Redirecting faith

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about people redirecting their faith...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-24/religion-humans-are-hardwired-for-religious-spiritual-belief/100556060

************
As some in the Western world reject traditional religion, they're redirecting their faith — not losing it

advances in neuroscience and psychology present a very different story, one in which the human brain is hardwired for spiritual thought and where religious beliefs and practices come and go over time, depending on our real-world needs and fears.

It could help explain many of the fundamental shifts occurring in religious observance and belief, from the return of European paganism to a growing interest in individualistic forms of spirituality.

When people tick "no religion" on a census form that doesn't mean they've turned away from all belief,

Instead it often just indicates that they no longer want to be identified with an established faith.

"People in many cases are still spiritual, they still want lots of the goods that religion can offer, but in a way that's more personally meaningful for them," she says.

Professor Barrett also argues that, whether centred in the brain or in the heavens, spirituality is here to stay.

He says the demise of religion has been regularly predicted for at least the last 150 years, and despite their best efforts both Stalin and Mao failed to stamp it out.

"We may see religions change in their form. We may see them serving slightly different social [or] meaning-making roles, but they sure don't seem to be going away anytime soon."

************

Cheers

Sriram

[Free Willy]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about people redirecting their faith...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-24/religion-humans-are-hardwired-for-religious-spiritual-belief/100556060

************
As some in the Western world reject traditional religion, they're redirecting their faith — not losing it

advances in neuroscience and psychology present a very different story, one in which the human brain is hardwired for spiritual thought and where religious beliefs and practices come and go over time, depending on our real-world needs and fears.

It could help explain many of the fundamental shifts occurring in religious observance and belief, from the return of European paganism to a growing interest in individualistic forms of spirituality.

When people tick "no religion" on a census form that doesn't mean they've turned away from all belief,

Instead it often just indicates that they no longer want to be identified with an established faith.

"People in many cases are still spiritual, they still want lots of the goods that religion can offer, but in a way that's more personally meaningful for them," she says.

Professor Barrett also argues that, whether centred in the brain or in the heavens, spirituality is here to stay.

He says the demise of religion has been regularly predicted for at least the last 150 years, and despite their best efforts both Stalin and Mao failed to stamp it out.

"We may see religions change in their form. We may see them serving slightly different social [or] meaning-making roles, but they sure don't seem to be going away anytime soon."

************

Cheers

Sriram

As someone who migrated through Deism to theism. I don't feel at all bound to Dr Barrett's thesis that we are spiritual because we like a human like agency. That makes God or the gods like some local city council.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about people redirecting their faith...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-24/religion-humans-are-hardwired-for-religious-spiritual-belief/100556060

************
As some in the Western world reject traditional religion, they're redirecting their faith — not losing it

advances in neuroscience and psychology present a very different story, one in which the human brain is hardwired for spiritual thought and where religious beliefs and practices come and go over time, depending on our real-world needs and fears.

It could help explain many of the fundamental shifts occurring in religious observance and belief, from the return of European paganism to a growing interest in individualistic forms of spirituality.

When people tick "no religion" on a census form that doesn't mean they've turned away from all belief,

Instead it often just indicates that they no longer want to be identified with an established faith.

"People in many cases are still spiritual, they still want lots of the goods that religion can offer, but in a way that's more personally meaningful for them," she says.

Professor Barrett also argues that, whether centred in the brain or in the heavens, spirituality is here to stay.

He says the demise of religion has been regularly predicted for at least the last 150 years, and despite their best efforts both Stalin and Mao failed to stamp it out.

"We may see religions change in their form. We may see them serving slightly different social [or] meaning-making roles, but they sure don't seem to be going away anytime soon."

************

Cheers

Sriram

I think the challenge with 'not religious but spiritual' arguments is that it is very difficult to provide a proper definition of 'spiritual' and it's use gets hijacked. So often you will see commentaries about 'spiritual' as meaning people are basically religious just not the type of organised religion we tend to consider traditionally. And therefore lead to the notion that people who are 'spiritual' are theists but not currently attracted by organised religion. I'm not sure I buy that argument - certainly plenty are looking for cultural and social ritual (which I imagine is pretty embedded within human societies) but I'm not convinced that means they really believe in god.

So I think there is a 'broad church' (excuse the pun) of people who band around the term 'spiritual' including:

1. Religious people who want to claim non religious people are really one of theirs - the redirecting rather than losing faith mob.
2. People who aren't religious but feel a claim of 'spiritual' is somehow more socially 'acceptable' than being agnostic or atheist.
3. Those who equate 'spiritual' as akin to a new age-type term for an ethical, good and deep-thinking person.
4. People who want organised social and cultural ritual but don't see it in other organised activities in a manner that they can buy into.
5. People who simply like to follow the trend and it is trendy to claim you are 'spiritual' as per any number of celebs and influencers.
6. People who are concerned with personal health and well being.
7. People who feel 'connected' to others or want to be seen to be 'connected' to others.

So with such a broad church it becomes a catch-all for so many disparate groups to the extent that, in my view, the term has lost any useful meaning.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

Here is an interesting article about people redirecting their faith...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-24/religion-humans-are-hardwired-for-religious-spiritual-belief/100556060

************
As some in the Western world reject traditional religion, they're redirecting their faith — not losing it

advances in neuroscience and psychology present a very different story, one in which the human brain is hardwired for spiritual thought and where religious beliefs and practices come and go over time, depending on our real-world needs and fears.

It could help explain many of the fundamental shifts occurring in religious observance and belief, from the return of European paganism to a growing interest in individualistic forms of spirituality.

When people tick "no religion" on a census form that doesn't mean they've turned away from all belief,

Instead it often just indicates that they no longer want to be identified with an established faith.

"People in many cases are still spiritual, they still want lots of the goods that religion can offer, but in a way that's more personally meaningful for them," she says.

Professor Barrett also argues that, whether centred in the brain or in the heavens, spirituality is here to stay.

He says the demise of religion has been regularly predicted for at least the last 150 years, and despite their best efforts both Stalin and Mao failed to stamp it out.

"We may see religions change in their form. We may see them serving slightly different social [or] meaning-making roles, but they sure don't seem to be going away anytime soon."

************

Cheers

Sriram

Some good analysis here from a western european perspective from Pew:

https://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/attitudes-toward-spirituality-and-religion/

[ProfessorDavey]

"We may see religions change in their form. We may see them serving slightly different social [or] meaning-making roles, but they sure don't seem to be going away anytime soon."

But the whole point is that many of the people who ascribe themselves as spiritual do so specifically because they don't see themselves as religious. So the notion in that religion will simply become spirituality is a misnomer and misunderstands those that describe themselves as spiritual and NOT religious.

[Sriram]

Spirituality is a general term for connecting to ones inner self.....the core of ones consciousness. It is an inward journey. Believing in a God is one way of doing it. It is the most common way....because we all tend to treat our inner self as external to ourselves.

It is a general need and natural development that takes place in everyone. The manner and method with which one practices spirituality could eventually become a cultural norm locally. This could become a 'religion' in course of time.

People can also be spiritual without necessarily following any religion or they could follow a combination of different practices of different religions. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Spirituality is a general term for connecting to ones inner self.....the core of ones consciousness. It is an inward journey.

Except, of course, that some people see spiritualism as being a connection to something outside and bigger than themselves - in other words an outward journey.

And there lies the nub of the issue - certainly in the UK spiritual as a term is so vague and nebulous as to be pretty well meaningless in defining a group of people in term of key features. See my previous post. The term gets hijacked, of course, usually by people trying to pretend there isn't a decline in religiosity in the UK, but this is a vain effort, firstly because many people who define themselves as spiritual do so specifically to demonstrate that they aren't religious. But also, even if you kind of bundle spiritual in with religious (which you can't - see comment before) there is still an increase in non-religious/non-spiritual, who define themselves as atheist or agnostic etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

The manner and method with which one practices spirituality could eventually become a cultural norm locally.

But there isn't an agreed manner in which people practice spirituality - that's the point. So for one person who does yoga once a week, there is another who is into crystal healing, another who describes themselves as spiritual because they think they are intuitive and understand their friends, another who feels they gain a sense of spiritual peace looking out from a mountain top after a long walk, another who believes that horoscopes are predictive etc etc.

And some of these people would run a mile rather than adopt the practices of the others - so the middle aged yoga practicer who'd consider a crystal healing believer to be, frankly, bonkers. The person who gains solice from a long walk who considers horoscopes complete non-sense etc etc.

There is no common theme and therefore no common practice to coalesce around as a 'cultural norm'. You might bring together a group hikers, or crystal-healing believers but that is a completely different matter.

[ProfessorDavey]

This could become a 'religion' in course of time.

I think that is unlikely for the reasons mentioned above.

First there is no common theme in terms of belief or practice amongst people who describe themselves as spiritual.

Secondly many people who describe themselves as spiritual do so specifically in rejection of 'religion' - so were spiritual to become a religion with accepted beliefs and practices and organised structures etc they'd run for the hills (and bump into the hillwalker gaining spiritual solice from a lonely walk - now disturbed by the crystal healers).

And finally I think the age for the formation of major new religions is gone - unless I'm mistaken a genuinely new major religion has not arisen for 600 years. In that time there have been countless other '-isms', but none religion. I think there is a reason for that. The conditions that are ripe for the formation of religions aren't present any longer.

[ekim]

unless I'm mistaken a genuinely new major religion has not arisen for 600 years.

The Baháʼí Faith might qualify.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Baháʼí Faith might qualify.

Perhaps - although I may counter on two grounds. First that Baháʼí isn't a major religion, given that its adherents number perhaps just 0.05% of the world population. Secondly as it isn't really genuinely new, having arisen basically as an offshoot of Islam.

[Outrider]

Perhaps - although I may counter on two grounds. First that Baháʼí isn't a major religion, given that its adherents number perhaps just 0.05% of the world population. Secondly as it isn't really genuinely new, having arisen basically as an offshoot of Islam.

0.5% of 7 billion people is around 3.5 million people, or approximately 1 Kuwait of people - that seems significant enough to me to constitute 'major'.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

0.5% of 7 billion people is around 3.5 million people, or approximately 1 Kuwait of people - that seems significant enough to me to constitute 'major'.

O.

0.05% - estimated at 5 million people. And while that might seem a lot in the context of world population it is pretty tiny. Not sure what threshold you put on 'major' for religions, but I'd have thought it would need to be rather more than that, or at least the major religion somewhere, which I don't think Baháʼí is.

Actually, although it also falls foul of 'major' in terms of proportion of the world's population perhaps the nearest to a genuinely new major religion is Scientology. But here is the rub - when not linked to an existing faith then I think the general view is 'barking', and indeed some claim that it isn't a religion also.

In a way that's my point - in the same way that people almost never accept the claim of a religion unless they've been brought up to believe that religion people simply won't accept the claims of a genuinely new belief as they will find those claims completely unbelievable. Once that probably wasn't true, but in our current world I suspect any genuinely new religion would be seen as crazy if was based on claims similar to existing religion.

[Sriram]

Prof....

What exactly is the point you are making?

The article is highlighting the fact that even though it might seem that people are becoming less religious...ie. leaving major religious groups...they are in fact not giving up their Faith. Their Faith is taking different forms.

Some of the change could be a shift from one major religion to another. Some of the shift could be to less organised religions. Some of it could be a shift to a secular form of spirituality. Some of it could be directed to value based inner development. Some religions themselves could be evolving and changing in line with the times.

The point is that 'spirituality is here to stay'...as the article mentions.   

[jeremyp]

0.5% of 7 billion people is around 3.5 million people, or approximately 1 Kuwait of people - that seems significant enough to me to constitute 'major'.

O.

I think you probably need to be talking in terms of hundreds of millions or more in order to be considered a major religion.

[ekim]

I think what's needed is an acceptable definition of what constitutes 'religion' and what constitutes 'spiritual', bearing in mind that both are Latinised expressions with a Christian background.

[ProfessorDavey]

The article is highlighting the fact that even though it might seem that people are becoming less religious...ie. leaving major religious groups...they are in fact not giving up their Faith. Their Faith is taking different forms.

I know that's what the article claims, but doesn't provide any credible evidence in support of that claim, unlike the Pew research I linked to, which doesn't support their view that people aren't becoming less religious, merely describing their faith as spiritual.

Did you actually read the Pew research Sriram? Perhaps I can summarise, using the UK as an exemplar, although the UK situation is pretty similar to other European countries.

So the argument from your article goes as follows: Ask people if they are religious or non-religious and you get a decline in religiosity. Add in a third option of 'spiritual', and you uncover a large group of people who in a binary choice pick non-religious but now define as 'spiritual'. Effectively that in a three way choice the proportion of people indicating religious and/or spiritual is greater than those that indicate religious in a binary choice. Put another way that in a three way choice fewer people say they are neither spiritual nor religious than say they are non-religious in a binary choice.

The problem with that argument is it is not borne out by the evidence.

So in the Pew research, firstly there are very few people (just 6% in the UK) who say they are spiritual but not religious.

Secondly and much more significant - the proportion of people saying they are neither religious nor spiritual in the three option choice (55%) is pretty well identical (actually slightly larger) than the numbers who say they are non-religious in a binary choice. So it doesn't matter if you describe 'faith' as 'religious' or as 'religious and/or spiritual' you get to the same number, and you get the same number that say they aren't religious in a binary choice or aren't 'religious and/or spiritual' in the three-way choice.

So rather than revealing a subset of non-religious people who will say they are spiritual if given the option, all this does is reveal a subset of people who say religious in a binary choice who prefer the term spiritual if given the option.

And of course there is no evidence that if you add 'spiritual' as a faith option that you somehow no longer see a decline - you do, and to the same extent as just asking religious vs non-religious as the proportions of the population saying they are non-religious (in a binary choice) is the same as saying neither religious nor spiritual in a situation that includes 'spiritual' as an additional option. And that proportion of the population saying they are religious and/or spiritual (44%) is way lower that typical numbers saying they were religious perhaps 30 years ago (approx. 65%) - so allowing people to indicate they are spiritual is having no effect on the decline in faith revealed by research.

That's my point Sriram - that your claim (and your article's) that 'the fact that even though it might seem that people are becoming less religious...ie. leaving major religious groups...they are in fact not giving up their Faith. Their Faith is taking different forms' is complete wishful thinking and not borne out by the evidence.

[SusanDoris]

I think the challenge with 'not religious but spiritual' arguments is that it is very difficult to provide a proper definition of 'spiritual' and it's use gets hijacked. So often you will see commentaries about 'spiritual' as meaning people are basically religious just not the type of organised religion we tend to consider traditionally. And therefore lead to the notion that people who are 'spiritual' are theists but not currently attracted by organised religion. I'm not sure I buy that argument - certainly plenty are looking for cultural and social ritual (which I imagine is pretty embedded within human societies) but I'm not convinced that means they really believe in god.

So I think there is a 'broad church' (excuse the pun) of people who band around the term 'spiritual' including:

1. Religious people who want to claim non religious people are really one of theirs - the redirecting rather than losing faith mob.
2. People who aren't religious but feel a claim of 'spiritual' is somehow more socially 'acceptable' than being agnostic or atheist.
3. Those who equate 'spiritual' as akin to a new age-type term for an ethical, good and deep-thinking person.
4. People who want organised social and cultural ritual but don't see it in other organised activities in a manner that they can buy into.
5. People who simply like to follow the trend and it is trendy to claim you are 'spiritual' as per any number of celebs and influencers.
6. People who are concerned with personal health and well being.
7. People who feel 'connected' to others or want to be seen to be 'connected' to others.

So with such a broad church it becomes a catch-all for so many disparate groups to the extent that, in my view, the term has lost any useful meaning.

Very much agree. On the GH and SofF forums, I challenge use of the word spiritual and its meaning, also the claims that atheists are not!, as often as I can!

[Free Willy]

Very much agree. On the GH and SofF forums, I challenge use of the word spiritual and its meaning, also the claims that atheists are not!, as often as I can!

II would put money on your definition being another piece of word piracy by atheists. That's not necessarily a terrible thing. What is though is when atheists claim that their new meaning is the only valid one, as you are doing here.

[Outrider]

II would put money on your definition being another piece of word piracy by atheists. That's not necessarily a terrible thing. What is though is when atheists claim that their new meaning is the only valid one, as you are doing here.

Is it only piracy when the atheists do it? Isn't that just how language evolves? Isn't that sort of syncretism the source of much of the current Christian tradition as Semitic concepts were bundled through Aramaic, Greek and Latin before being Balkanised through Protestantism's myriad translations into the carnival of competing nonsenses that we have now?

O.

[Sriram]

I know that's what the article claims, but doesn't provide any credible evidence in support of that claim, unlike the Pew research I linked to, which doesn't support their view that people aren't becoming less religious, merely describing their faith as spiritual.

Did you actually read the Pew research Sriram? Perhaps I can summarise, using the UK as an exemplar, although the UK situation is pretty similar to other European countries.

So the argument from your article goes as follows: Ask people if they are religious or non-religious and you get a decline in religiosity. Add in a third option of 'spiritual', and you uncover a large group of people who in a binary choice pick non-religious but now define as 'spiritual'. Effectively that in a three way choice the proportion of people indicating religious and/or spiritual is greater than those that indicate religious in a binary choice. Put another way that in a three way choice fewer people say they are neither spiritual nor religious than say they are non-religious in a binary choice.

The problem with that argument is it is not borne out by the evidence.

So in the Pew research, firstly there are very few people (just 6% in the UK) who say they are spiritual but not religious.

Secondly and much more significant - the proportion of people saying they are neither religious nor spiritual in the three option choice (55%) is pretty well identical (actually slightly larger) than the numbers who say they are non-religious in a binary choice. So it doesn't matter if you describe 'faith' as 'religious' or as 'religious and/or spiritual' you get to the same number, and you get the same number that say they aren't religious in a binary choice or aren't 'religious and/or spiritual' in the three-way choice.

So rather than revealing a subset of non-religious people who will say they are spiritual if given the option, all this does is reveal a subset of people who say religious in a binary choice who prefer the term spiritual if given the option.

And of course there is no evidence that if you add 'spiritual' as a faith option that you somehow no longer see a decline - you do, and to the same extent as just asking religious vs non-religious as the proportions of the population saying they are non-religious (in a binary choice) is the same as saying neither religious nor spiritual in a situation that includes 'spiritual' as an additional option. And that proportion of the population saying they are religious and/or spiritual (44%) is way lower that typical numbers saying they were religious perhaps 30 years ago (approx. 65%) - so allowing people to indicate they are spiritual is having no effect on the decline in faith revealed by research.

That's my point Sriram - that your claim (and your article's) that 'the fact that even though it might seem that people are becoming less religious...ie. leaving major religious groups...they are in fact not giving up their Faith. Their Faith is taking different forms' is complete wishful thinking and not borne out by the evidence.

Faith and non-materialism doesn't have to be labelled as anything....as such and such a religion or spiritual or anything at all.  If a person merely believes in some purpose to life or some hidden pattern behind their lives (Implicit Pattern learning) that is enough. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Faith and non-materialism doesn't have to be labelled as anything....as such and such a religion or spiritual or anything at all.  If a person merely believes in some purpose to life or some hidden pattern behind their lives (Implicit Pattern learning) that is enough.

Changing the goalposts Sriram - I thought you earlier claimed that there wasn't a decline in religiosity because people were just now describing themselves as 'spiritual' rather than 'religious'.

I presume that your non-answer to my rather detailed and evidence laded post means that you have no answer and that you accept that regardless of whether you give people the option of describing themselves as 'spiritual' as well as 'religious' it makes no difference to the proportion of the population claiming to be religious and/or spiritual nor to the decline in overall numbers describing themselves as spiritual and/or religious and an increase in the numbers describing themselves as neither spiritual or religious.

So let's put some numbers on this, for the UK.

1983
Religious - 69%
Non-religious - 31%

1990
Religious - 64%
Non-religious - 36%

2000
Religious - 60%
Non-religious - 40%

2010
Religious - 50%
Non-religious - 50%

2018
Religious - 48%
Non-religious - 52%
Or
Religious and/or spiritual - 44%
Neither religious or spiritual - 55%

[Sriram]

Changing the goalposts Sriram - I thought you earlier claimed that there wasn't a decline in religiosity because people were just now describing themselves as 'spiritual' rather than 'religious'.

I presume that your non-answer to my rather detailed and evidence laded post means that you have no answer and that you accept that regardless of whether you give people the option of describing themselves as 'spiritual' as well as 'religious' it makes no difference to the proportion of the population claiming to be religious and/or spiritual nor to the decline in overall numbers describing themselves as spiritual and/or religious and an increase in the numbers describing themselves as neither spiritual or religious.

I have no interest in entering into a detailed argument on anything and everything. 

My point in posting the article was merely to point out that....just because a person no longer identifies himself as a Christian or Hindu or whatever, it does not mean that he or she has automatically become a hardheaded atheist and materialist. 

A person could shift from a specific traditional belief to a very general and abstract form of belief that he himself is not very clear about.  He could just believe  in 'something' that he is unable to form a clear picture of objectively, but nevertheless has a personal and subjective relationship with.  He doesn't have to label it as anything specific.

[Sriram]

In the questionnaire they should be asked if they believe in a purely materialistic explanation for the origin and functioning of the universe and their lives. 

[Bramble]

Why on earth should anyone be expected to have an explanation for the origin and functioning of the universe and their lives?