Redirecting faith

[Outrider]

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.

And what the figures that PD has reproduced show is that we're already aware of that, and when you do it tends to be that people who think of themselves as 'spiritual but not religious' err on defining themselves as religious if there's a binary choice, so no-one has been considering themselves 'hardheaded' atheists, any more than anyone was automatically defining the religious as 'faith-blinded zealots' or the 'spiritual but not religious' as 'flighty hippies'.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

I'm not asking you to enter into detailed arguments on anything and everything, I am asking you to discuss evidence that counters your hand-waving assertions (and that of the article in the OP) such as:

'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'

and

'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.'

These assertions (effectively wishful thinking) are completely shot down by the evidence which demonstrates no such effect, actually the opposite.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

No-one has ever said that they have. But that comment shows that you really don't understand why religiosity (or religious and/or spiritual, define it as you wish) is declining in the UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Which the Pew research I linked to specifically looks at and deals with.

Have you actually bothered to read the research or are you simply uninterested in actually evidence as it might not align with your prejudice.

[Sriram]

No-one has ever said that they have. But that comment shows that you really don't understand why religiosity (or religious and/or spiritual, define it as you wish) is declining in the UK.

If no one has said that...then we are in agreement. You do accept that people who do not specifically identify  themselves as religious or spiritual need not be materialists or atheists.  They could have different or indefinite forms of beliefs which they are unable to categorize or label.  That is all my point in posting this thread is.....not a detailed analysis of the statistics in UK. 

[ProfessorDavey]

If no one has said that...then we are in agreement. You do accept that people who do not specifically identify  themselves as religious or spiritual need not be materialists or atheists.  They could have different or indefinite forms of beliefs which they are unable to categorize or label.  That is all my point in posting this thread is.....not a detailed analysis of the statistics in UK.

Nope your argument and that of the article in the OP was that simply asking whether someone is religious misses those that are 'spiritual' and when you look at both you don't see a decline in 'faith' (religious and/or spiritual). The implication being that we aren't really seeing a decline in religious/spiritual belief/faith.

That is non-sense as the evidence clearly indicates (certainly in the UK).

[Free Willy]

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%

Is there a category,'' suckling on the nipples of the four non horsemen of the atheist apocalypse''?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is there a category,'' suckling on the nipples of the four non horsemen of the atheist apocalypse''?

Nope - I guess they'd be a subset of 'non-religious', likely a sub-set comprising exactly zero people.

[Stranger]

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.

Why? That would be an absurd question. First you'd have to decide what the hell "purely materialistic" was supposed to mean, and then, depending on your conclusion, almost everybody would probably have to answer 'no'. The religious because they'd reject the "purely materialistic" and rational atheists because 'yes' could only be a faith based answer.

[Free Willy]

Nope - I guess they'd be a subset of 'non-religious', likely a sub-set comprising exactly zero people.

Are you denying that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris have any supporters? It should be zero, I agree, but then there is not much justice in this world and there is always the fringe element.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you denying that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris have any supporters? It should be zero, I agree, but then there is not much justice in this world and there is always the fringe element.

Nope but I doubt any of them would describe themselves as suckling on the nipples of the four non horsemen of the atheist apocalypse, so I suspect were you to include that as a category within a self-identification survey exactly zero people would tick that box.

[Outrider]

Is there a category,'' suckling on the nipples of the four non horsemen of the atheist apocalypse''?

It was voided from the coupon after a tedious nil-nil draw with 'So fundamentally deluded they shoot schoolgirls and try to deny gay people rights'...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why? That would be an absurd question. First you'd have to decide what the hell "purely materialistic" was supposed to mean, and then, depending on your conclusion, almost everybody would probably have to answer 'no'. The religious because they'd reject the "purely materialistic" and rational atheists because 'yes' could only be a faith based answer.

Actually the Pew research kind of covered this sort of stuff, and as you might imagine a largely proportion sat in the 'don't know' camp - with just 38% clearly embracing 'spirituality' concepts such as a 'soul', that they feel 'connected to something', that there are 'spiritual forces', that there is 'life after death'.

[SusanDoris]

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.

From which words in that post of mine do you infer that I am claiming that my meaning is the only valid one? My view is entirely contrary. Each person's definition of spiritual can be right for them, but no definition can come anywhere near being definitive.

[Free Willy]

From which words in that post of mine do you infer that I am claiming that my meaning is the only valid one? My view is entirely contrary. Each person's definition of spiritual can be right for them, but no definition can come anywhere near being definitive.

In reply 17 You said this: '' 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!''.

Now some of the uses of the word spiritual must exclude any atheist understanding and you are challenging those meanings not once, not, to be sure, inadvertently but as often as you can.

What I will say is this. The spiritual is impossible for a physicalist and to my recollection there is at least one of those on this forum.

[SusanDoris]

In reply 17 You said this: '' 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!''.

Now some of the uses of the word spiritual must exclude any atheist understanding and you are challenging those meanings not once, not, to be sure, inadvertently but as often as you can.

What I will say is this. The spiritual is impossible for a physicalist and to my recollection there is at least one of those on this forum.

And on what authority or expertise do you think you are correct in that last sentence?

[Free Willy]

And on what authority or expertise do you think you are correct in that last sentence?

It's my opinion, which can be accepted or rejected.

[ProfessorDavey]

In reply 17 You said this: '' 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!''.

Now some of the uses of the word spiritual must exclude any atheist understanding and you are challenging those meanings not once, not, to be sure, inadvertently but as often as you can.

What I will say is this. The spiritual is impossible for a physicalist and to my recollection there is at least one of those on this forum.

Now I suspect most atheists will not describe themselves as spiritual. But there is no fundamental contradiction as many of the spiritual claims do not require a god and therefore would not be inconstant with a lack of belief that gods exist.

So for example there is no fundamental need for a god to exist to believe:

1. In reincarnation
2. That crystals have healing powers
3. That are lives are somehow influenced by the positions of the planets
4. That there is life after death

These are all classic spiritual type claims and none require god.

[Udayana]

Now I suspect most atheists will not describe themselves as spiritual. But there is no fundamental contradiction as many of the spiritual claims do not require a god and therefore would not be inconstant with a lack of belief that gods exist.

So for example there is no fundamental need for a god to exist to believe:

1. In reincarnation
2. That crystals have healing powers
3. That are lives are somehow influenced by the positions of the planets
4. That there is life after death

These are all classic spiritual type claims and none require god.

Surely you don't even need any of that claptrap? "Spiritual" can just mean that you think or feel that there is a meaning or purpose of some kind in your own and others existence or life. So, in my book, can apply to anyone irrespective of any claims or beliefs.

[Bramble]

Surely you don't even need any of that claptrap? "Spiritual" can just mean that you think or feel that there is a meaning or purpose of some kind in your own and others existence or life. So, in my book, can apply to anyone irrespective of any claims or beliefs.

You beat me to it! I think this obsession with beliefs and truth claims is a particularly religious fetish - especially a Christian one - and that is one reason why many people distance themselves from religion but not from spirituality. Meaning and purpose also strike me as essentially religious preoccupations. All of these words - belief, meaning, purpose - relate to ways of grasping or clinging to something: a truth claim, a story, a hope. Of course, one doesn't have to be religious to cling - to being right, for example, and maintaining an identity. This does seem to be the default human state and not altogether an obviously happy one. Yet we find it hard to imagine the alternative and instead keep hoping for a different result.

[Enki]

I regard myself as having 'spiritual' experiences which for me take the form of emotional experiences of being linked to the natural world and the sense of significance and awe that it gives to me. In my case it can often accompany a period of acute awareness of the senses in response to nature in some way. There are no religious connotations or feelings of some unifying consciousness involved at all as far as I can tell. For me there is no sense of the mystical or Sriram's connecting with ones's inner self.

[Outrider]

I regard myself as having 'spiritual' experiences which for me take the form of emotional experiences of being linked to the natural world and the sense of significance and awe that it gives to me. In my case it can often accompany a period of acute awareness of the senses in response to nature in some way. There are no religious connotations or feelings of some unifying consciousness involved at all as far as I can tell. For me there is no sense of the mystical or Sriram's connecting with ones's inner self.

I have had that sensation of awe and wonder at times, in response to the natural world - some of it the 'raw' nature, like seeing seals in the wild, or being completely out of sight of land in a rolling ocean, and some of it through the lens of technology, like seeing equipment responding to bouncing a laser off the mirrors on the moon.

For me, personally, I wouldn't use the word 'spiritual', probably because of the associations it has. Ultimately, as stated above, I don't see why there's a need to consider a 'spirit' to be involved to appreciate the phenomena.

O.

[Enki]

I have had that sensation of awe and wonder at times, in response to the natural world - some of it the 'raw' nature, like seeing seals in the wild, or being completely out of sight of land in a rolling ocean, and some of it through the lens of technology, like seeing equipment responding to bouncing a laser off the mirrors on the moon.

For me, personally, I wouldn't use the word 'spiritual', probably because of the associations it has. Ultimately, as stated above, I don't see why there's a need to consider a 'spirit' to be involved to appreciate the phenomena.

O.

Fair points. For me the spiritual element is probably akin to a certain type of mood(E.g. He entered into the spirit of things) but with emphasis on the deeply personal element. I don't go along with the attempts to shoehorn the word to exclusively fit an agenda, a habit which I find all too prevalent.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have had that sensation of awe and wonder at times, in response to the natural world - some of it the 'raw' nature, like seeing seals in the wild, or being completely out of sight of land in a rolling ocean, and some of it through the lens of technology, like seeing equipment responding to bouncing a laser off the mirrors on the moon.

For me, personally, I wouldn't use the word 'spiritual', probably because of the associations it has. Ultimately, as stated above, I don't see why there's a need to consider a 'spirit' to be involved to appreciate the phenomena.

O.

I agree with others that there are all sorts of experiences we might choose to describe as spiritual experiences, regardless of whether we are religious and/or believe in god.

However I think, that because the term 'spiritual' has so often been hi-jacked by the religious to imply that someone is, in effect, actually religious regardless of whether they describe themselves as such, I suspect many non religious people are rather cautious about using the term about themselves, and for good reason.

And the data I shared really backs this up - the reality is that people who describe themselves as 'spiritual' in a pick one or more of three (religious; non-religious; spiritual) are really just a subset of those that describe themselves as religious in a pick one from two (religious; non-religious).

[Free Willy]

Surely you don't even need any of that claptrap? "Spiritual" can just mean that you think or feel that there is a meaning or purpose of some kind in your own and others existence or life. So, in my book, can apply to anyone irrespective of any claims or beliefs.

But are you talking about a kind of Poundland spirituality here?