strongly spiritual, but not religious.

So where does 'secular' come in? Here it gets tough. I have referred to myself as a 'secular Christian', because I am Christian and also strongly support separation of church and state. Yet the meaning of 'secular' usually is 'non-religious'. So, since 'spiritual' must imply belief, how, then, are we to deal with 'secular spiritualism'? A person who is spiritual, i.e., he believes in something transcending matter, but is secular in the meaning of separation of church and state? Kinda like Einstein? Man, this is deep. Need ideas.

Arminius

Robert B,

"I, for one, would love to see an atheistic thinker come forward who could consistently resist the urge to vent their spleen religious people."

I don't blame you. Part of the problem is that the media focuses on the minority of vocal extremists in almost all social movements. That's why the Christians who get air time are theocrats like James Dobson and Tony Perkins. That's why Nancy Grace has her own show and Roberta Roper is almost unknown outside Maryland.

Jihadist,

I'm not talking about any particular beliefs in the Eastern religions, since scientific naturalism involves no beliefs at all. I was suggesting that we look at how those religions contemplate questions about human existence, not what answers those religions provide. I'm simply proposing a secular spirituality as a goal. How would you suggest we get there? What kind of conversation can we have about human existence in a naturalistic framework?

To All, and Ms Jacoby in particular:

Regarding the spiritual and the religious:

"An important distinction exists between spirituality in religion and spirituality as opposed to religion.

In recent years, spirituality in religion often carries connotations of a believer having a faith more personal, less dogmatic, more open to new ideas and myriad influences, and more pluralistic than the doctrinal/dogmatic faiths of mature religions. It also can connote the nature of believers' personal relationship or "connection" with their god(s) or belief-system(s), as opposed to the general relationship with a Deity as shared by all members of a given faith.

Those who speak of spirituality as opposed to religion generally meta-religiously believe in the existence of many "spiritual paths" and deny any objective truth about the best path to follow. Rather, adherents of this definition of the term emphasize the importance of finding one's own path to whatever-god-there-is, rather than following what others say works. In summary: the path which makes the most coherent sense becomes the correct one (for oneself)."

This is from Wikipedia - check for 'Spiritual'. It's a good article.

And to those nay-sayers who bash Wikipedia - the trick is to find well-documented articles. This one is.

Arminius

Atheist Jewish fanatics are also a threat, as was demonstrated on September 11, 2001. Atheist Jewish fanatic seems like a double oxymoron, but that is what the neoconservatives are, and so were most of the early Bolsheviks. The Christian Zionists, including our psychotic President and psychopathic Vice President, were equally to blame. But most of all, the blind, deaf and dumb press is to blame.

Hello Arminius,

Frankly, "spiritual atheist" is a contradiction in terms. Very confusing to me for spiritualism is associated with religion - souls, afterlife etc.

"Spiritualism" as used by philosophers is as like "idealism" - that nature is composed not of matter, but of spirit - world soul that pervasive, immaterial principle that creates and orders the universe. By this, that would make pagans/wiccans the most naturally spiritual people on earth.

A "spiritual atheist" is one who meditates methinks. Or a non-believer into ideas, but not objects, are the basis of reality, which is also a contradiction when they insist on logic and being rational.

Either way, the notion of a "spiritual atheist" still perplexed me to no end. Better to say one is a "humanist" or "secular humanist" rather than "spiritual atheist" if one is an atheist. After all, not all atheists dabble in meditation or mysticism like Sam Harris.

I got to go. Temporal matters beckons.

Thanks and best regards as ever
and a good weekend to you.

"J"

Daniel in the Lion's Den wrote: "I see the picture of you posted here is someone with a very sweet face and smile, and I have that picture in my mind, when I read your writings."

You see sweet; I tend to see smug. Perhaps we both bring our biases to the table here.

P.S. Great handle, by the way... :)

Hi, Daniel ITLD,

You said,
I do not know who these people could be talking about; it surely could not be you. I see the picture of you posted here is someone with a very sweet face and smile, and I have that picture in my mind, when I read your writings. Isn't it funny how different people can read the exact same thing but "read" such very different meanings?"

Say what? Are you being sarcastic by any chance? I have never known you to be anything but straightforward, but there's always a first time. I'm not offended by your remarks, just very puzzled. In other words, I politely disagree, see my post above.

Arminius

Hello Tonio,

You're one of the most level-headed atheists I have the pleasure to read, but on this, I have some reservations.

You : I propose a "secular spirituality" that addresses the nature of the human experience while honoring scientific naturalism. Perhaps something that resembles Confucianism or Buddhism but with a Western focus."

I am not sure a spiritualism resembling Confucianism is a good idea. Confucianism, among others, places great emphasis on obedience towards authority - parents, rulers. It is effective for China's Sons of Heaven to imbue in the mandarins who administer China with its "philosophy" and on to the Chinese masses.

Likewise, for Buddhism. Most Americans are too energetic, too dynamic for, say, Zen Buddhism for that "secular spiritualism" you proposed. Unless you mean Mahayana or Theravada Buddhism which has its own interpretations of Buddha's teachings.

Buddhism as a a belief of the majority group, say, in Sri Lanka and Indochina do not necessarily reflect what Buddha taught in its "pure" state with all that accumulated Buddhist interpretations of Buddha's teachings over centuries. And traditions that has nothing to do with Buddha's teachings. Fortune telling is a lucrative side income for some Thai Buddhist monks.

Ironic is it not, to replace one set of belief and spiritualism that originate from the Near East, then Europeanised or Westernised over time, and now seeking to replace it with another set of belief/spirituality from the East and Far East and to be modified and Americanised to suit American taste.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Ms Jacoby,

I am in agreement here with many regarding your comments about spiritual vs religious, It was, well, patronizing. You seem to think less of them because they have taken a different road, not that of organized religion. This in no way lessens the intensity of their belief or commitment. True, some, perhaps many, who admit to spiritual rather than religious may be cop-outs ready for becoming non-believers. No problem. The problem is labeling all the spiritual believers as wishy-washy.

To remind everyone, I am both spiritual and religious, with the emphasis on spiritual.

Arminius

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

Thank you for sharing on your family religious background in the context of religion/denomination change by people for any reason. It seem to reflect the experience of many Americans as many posters also shared here and in other On Faith threads.

--------------------------------------------------

Ms. Jacoby stated - "There are also huge numbers of Americans who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious".

So now I know when she elaborated, "...they are hedging their bets by believing in some sort of divine providence but are not interested in undertaking the obligations that adhere to traditional religion."

So now we know, those types are in a sort of religious/non-religous no man's land, in limbo between belief and non-belief. This we can now call - faith limboism?

So, the "spiritual but not religious" types believe in God but not practicing the faith as institutionalised - I some share the values of the club, but not the practices of its members and therefore I will no longer be member?

Why not just to say, one is either a devout or non-devout beleiver. The former a practicing believer. The latter a believer who believe in a deity/deities but is indifferent to It and religious-related obligations.

As for Ms. Jacoby's call : "I wish that the large number of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion would think seriously about secularism and atheism."

Good call for reflection and contemplation while meditating as part of the practice as a "spiritual but not religious" sort.

Some non-believers of deity/deities in On Faith threads describe themselves as "spiritual atheists".

Is this in emulation of Mr. Sam Harris in coopting aspects of Buddhism including meditation and thus there is now a sub-group calling themselves "spiritual atheists"?

Hinduism started meditation as a spiritual exercise which Gautama Buddha, a former Hindu, used to achieve his Enlightenment. As Buddha never spoke of a deity/deities, Buddhism seem to be the "spiritual" option of those who don't believe in deity/deities.

Mr. Christopher Dickey, another On Faith panelist, in his essay on this question, stated someday maybe all Americans will be Buddhists in looking at the current trends in America on religion/denomination switching and increasing lapse of belief in deity/deities.

If Christian America is, maybe, turning Buddhist, Buddhist East Asia is turning Christian. This is a switching of religion/beliefs on a global scale.

And how is it possible that Ronald Reagan is described as a spiritual person? It is not the fact that he made it a point not to go to church on Sundays that one would make an issue of, but how his "spiritualism" and spirituality don't extend to how he regard and treat his own children.

It is not just the spiritual (which is a personal inward contempletion and reflection on meaning of life and God) but also the outward - towards others, on the state of society and what to do to make it better.

For non-believers, instead of "spiritualism", why not use use theorising, hypothesising, philosophisising when they reflect and contemplate on the human condition and state of the world?

Would this not be logical in light of some non-believers tendency to have different meaning for words as applied to them and by them, including even on "hope" and "faith"?

Thanks and regards

"J"

Member of:

- Society for Godliness over Godlessness

- Organisation for the Banning of Spiritualism among Non-Believers

- Society for the Prevention of Abuses on Hope and Faith by Non-Believers

- Global Network of Righteous, Upright, Moralistic, Indignant, Offended, Irate, Incensed Believers Against Amoral, Liberal-didactic-spiritual-scientific-rational-logical Goodness Gracious Godless Hordes.

I wish that the large number of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion would think seriously about secularism and atheism. One great problem for those of us who are dismayed by the denigration of America's secular governmental traditions is that the wishy-washy "I'm-spiritual-but-not-religious" crowd never really engages in efforts to combat the harmful influence of right-wing religion in public life. Perhaps these people are too busy meditating to realize that the erosion of our cherished separation of church and state threatens their freedom as well as everyone else's.
I agree with the other posters. That is a broad brush statement.

I am very concerned about separation of church and state. I am on this site to engage in discussion. Whether you think religion is useful or not it is important that spiritual / non religious people as well as atheists understand that religion is a very significant influence on the world around us.

We all need to be informed on one another.

Without understanding how can there be peace?

My goal has always been to get people to think about the world around them. Many times that comes down to belief systems. Our beliefs shape our actions and our actions create our reality.

I think it is beneficial for all factions; atheist, spiritual and religious to constantly evaluate their beliefs.

Dearest Ms Jacoby

I do not know who these people could be talking about; it surely could not be you. I see the picture of you posted here is someone with a very sweet face and smile, and I have that picture in my mind, when I read your writings. Isn't it funny how different people can read the exact same thing but "read" such very different meanings?

To Tonio --

It's very hard for me to be angry at Ms. Jacoby sometimes. She writes pieces that are incredibly rude regarding people of faith and pieces that speak to common sense that both atheists and people of faith share. I, for one, would love to see an atheistic thinker come forward who could consistently resist the urge to vent their spleen religious people.

Robert is right about Jacoby's rudeness in the last paragraph. Many of those unaffiliated Americans are among the most fervent supporters of the separation of church and state.

I propose a "secular spirituality" that addresses the nature of the human experience while honoring scientific naturalism. Perhaps something that resembles Confucianism or Buddhism but with a Western focus.

Susan Jacoby wrote: "There are also huge numbers of Americans who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious"--a phrase I take to mean that they are hedging their bets by believing in some sort of divine providence but are not interested in undertaking the obligations that adhere to traditional religion. These are not people who want to get up for temple on Saturday or church on Sunday morning, but they like to watch television shows about angels and teenagers who talk to God."

This is a very broad and sweeping generalization and the accounting she gives for someone who may claim this moniker is that they are too lazy to commit or be involved. I believe people claim this for themselves out of frustration with religious institutions. People are looking for connection, a sense of belonging, meaning, and purpose. So often religious centers are consumed with arguments and nit-picking, battles for control, issues of entitlement, prefabricated programmes that leave people feeling alone an anonymous. It wears people out and eventually burns them out. This NOT why they went to church or temple. These trends in religious institutions seem entrenched and intractable. There are plenty of "spiritual but not religious" people who are doing the difficult work of compassion, mercy, grace, justice, and humility- reaching for an authentic spiritual life and not a politicized religious one.

Trust Ms. Jacoby to find the evil in what is, on average, a positive development for her position.

She writes, "I wish that the large number of Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion would think seriously about secularism and atheism. One great problem for those of us who are dismayed by the denigration of America's secular governmental traditions is that the wishy-washy "I'm-spiritual-but-not-religious" crowd never really engages in efforts to combat the harmful influence of right-wing religion in public life. Perhaps these people are too busy meditating to realize that the erosion of our cherished separation of church and state threatens their freedom as well as everyone else's."

Perhaps the "I'm-spiritual-but-not-religious" crowd are frustrated by the fundamental lack of respect for people of faith that the leaders of the agnostic/atheistic movement often espouse. Rudeness is usually off-putting, whether one's and atheist or a believer...