Will Religions survive another Millenium? or just be swallowed up by the new God or Goddess of Shopping, or something?

Yes, I think religions will survive, maybe different ones will rise/grow and others diminish, possibly as a result of science undermining religious assumptions. But I think it is human nature to feel a sense of spiritual connection as it brings a sense of well being (well, it does for me).

So I think religion will survive, but I think ultimately it will change, evolve and probably grow as we become technologically advanced and more removed from our connectedness (or is that just a pagan thing?)

fizz.

errr....I dont read any newspapers!
I personally dont see a problem with people making a Profit, but when they are resources which everyone needs, I think they should have a limit in place! Its try British Gas are making huge profits, so are all the Fossil Fuel providers!

(Personally I think they are just milking us, because they (BG, Shell, BP, etc) keep hearing how Fossil fuels are going to run out and are getting rarer and rarer! )

The trouble with this is my bills are going up, but worse still, Hospitals bills are going up to! I think services which provide essential services to keep people alive etc, should have a fixed rate, which doesnt go up! Its the same for the Ambulance Service, Fire Brigade, Police, etc, they shouldnt have to waste all their budgets on re fueling!

Technology is a great thing, it does come up with some wonderful solutions to problems, even if some of them are for problems I didnt know I had!
But it is wrong (hyperthetically) for example to keep a cure for the common cold or cancer unavailable to the people who need it, because it might reduce Profits!
Profit isnt everything!
Personally, I dont think essentials that affect people directly, eg food, water, heating, medicine, education, should be in the hands of Profit making Companies.
Im not a Socialist or anything, but some things should be available to all!

I also think Religion will always exist, as long as there is someone needing help with something they are totally powerless over, there will be a need for it!

I have read this entire thread and find some observations puzzling. From what I've read, it seems (just IMO) to be confusion regarding the areas being discussed. I have often found stipulative definitions to be of use. Perhaps someone can supply some?

'Science' is a process, that of observing the relationship between events and perhaps being able to arrive at a place where potential predictive measures can be ascertained from the findings: so, 'science' is more to the verb than the noun I should think.

'Religion' is a set of subjective beliefs , usually of an emotive nature which seeks to find expression in potential examples of those beliefs being 'true'. Having said that, it is also impossible to 'prove' religion in any way. The only connection is that neither science nor religion rest on 'absolute truth'.

So, apples><oranges.

Also, there seems to be an historical disconnect between both what is considered/was considered 'science' and that of what we know call 'engineering'.

An example might be the Antikythera mechanism. It is written of as an engineering model, yet the hoped for outcome was prediction and an understanding of celestial events and which is dated at approximately 100 B.C.. So, not new and combining both disciplines.

The horticultural use of both rotating crops and the use of fertilizers has been known for thousands of years, so again, not news. Yet it could be classed as a 'science'. To say one could happily live without it this knowledge is to say one could happily live without many kinds of food and clothing (and extend this to agriculture in general). This seems a bit simplistic to me.

Both science and engineering ( a knife is a very good example of the happy marriage of both) have never been absent from those human histories which we can trace.

How does a person 1) Get fed up with something which has defined us and indeed, enabled our survival for as long as recorded history and 2) conflate this with religion?


On what would one predicate the rise of religion on the absence of both discovery and that which everyone uses everyday?

I wonder if someone could explain this to me? What do people mean by 'science' and how does it relate to religion?

Thank you

Marto

MARTO: Accomplished "Science" is independently verifyable knowledge and unaccomplished "Religion" is unverifyable superstitions. The two "nouns" have no relationship.

Forgive my use of the confusing colloquialism 'more to the'. It is another way of phrasing "More like a" or " Is rather more of a ".

I quite agree that the protocols of good experimentation mean the results must be replicable by independent and autonomous groups within a very few standard deviations from the original findings in order to reject the null hypothesis.

I am intrigued by the use of the word 'unaccomplished' in regards to religion. I am not aware of of such a thing as 'accomplished' religion outside of shared orthopraxy as religion is not testable.

Therefore we are back to: apples><oranges in terms of attempting to make comparisons between them I should think whether the semantics of description share commonalities or not.

Marto

It is my greatest hope for the Human Race that 'Religion' will be replaced with 'Spirituality'. I would like to think that we will evolve enough to see religion for the terrible thing that it is and find enough common ground to enable us live together in peace. Religion and bigotry and violence seem to be good bedfellows. How many more of our sisters and brothers need to die in it's name?

Science is not immune from that, nor is anything else involving humans. We fear and hate and kill because that is what it is to be human.

I wonder if you could define 'spirituality' for me in the context of this thread? Do you simply mean forms of belief not tied to a central dogma? Or something else? With your definition of spirituality, how do you see pan-global human behavior changing and why?

Thanks,

Marto

Except in response to perceived threats or in cases of pathology, I shouldn't think most humans are defined by fear, hatred and killing in their work-a-day lives (at least, not mine ). Creating Art - music, visual art, and literature are also human attributes. Indeed, there are many things which humans CAN do which should be included in the 'definition of what it means to be human'.

Perhaps an important point is that unless we are simply reacting to threat, for the most part humans can also make choices as to how they act and react. Cleaving to a belief system does not make a person violent unless they are already predisposed to be so and the belief system they adhere to encourages it. It is a long jump from the subjective belief in a religion to the acting upon it and with time to think about it in between always available.

Marto

KW: I'm with you! Down with Religion, up with Spirituality! If everyone were 0% religious, 100% spiritual, and educated in at least the basics of Science, Planet Earth would be Heavenly! (Pardon the pun.)

Is it possible for one to be spiritual and hold no beliefs outside one's self???

Hate to perseverate , but could someone define 'spiritual' for me? It helps me to understand people's observations if I know more exactly what is meant.

Thank you

Marto

Apart from the last one, I think those define the vast majority of people almost all the time. Music, art and literature beyond the mass-produced pulp variety are pretty much alien to most of this country's population.

Utopia sounds like Hell to me!

all arty and spiritual! With delicate wafts of science!
Sorry Im too earthy for that!

Let me guess, you are in one of the 'services'? Military, police, County Morgue? Remind me not to visit your patch

I see this observation is more in the personal opinion department than in the 'definitive attributes of Humans' one.

Relieved.

Marto

Heheh. Yeah, I'm one of those who believe you can sum up all you need to know about human nature in two words: Machine. Gun.

Tas wanders in for a bumbly moment...

Religion has been used (having been suitably tweaked and organised into hierarchies) for political purposes, and still seems to be an acceptable means nowadays too, of subjugating people to act in accordance with the status quo - as dictated by whoever is the recognised ruling body of whatever religion is being used.

Sorry for that unwieldy sentence.

Science has been similarly misappropriated from its original purpose, with discoveries being manipulated to whatever ends the PTB decree.

But with religion, as with science, there will always be those who seek and practice their skills and ask questions regardless of whether they will gain money or kudos. Scientists who are curious for the sake of it. Spiritual seekers who seek and worship privately, often flying in the face of organised religion.

Why? Who knows. Maybe there is hope for the human race still!

IMHO Marto (and that is all it is) Spirituality is communication with the All/Divine/Creator
or whatever name people use to describe the Indescribable. There are no rules, no dogma, no 'thou shalts' or 'shalt nots'. When we touch the Spirit of The Divine there is no place in any of us for hate or war or greed. Under the skin and beyond our religions we are all the same. We are part of the Creator. He/She experiences physical life through us. Some of us experience only good things in our present incarnation and others of us experience only suffering and pain. Most of us experience both. I believe (and this is where I fall from Grace with religion) that The Creator is Everything. There is nothing that He/She is not. By definition She created Light and Darkness because without the one we cannot know or choose the other. I believe that those who in this lifetime cause pain and suffering to others by violence and greed etc are unevolved souls who will need many more incarnations to become more elevated spiritually.
Others are Higher souls who have been here many times and choose to walk among us to help and teach. Spirituality is awareness of who we are and where we are from. We need no priest to intercede or bless or forgive. We are responsible for what we do in this life. We, I believe, have a 'lifeplan' before we enter a physical body and we make our own choices as to what we will experience this time around. In order to live that chosen life we agree to 'forget'. However some of us will remember and live our lives within that 'knowing'. Spirituality is our birthright. If we were all to connect with our Creator without religion we could heal ourselves and our planet overnight. Well you asked and that is how I see it.

(Ducks to avoid flying objects Lol)

If this recent news,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7539329.stm?lsm

is anything to go by, there may be a "social connectivity constant for humanity". And who is to say it's not spiritual as well as electrical/technological?

It's a fascinating theory being propounded her - well worth reading, and coincidentally it also seems to have elements we are discussing in here too!

Interesting link Tas. Kind of links in with the Spiders Web theory too.

I think the impulse toward some sort of worship is a basic human need. Whether this comes out in the form of religion, or hero-worship of some secular kind. Nowadays, the cult of Celebrity revolves around media personalities of variable talent (or no talent at all), but in the past artists and orators were feted in much the same way. Religion in one form or another has been around as long as mankind, and will survive as long as we do. Some of the sects which are prevalent today may wane in popularity, and be replaced by others, but again, this is nothing new. I do think that older faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have been around long enough and are well enough established to weather any changes that might occur. Paganism too has evolved and branched out in diverse directions, but is still recognisably the same.

This thread hs also thrown up some interesting points on science, but rather than respond here, I think I'll start a new thread with my thoughts on that.

Thank for your answer. These concepts are hard to articulate. But here is my problem (which has nothing to do with your personal beliefs!).

The minute one postulates the existence of a 'creator' or meta-being, one is back to religion . The only difference I can see would be if each individual had a personal conception of such with no shared commonalities within the larger group. The reason for the necessity of no commonalities is because there is the propensity for beliefs shared by a group to generate 'group information' and can lead to group orthopraxy and orthodoxy. Arriving at this point then we are back to religion both in terms of belief , social identity and social cohesiveness.

And thats where trouble can start

There are thousands of 'religions' around the world. Many religions fly under our radar of awareness of them because of the relatively small numbers of adherents. But things can grow. Indeed, no religion started out with a million members.

The only way to 'avoid' a definable religious philosophy is, to put it simply, if everyone believed something different. Everybody.

Not all religions lead to war, not all religions lend themselves to peace, but all religions have a shared ethos.

Marto

Marto, I have come to the conclusion after a few years reading posts on UKP, that everybody DOES believe something different.

There's personal belief, and there's people trying to manipulate societies by regimenting personal belief.

My current thinking on religion / spirituality is that it's the same as what Richard Dawkins calls superstition. People have an urge to be superstitious, as part of their way of surviving in the world. We need to set up beliefs about what causes what, in order to choose the appropriate behaviour without having to trust to blind chance every time we perform an action.

For those events which don't have a definable cause, we latch on to whatever explanation resonates for us. And that's a little bit different for everyone.

But we also have an urge to agree with each other, to focus on what we have in common. We need to do this in order to form a world-view and its associated set of rules for living that will hold our community together. If we can't agree on what we agree on, we can't work together.

If we all agree to drive on the same side of the road, it's scientific and it helps to keep our society together. If we all agree to go to church on sunday, it's religious but has the same effect as all driving on the same side of the road, in that it makes us feel we are working together, it keeps the wheels of our society oiled.

I must go and read Tas' link on the social connectivity constant - it may be saying the same thing that I'm trying to say.

No it's not! But interesting too.

I tend to agree. Very nicely articulated. I think it is oft times the case that 'beliefs' (which ever they are) are secondary to social consensus and need. Perhaps this is why I don't think much would change in the world should the concept we label 'religion' suddenly not exist. I think the pack-animal part of us will always find a way to impose hierarchy and take what we want . Reasons to act so always seem rather thin and secondary.

It is to be hoped that we can develop a healthy and sane social consensus.In such an environment, religion or spirituality or whatever one wants to label it would cease to be contentious or necessary - merely the unforced (by anything ) choice of individuals.

And I have the Ruby Slippers and can turn celebs. into newts.

I'm an optimist.

Marto

Hmm.

Well... I actually subscribe to the concept that real truth and animistic spirit lives on strongest in the mundane. Anybody can have a moment in time which challenges who/what they think they are and causes a spiritual epiphany. Similarly, Chogyam Trungpa (Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism) warns against putting these moments of extraordinary experience, and gods/spirits/spiritual ideology, on a pedestal as something beyond mundane reality - everything is spiritual reality, even the 'mundane' Yet it's the human condition to look for something forever beyond our reach and unobtainable. Anyway, that's all been written about far more eloquently by him

But it's in the mundane we know who we really are. Not our exceptional reaction to an exceptional situation, but how we mozey along in day-to-day life. And as everything is just as valid an expression of the spirit of existence, then...well, what is 'mundane'

Finally, I disagree that religion or spirit is there to 'survive' or that it has to make itself a firm identity in order to exist. From the beginning of time it has 'survived' but never immovably, never without mutation, development, transience - it's constantly in motion; anything you try and nail down to an exact definition will die eventually. You're nailing it to the intellectual firing post lol What we are and the meaning of animism is far deeper than that. Survival is a matter of the flesh; spirit undergoes death every second of every day and is reborn

I agree with you Thinair (if I have understood what you are saying properly. I apologise if I haven't.)

In the words of John Lennon, 'Life is what happens to us while we are busy making other plans'. There is no such thing as mundane. I do not see my view of the world as religious. Everything is sacred. We are beautifully and fearfully made. Most of us go through life waiting for life to begin. We say 'well when I have more money, or when I have sorted out this problem or when I get a better job....that's when I will start to live'. But the problems that we are waiting to pass ARE life.

Every moment is sacred and our world is so awesome that we can't even begin to understand it. Knowing, becoming aware of this is Spirituality. Acknowledgement of Who or What created all of this.

Some of us go to church on Sunday and pay lip-service to 'God' and then feet up, what's for lunch , what's on the telly.... We don't see what is all around us. We don't really care what happens to the world or anyone else on it. Someone else will sort it all out...

Religion pulls us into awareness momentarily. Or it focuses our minds so much on the validity of what we believe that we are prepared to kill anyone who thinks differently.
Spirituality is awareness of the bigger picture. The tiny things that crawl and fly are masterpieces of an incredible Creator.

Religion and Spirituality are not interchangeable. Spirituality is not religion. IMHO.

on the spiritual ;thingy:

I think being spiritual starts with our capacity to think about ourselves, others and the issues that generally occur within ourselves, our families and the wider society in general.

Being spiritual is being aware of the human conditions both good and bad, its about using that knowledge to live a life in the best way a person can given the environment in which they live (as either a constraint or enhancer).

Is that religious? not from my understanding of religion (especially xianity) but I think it could become that way, afterall, doesn't religion influence our lives in many different ways?

fizz

Excuse me, but I am still confused at where the difference , by your definition, between 'religion' and 'spirituality' is.

My first problem is you speak of a 'creator'. Do you mean deity? If so, all religions posit deity as their core. That, if you will, is the definition of 'religion'.

I do not consider myself either religious or spiritual, yet I am very aware of that which surrounds me. I wonder how many people have looked at a drop of pond water under a microscope? Within it are hundreds of life-forms. People look at a pond and may remark upon the intense colour of the scum upon it's surface, a water lily or the way sunlight refracts off of it. How many people are aware that they are also looking at an entire micro-system full of life? We are surrounded by 'galaxies' if we only are interested and curious enough to look.

To propose that one also has to be 'spiritual' to be aware seems to me to be stating the proposition that NOT to be 'spiritual' means, de facto, that one does not or can not acknowledge , appreciate or understand their surroundings. This is a traditional claim of many of the larger religions.

But perhaps I have mistaken your meaning? If so, I apologise. I am not looking to be contentious, but to understand. For by your definition, I am blind to the world and cosmos.

Marto

To me everything is spirit, therefore everything has the potential to be spiritual, including religion and the weekly shopping at Tesco’s. Actual spiritualism (outside the religious definition) is the desire to examine, experiment with, change or improve oneself (or to interact with 'other' in a mindful way) - whatever the means.

Spiritualism can be applied to any event, object or emotion - so yes, I think religion often rates highly on the spiritual score - a lot of people, at whatever level, are expressing and 'doing' spirituality through religion, granted many are also not. It's a focus-point for spiritualism but can become the static (and therefore illusory) identity of spiritualism.

The key to it is mindfulness (which is a more accurate word than 'consciousness' I think) - you interact with the mundane, or the exceptional hits you in the face - but in mindfulness spirituality manifests. Sitting in a church needn't be spiritual if you're not mindful of it. Cooking breakfast can be spiritual if you're mindful of it.

If you're a Buddhist monk your aim is to become mindful all of the time, but in daily life most of us drift in and out of it. That in itself is a spiritual complexity worth pondering Should we be in a constant state of mindfulness? The Buddhists would suggest 'yes', if we were would we in ourselves be 'spiritual beings'? 'Spiritually enlightened'? If it is around us at all times and we are not mindful, does that make what is around us any less spiritual?

In most shamanic and ancient cultures, those who were mindful at all times ceased to function well in civil society - the outcasts and the lunatics Although it's said the difference between a shaman and a lunatic is that one's aware they are mad - not sure that isn't just a witty quip though

I once spent a couple of days beings consciously mindful of everything, I dont think I chose to do this, its just one of those things that happened to me! It was a nightmare!
It was fascinating, yes, but god, bursting into tears because the kindling is being so nice as to burn willingingly, for my fire to keep me warm! Even thought the birth of the fire was fascinating and its birth pains hurt me! Its dance was amazing! Its death was sad! I cant explain this one!! It did my nut in! Everything was alive and so willing and helpful, well apart from some of the veg at dinner which was crying so much I couldnt cut it up!
Shit! I hope I am never that mindful again!
I couldnt live like that everyday! You certainly would go mad!

I have a problem with this. OK, Britain is not well known for its painters, although a large part of Pre-Raphaelite paintings were either by Brits or inspired by British life. And there is always Turner. But what we lost in music and art we defintely gained in literature. Shakespear, Bacon, Blake, Byron, Shelley, Johnson, Pepys, CS Lewis, Tolkien. And even now we have Iain Banks, Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, JK Rowling, Phil Pullman, Jacqueline Wilson and so on. These are all famous, rich and successful authors, not one of whom could be considered to write 'pulp' (whether you like their work or not). If the British people didn't like the books they wouldn't buy them, but they do. The UK publishes more books in a year than any other country in the world. Fair enough, some may be clones of Jordans memoirs, but the majority aren't, and people read them!

However much I despair of the oncoming idiocracy, I can't agree that our literature is mass produced pulp, nor that the majority of the population demands it.

I suppose my problem with all religion is that it is regimented. Other people have written the rule book. I was a Christian for most of my life but I was a problem to fellow Christians because there were no answers to my questions. The whole point of Christianity is that God gave God to die on a cross to pay the price for some awful thing that I had done. My questions were 'well what about homosexuals, what about good people who aren't Christians..... you know the questions I mean. The answer was always 'You know the rules. If it isn't done this way you burn in hell. End of story'.
Really. Educated sensible people said that to me. And what was worse, they believed it. When they did anything wrong the Devil had made them do it! Satan got the rap for all their bad behaviour. And anyway it didn't really matter because Jesus had paid up front.

That then is how I see religion. I now see God in a different way and choose to call it Spirituality. I would probably describe you as Spiritual but obviously our definitions differ.If you see pond life through a microscope are you seeing it through the eyes of a scientist or are you spiritually in awe at what you see? Are you saying that what I see and the path I follow is 'religion'? There are too many threads to all of this and we will end up in a tangle. I have no answers. I just walk my path. My definitions are obviously simplistic and I have no need or desire to argue the ins and outs. If being aware of a Creator Spirit is religion then I must be guilty as charged.

Like everything else in life there are countless ways to see and perceive the same thing. We might have to agree to differ on this one Lol!

Hmmm. British artists...

Aubrey Beardsley and Rennie McIntosh spring to mind.

Sorry - off topic!

(Love the Pre-Raphaelites too!)

Once one says that "everything is spirit", though, or "all is sacred", then the words 'spirit' and 'sacred' become meaningless - or, at least, synonyms of the word 'all'. To take this to an extreme, is effluent sacred? How about plastic, is that spirit? Is torture spiritual? Or paedophilia?

The root meaning of the word 'sacred' is 'set aside'. Once one 'sets aside' everything, and defines 'spiritual' as 'all', what's left? What are you trying to convey when you use the words 'sacred' or 'spiritual'? What meaning am I meant to take from your usage of those words when they can be applied to anything or everything?

To use the words 'religion' or 'spirituality' or their variants in respect of the OP of the thread needs some sort of explanation or working definition, as Marto rightly suggests.



Does being mindful make us any more spiritual, though?

If I mindfully rape someone, does that make me spiritual?

Mindfulness is merely a technique, a particular way of observing and participating in experience. It can be part of a particular spiritual (eek!) or religious (ouch!) practice, but doesn't necessarily have to be part of one. Mindfulness, surely, is contingent - not necessary - in respect of spirituality?

Caerthan

As far as I'm aware, a large subset of the followers of all of the major religions acknowledge this.



So, are you saying that religion is only 'momentary awareness' as opposed to spirituality's 'bigger picture awareness'? Or are you saying that spirituality is a 'subset' of religion?

Also, the fact that someone self-defines as 'religious' doesn't automatically entail that they are prepared to kill anyone who thinks differently. The large majority of followers of the major religions would, I'm sure, feel insulted by that comment. Just because I've been bitten by one or two dogs in my life doesn't mean that all dogs will bite me, or even want to.

Caerthan

Yes I can see that I am generalising here. I am only using extreme examples and poor ones at that. What I am trying to say albeit badly is that this is my opinion and view only. This has been my experience of religion. I certainly have no wish to upset or insult anyone. In my own mind I am able to separate religion and spirituality but I appear to be badly equipped to explain it to anyone else. I believe that people can be spiritual AND religious but only up to the point where the tenets of their faith holds them back. I personally found my religious beliefs to be suffocating in the end. In fact my views on homosexuality caused Christians to reject me as my ideas were unbiblical. As usual I am out of place in this debate because most of you are far more intellectual and well versed in such things and I was only trying to join in with my own twopennorth. Lol!
No offence meant to anyone of any faith or none. I apologise.

No need to apologise to me, Kitchenwitch, I personally took no offense. I understand that folk do get damaged - some pretty seriously - by hard-line religion, especially fundamentalist varieties. Stephen Green (the Christian Voice whacko) lives in the next village to me: as a man who's openly partnered with another man, this doesn't give me a warm comfy glow.

I do think we need to be careful of where we point guns, though. I have no love for Christianity - quite the opposite, in fact. However, I have had experience of Christians who I do regard as genuinely loving, compassionate and (sorry!) deeply spiritual. Also, by tarring all 'religious' people with the same brush, we miss important differences between the religions. Sure, Christianity has its problems, but they're not the same problems as (for example) the Hindu religions, or the Sufi faith.

I feel the same as you, also: "In my own mind I am able to separate religion and spirituality", but I'm not sure that I have a real handle on verbalising it. Hence, I'm keen on discussions like this where the subject can be thrashed out, even if no consensus is reached.

And as for "As usual I am out of place in this debate because most of you are far more intellectual and well versed in such things and I was only trying to join in with my own twopennorth." Well.... pffft! You have as much right to a place in the debate as anyone else - it affects you as much as the rest of us

Caerthan

I personally think using a word like 'spiritual' in opposition to 'religious' throws a spanner in the works.

Here is a standard dictionary definition of spiritual:


""Main Entry:
1spir·i·tu·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1spiritual
Pronunciation:
\ˈspir-i-chə-wəl, -i-chəl, -ich-wəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French espirital, spiritual, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
Date:
14th century

1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs

2 a: of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual

3: concerned with religious values4: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>

5 a: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic ""

Doesn't really define anything very specific, does it? A person could be an atheist and be interested in definition 5.

'Religions' that tend to be monolithic and controlling usually involve dogma, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Those three are the villains of the piece as they can stand in for a form of social and personal control. I have no doubt that if one or other form of 'paganism' now rose to the top, it would look the same or at least ACT the same as many of the 'big' religions. It's only because most neo-pagans can't agree on anything for 5 minutes or can't organize a piss-up in a brewery because of this that as a group, pagans are not just another controlling religion. And mind, I've seen some try. 'Right think' and 'Group Concensus' are alive and well in paganism. After all , a lot of the early christians were just as likely to be sold down the river by one of their own lot as by someone of another religion . And I've seen pagans treated like crap by other pagans - all is not sweetness and light in pagan land either.

Anyone can be 'spiritual' and it means nothing other than how they perceive a particular subjective state or phenomena , IMO. It has no 'value' attached to it in terms of being specially aware or open to extraneous and even undefined phenomenon. One can be in a particular religion or not and still be 'spiritual'.

As far the world and religions go, I think it's the same as the world and politics or the world and economics ( in which said areas big religions have always had an interest as it furthers their cause as well frequently) - once you get large blocks of people believing and acting in concert for some subjectively defined end, there is bound to be trouble.

It's probably that very quality of admitting to diverse experiential paths that keeps pagans from becoming what they would despise.

Marto

I think you are contradicting yourself Marto. You start this by saying that it causes confusion to put spirituality in opposition to religion and then go on to say...



I agree with this bit. Personally I dont think the two things are mutually exclusive at all. You can be spiritual and not religious, you can be religious and not spiritual. I dont think it causes confusion, although defining spirituality is like describing colour, show someone purple and they know what it is.. try to explain it, even to someone with sight and you just cant!

The 'opposition' appears when people state it as conceptually and fundamentally different from or opposed to religion . One of the posters said they were 'spiritual' but not religious but when I asked for a definition of 'spiritual', what I appeared to be reading was also equatable to that which could define most religions. It's confusing.

Sorry if I was unclear.

And how could a person be religious but not spiritual? By just following the orthopraxy of a belief but not believing? Just curious.

Marto

Exactly that. Religiosity is not the flipside of spirituality. Belief is also not spirituality! You are assuming that belief presupposes connection. It doesnt. I know MANY people who believe in some form or another of an abrahmic god, but that doesnt mean they have a connection with that god OR their faith. Many people believe because they have been brought up to do so. They believe in god the same way they believe the sun warms the earth. It doesnt mean they understand their belief, or have made a spiritual connection with it. MANY people follow blindly, in fear, hoping it is their loophole, or using it as a crutch, it does NOT make them spiritual. However they follow their laws and tennants religiously. They are religious people.

Oh yes. Humans seem to need various types of 'structure' in their life. It's always easier to just go when told to and bow when expected to than to think . And of course in some places, people have no choice but to seem to 'believe', especially in places with rigorously applied state religions.

And no, I don't assume anything when it comes to humans - that's much too dangerous And being as I'm an atheist, it's all an abstract proposition anyway.

Marto

Ditto.

Thank you Xalle. You said what I was thinking so much better than I even thought it!

edited to add quotation