mouthporn.net
#spiritual – @religion-is-a-mental-illness on Tumblr

Religion is a Mental Illness

@religion-is-a-mental-illness / religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com

Tribeless. Problematic. Triggering. Faith is a cognitive sickness.
Avatar

By: Ryan Burge

Published: 26 Jan, 2024

One of the most challenging aspects of this job appears simple to those who haven't done it before: crafting survey questions. It’s such an impossible task, especially when you are trying to develop new measures that haven’t been used before in other surveys. To put this in some context, I met with a team of three graduate assistants every other week for an hour for the entire Fall semester just to get a survey in shape to be rolled out to a select group of early reviewers. Sending out that first draft is nerve-wracking because you know that many aspects won't work and will need adjustments or removal. It's akin to typing into a Google Doc, and a collaborator logs in, leaving you feeling vulnerable.
Over Christmas break, I had sent the test link out to some folks that I really trust and I know that they will provide some excellent feedback. I was not disappointed. Our research team met earlier this week to review the feedback and make some changes; we all agreed that this moved us closer to a finished product.
But there’s one comment that I received that I have been thinking about a lot. There's a section of the survey that inquires about spirituality and spiritual practices. Most reviewers had the same critique: they wished for a clear definition of spirituality within the survey. I get that impulse. I really do. But, I don’t think I’m going to be able to do that for a simple reason: 
I don’t know that our team could write a definition of spirituality that most people would agree with. It’s very much “in the eye of the beholder.” 
However, I may actually understand spirituality a bit better now thanks to some recent data posted on the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) that was funded by the Fetzer Institute. The National Religion and Spirituality Survey, conducted in late 2022 with a total sample size of 3,651, provided valuable insights into how people perceive the words 'religious' and 'spiritual’.
I know it’s a cliche when I write this, but in this case it’s true: I honestly understand the world a little bit better after doing this data work. It absolutely sharpens my understanding of the religious/spiritual world and how the average person relates to both those concepts. 
There was a question battery at the beginning of the survey that listed a whole bunch of terms (13 in total) and folks were asked if that word described spirituality to them. Then they were given the same list of terms and asked if those described religion to them. It offers a peek behind the curtain of how these words are understood in the general population. 
The general consensus that emerges is that people tend to associate many words with spirituality, but fewer terms describe religion. For example, eight of these terms clearly describe spirituality more than they describe religion: clarity, inspiration, love, peace, purpose, transcendence, transformation, and wonder. And in many cases the percentage difference between religion and spirituality is pretty large. It’s thirteen points for peace (68% vs 53%). It’s eight points for love (55% vs 47%) and seven points for inspiration and clarity. The most chosen terms here are peace, love, and inspiration. 
In contrast, there are only a few terms clearly associated with religion: belonging (35% vs. 29%), structure (32% vs. 22%), and values (51% vs. 47%). Eight for spirituality and three for religion. The words that are most likely to be associated with religion are peace, values, and love. Only 17% of folks say that transformation and wonder describe religion, just 12% say that transcendence is a part of religion. I feel like there’s an entire dissertation to be written about that. 
But how do religion and spirituality work together? Folks were asked, “How spiritual are you?” and then were asked, “How religious are you?” They were given four response options ranging from “not at all” to “very.” What I think is fascinating is the result when you put those two questions into a heat map. 
Just 9% of the population identified as both very religious and very spiritual. The most common response was that they were both moderately spiritual and moderately religious, with 23% in that category. In contrast, 12% of the sample said that they were not at all religious and not at all spiritual. Clearly the diagonal line across the middle of the heat map was where most people found themselves - these four squares represent 56% of the sample. 
Only .2% of folks said that they were very religious but not at all spiritual. In contrast, 3.2% were very spiritual but not at all religious. One throughline that I see is that there are lots of people who are not religious but somewhat spiritual, but the opposite is much less prevalent. Almost everyone who says that they are religious also says that they are moderately or very spiritual. It’s almost like spirituality doesn’t need religion but spirituality is an essential part of religion.  
One question I had when I started looking through these questions was: are young people more likely to embrace spirituality and reject religion? And are older folks more attracted to religion and less to spirituality? There’s a decent sample size here so I can answer these questions. 
Among the youngest adults, slightly less than half claimed to be moderately or very spiritual, while the share for religion was about ten percentage points lower. These trends remained relatively stable from ages 18 to 40, with a persistent ten-point gap. But then both lines began to slowly drift upwards among those in their forties and fifties. The share who say that they are moderately/very spiritual moves up to about 50% around 50 years old. There’s also an upward movement among those who say the same about religion.
But then the lines basically flatten off again - from 55 years old all the way to 75 years old. Even among the oldest Americans, spirituality is embraced more than religion. Among those who are 70 years old about two-thirds say that they are moderately/very spiritual and around 55% say they are moderately/very religious. So, spirituality is clearly more popular across the board. And it’s really fascinating how that gap is basically the same size across the entire age spectrum. 
I wanted to end this piece by analyzing a series of questions about whether spirituality or religion has any bearing on how people act in the real world. For instance, folks were asked how much they agreed with this statement, “My <Religion or Spirituality> Impacts My Political Views.” Response options ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. 
Just 13% of people strongly agreed that religion impacted their political views, while it was 16% for spirituality. Thirty-eight percent agreed that spirituality influenced their political views, compared to 30% for religion. Folks were 21 points more likely to strongly disagree with the statement “religion impacts my political views” than strongly agree. That’s not a small difference. For the spirituality question the difference was only ten points (26% vs 16%). 
But, how about their political activity like protesting, attending campaign events, etc? The same kind of gaps emerge here, too. 
The most common response for the statement, 'My Religion Impacts My Political Activity,' was strongly disagree at 37%, with only 10% strongly agreeing. In total, people were twice as likely to disagree as to agree (47% vs 24%). Spirituality fares just a bit better. Nearly a third of the sample agreed that their spirituality impacted their political activity while 37% disagreed. But big chunks of the sample neither agreed nor disagreed with each statement. It just doesn’t feel like religion or spirituality are motivating folks to get engaged in the political process. 
I wanted to show you all one more question that used this format, but this time it was the impact of spirituality or religion on civic engagement which is activities like volunteering their time for a nonprofit or donating to charity. 
Again, a similar pattern emerges, with spirituality driving civic engagement more than religion. In terms of religion, 28% said it drove their civic engagement, while for spirituality, it was 34%. A third of the sample strongly disagreed that religion drove their volunteerism, it was only 25% who said the same thing about their spirituality. Across the board, it’s spirituality that seems to be doing more work than religion. 
There’s a belief out there that spirituality tends to be more selfish than religion. For instance, things like meditation and yoga are more individualistic practices. Meanwhile, religious practices (especially corporate worship) are outwardly focused toward engaging not only with the rest of the religious body but also the community at large. 
But in a great paper published in 2022, Jaime Kucinskas and Evan Stewart tested this hypothesis and what they found largely comports with what I just showed you in the last three graphs. Spirituality is not necessarily selfish. Instead, they argue for what they call, “substituting spirituality.” They describe it this way, “spiritual practice (works) as a substitute for religious engagement among groups alienated from religious institutions, with the former capable of fostering similar proclivities for political action as the latter.” 
I think almost everyone in the United States has heard the term Religious Right, but that seems to be anachronistic given the changing spiritual landscape of the 21st century. It’s not religion that drives political engagement, it’s spirituality. 

==

An obvious question needs to be, "what is the point of religion, then?"

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

So, according to you, the only acceptable form of spirituality (besides Atheistic Rationalism, of course) is Transcendentalism?

Go camping out into the woods and stare up at the sky.

Otherwise, define "spirituality."

There’s an entire real universe of macro and micro things we don’t fully understand to find wonder in. Why do we need to make up even more shit? Infinite universe not enough?

Avatar

Since they will demand their own stuff be treated as equivalent to stuff others have been made up, this not actually any better.

In some ways, it’s actually worse. “But it’s not organized religion” is held up as the defence for why their made up stuff should get a free pass, with no conception that it occupies equal footing, and they haven’t actually justified it any more than the larger-scale beliefs they reject. Size is irrelevant to validity. This is essentially a reverse Bandwagon Fallacy (argumentum ad populum).

In traditional religions, even divergent sects at least agree on some basic principles. But personal spiritual apprehension has no bounds, and therefore even less obligation or ability to be adequately formed. They’re inevitably even less coherent or well defined, and thus even less ability to be evaluated or concluded to be “true.”

Avatar

don't u think its fine to just let ppl believe stuff? im atheist but im not in-your-face about it. i mean i know that the concept of religion is incredibly flawed but you're not even attacking religion you're just attacking spirituality and belief

Avatar

Are you willing to fully commit to this line of reasoning, wherever it goes? We should avoid criticizing beliefs simply because someone finds them valuable or useful or reassuring or comforting or “spiritual” (whatever that means)? Even the really gross ones? Who will be the arbiter of which ones we can criticize and which ones we can’t?

Belief is not truth. People kill their children because they believe in faith healing. When the child dies, they conclude that god called them home. They feel no remorse because they did what their beliefs told them to do, and god decided the outcome, which a mere human is not entitled to do. “Only god can judge me.” “God has a plan.” Everything is fine.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, decline life-saving blood transfusions for themselves and their children out of mere superstition. This is part of their “spirituality” (whatever that even means) and belief. You would have this be unassailable.

No, not all ideas are like this. However, the principle is the same, because the boundary dividing what people constitute “harm” is as different as the person offering that definition. My answer as to who will be the arbiter is: nobody. All ideas are open to analysis, criticism and even mockery. There are no sacred cows.

There is actually something called the Paradox of Tolerance. It means that if you tolerate every belief, you must also tolerate intolerance. If you don’t tolerate intolerance, then you’re being intolerant. Being universally tolerant is not actually a good thing.

What actually happens in a secular, Liberal society is that we allow people to have the right to their beliefs, but we don’t give the beliefs themselves any rights. I’m constantly having to actually explain this.

No belief has a right to not be attacked. Attacking beliefs is not attacking people. People can change their beliefs; ideas are things you can think your way out of. Indeed, people should, because it means we’re learning and improving. It’s how we, as individuals and a species, develop.

We don’t improve society by tolerating every idea that is presented and just living with it. We put them to the test, we attack them, we analyze them and we discard the ones that don’t stand up. We find new information and we discard the ideas and beliefs that are not aligned with this new knowledge. Such as the Earth being round and diseases being caused by germs not demons.

People attacked the notion of rape as a property crime. They attacked the belief of owning people as property. They attacked the idea of ascribing social significance to racial categories. If we stop attacking beliefs and ideas, we stop developing. 

We laugh at people who think the Earth is flat, or that think natural disasters are the anger of a god, or think that sickness is a demon. We’re alarmed by people who think that sacrificing a virgin to the volcano is the right thing to do, or that want to kill “witches” (and yes, this happens today). Even though it’s part of their beliefs and “spirituality” (whatever that means). And we’re certainly alarmed when this is promoted as fact, even if only around their congregation.

I think you need to think about all the beliefs you find absurd and laughable and unworthy of respect, and why you think there should be two sets of rules about whether or not they can be criticized.

Define “spirituality”. Seriously.

I can go outside, look up at the stars and be inspired. I can notice my tiny niece’s palmar grasp reflex and smile. I can look into a microscope and observe mitosis and feel like I’m a part of nature. No spirits or magic required.

Saying “spiritual” doesn’t tell me anything. I don’t accept the notion of a “soul” or of ghosts guiding my hands, or that some aspect of me exists independent of me. Neither does anything in all verified human knowledge.

"Spirituality” (whatever that means), like “energy” (except in work potential), is a thought-terminating cliche to feign meaning that’s not there and deflect attention. Is there any idea that someone can’t say they find to be “spiritual” and demand to go unassailed as a result?

Thus far, nobody has been able to give me a coherent definition, a way to distinguish “spiritual” from not-”spiritual”, or a justification for why it matters, why it exempts ideas from the normal process of evaluation.

And why isn’t truth more important than “spirituality” (whatever that means) and “belief”? When they come into conflict, should truth win or should it lose? If you think truth should win, then I don’t see a problem with my blog. If you think “spirituality” (whatever that means) and “belief” should win, then I strenuously disagree and can show you why (see faith healing, above).

If you think there should be a compromise, then in some ways that’s even worse. The midpoint between a truth and a lie is still a lie, and the truth still doesn’t stop being true.

I think truth, and how we find it, matters. I think it matters the most. I don’t value mere “belief” in finding it, nor being obliged to tiptoe around belief in pursuit of it.

If you don’t want to do what I do, that’s fine. This is, after all, my blog. You atheist your way, I’ll atheist my way.

Avatar

i get what you mean about not needing to solve a mystery with another mystery, but atheists pride themselves on having an explanation / scientific reasoning behind everything. thank you for answering my question.

Avatar

Atheists pride ourselves on not believing in gods. That’s literally it.

Some of us also pride ourselves on being able to back up our explanations for things, if we happen to have one, even though it’s not necessary (e.g. we are not obliged to “disprove” any of the gods).

If you have a way to investigate the world around us that produces more reliable, more repeatable and more successful results - medicines, aircraft, seatbelts, internet, satellites in orbit, online shopping with digital money, freezers, vaccines, clean water, electricity, lifesaving surgeries, clothing you didn’t have to weave yourself, food you didn’t have to kill or grow yourself, your house and an average lifespan that is double what it was a couple of hundred years ago - then we would use it. The reliability of the scientific method is all around you, and you’re dependent on the results it has produced. Science demonstrates that it works every day of the year.

That said, not believing in god(s) doesn’t endow someone with scientific knowledge. There are atheists who are Flat Earthers, anti-vaxers, into homeopathy or applied postmodernism. These are stupid, evidence-avoidant nonsense ideas too.

also, there are so many humans who have testimonies of being healed. it's very rare to meet someone who's had an experience like that, so it is hard to "prove" it, also rare to meet people who have experienced demonic oppression. he wasn't messing with me because i saw firsthand things fly across my room, my tv would go on by itself, his eyes changed color, etc. as for other spiritual things that have - cont

How many anecdotes does it take to create a fact? 10? 100? 100,000?

That’s a trick question. There’s no number of zeros that add up to a one. How did any one of those people verify their “experience”? Do any of them have a mental illness? Color blindness? Short-sighted? How do you know that they didn’t miss an important piece of information? How do you know they weren’t tricked? How about, even name them? How do you determine which ones are true and which ones aren’t? How emphatic they are?

And how on Earth am I supposed to evaluate it just because they claim it really happened? It’s not reasonable to just expect me to believe you with nothing to back it up.

If it’s hard to prove it, then why believe it at all? You’ve just identified exactly why a reasonable person wouldn’t believe. Why not wait until you have good reason to believe it? Why the rush, the desperate need to believe when, by your own confession, it can’t be proven, aka “shown to be true”?

Why don’t you care about your beliefs being true, and valuing why you believe them, why they’re true? Why are you running around seemingly accumulating as many beliefs as possible, rather than withholding acceptance and focusing on quality instead of quantity? Who has the gun to your head insisting you click “I agree” on everything, and that you can’t just wait until you have good reasons? Why, in all of this, have you said not a single word about why - why we confirm it’s true, why it’s not wrong.

All you’ve done is relay some vague, unverifiable stories, make assertions of literal magic, then ask why I don’t believe you, and basically say it must be true because you think it’s true.

I have a bridge you might be interested in for a reasonable price.

Open-mindedness isn’t about believing things uncritically. It’s about being able to change your position because more, better information is presented, and valuing the quality of that information, not just that someone merely claims it exists at all.

If you just accept things because people insist they’re true, then you’ll accept nonsensical, contradictory claims. Whatever randomly comes your way. True things and untrue things will be indistinguishable.

So, what is your filtering process? Popularity? Does the number of people who believe a thing have any relationship whatsoever to whether or not its true? What gods have been held by vast, ancient empires that are now regarded as mere Disney cartoon characters? What about when nobody believed that the Earth was round, or that it orbits the Sun? What was the truth?

How do you identify and excise incorrect beliefs from your life? If you show me evidence, I will start or stop believing a thing, as befits the evidence and your claim. What is your process? Because it “feels” right or it “feels” wrong? Can feelings be manipulated? Or because it intuitively “makes sense” to you? Because someone s

- cont happened, my mom has gotten a massage & the woman's hands got really hot without her doing ANYTHING to them, & she told my mom she "got help from the spiritual realm". it was a New Age place, & they said there's classes to learn how to levitate.

So, you weren’t even there, and you unquestioningly believe this. If there was “classes to learn how to levitate” then the universe would implode because one of the fundamental forces, gravity, would have been disproven. Since the universe is still here - or appears to be - then the very idea is absurd and demonstrates both a lack of critical thinking and an ignorance about how our world works.

What, exactly, did you or your mother do to verify this “hot hands” thing? Did you ever consider something mundane like her hot coffee mug, or menopause? Why would you believe this “spiritual realm” crap? If I was this opportunistic masseur pretending to be a “spiritual” healer, I’d call everything the result of the “spiritual realm”. Cost too much? The spiritual realm is hard to reach and they won’t help me if you’re miserly and doubtful. You’re cold? That’s the spirits. Does it hurt there? That’s the spirits showing where your tihsllub energy is concentrated. The ancients knew how to exorcise that... for another $50.

By the way, define “spiritual.” You keep throwing that around and it means nothing. What exactly do you mean? Examples aren’t a definition.

If you can claim something is true, you can explain why it’s true. How you figured it out. How you eliminated other explanations. You seem strangely opposed to this, and it’s very suspicious. If you care about what’s true, why isn’t this the next, natural step? Why is it unreasonable to ask you to explain how you figured out this “spiritual” (whatever that even is) stuff? What are you hiding?

8 don't understand how you don't believe in these things just because YOU haven't seen it. millions of people are able to do spiritual things, like magic (not illusionary magic, but things with no explanation) along with heal people with prayer. (these things can only be proven if you speak to the person privately & they actually show you their medical paperwork) you didn't see humans evolve from monkeys but you still believe it. but anyways, thanks for sharing your outlook.

You don’t seem to understand what “evidence” is. I don’t need to go up into space and see the Earth to understand that it’s round. There are a dozen ways to demonstrate the round Earth without getting in a spaceship or even a plane. From the shadow of the Earth on the moon to the fact the moon is upside down between the two hemispheres, to the progression of the sun through the seaons. The ancient Greeks figured it out without any flight whatsoever. They even measured the circumference to within 30km (18mi) without stepping a single foot off terra firma. They were able to observe the world around them, take measurements, make predictions, test the predictions, verify the results and validate their conclusions. And they knew how to detect they were wrong.

If a single word of your “millions of people are able to do spiritual things, like magic” was true, then you’d be able to prove it. You just got done admitting you can’t. I guess millions of people don’t like money, either. They don’t like Kardashian-shaming fame and influence fed by paparazzi reporting their every move, their every word.

Why is it that you have this (purported) information, but you won’t revolutionize the world with it? If you had humanity changing information, you’d willingly, enthusiastically lay it all out in an undeniable way and it would transform humanity. So, do you have no good reason for your beliefs, or do you just like the famines, the wars, the diseases that could be addressed by this literal magic? Is it that you’re unwilling or unable? #ProblemOfEvil

Because, you know, literal magic is really real.

Again, define “spiritual.”

And while you’re at it, define these magical “things.” Why don’t astral projectors help out with lost hikers in the mountains or in hostage situations? Why don’t psychics win the lottery every week? Why do these people have these “powers” and not change the world? Where are these magical healers during this virus calamity? You said there are “miracle healings.” Why do they refuse to “miracle heal” COVID 19? Why aren’t they in the hospitals emptying the beds of the patients on respirators by doing their “spiritual”... “magic”.... thing? They have a worldwide stage available to them to undeniably, unequivocally cure people with their magical healing. Or is it that they can only “cure” people of vague conditions behind closed doors with no verification?

And why do we understand how cold reading works? Why is it that every test of clairvoyance fails? Why do we have magicians and illusionists performing the same feats as entertaining tricks, that spiritualists perform as magical powers? We already how the brain works, that consciousness and memory is dependent on a physical brain, how confirmation bias works, how apophenia occurs. We’ve studied, and have a really good understanding, of the tricks of the trade, how people can be convinced to give up their money and their emotional investment to manipulation.

You don’t seem to be aware of how much we understand about what’s really going on with these parlor tricks. There was literally a show called The Mentalist where they demonstrated how these sorts of things are done. We’ve studied this crap extensively.

It’s like you refuse to believe that Santa isn’t real.

We’ve also studied “pseudo-profound bullshit” and been able to develop web pages to automatically generate empty, pseudo-”spiritual” sounding nonsense.

By the way, you just refuted your own claim. You said that they are “spiritual” i.e. you provided an “explanation” - then went on to say that they don’t have an explanation. So, which is it? Can you “explain” it as “supernatural,” or is it “unexplained”? You don’t get to claim both. You’re describing a “married bachelor” - the words you’re using are self-refuting.

We don’t need to witness “humans evolve from monkeys.” We have evidence - 150 years of artefacts, DNA, genetic mapping, medications, and a half dozen vestigal demonstrations of evolution visible on your body, literally right now, without you even taking your clothes off.

I don’t have to “believe” evolution. Because I understand it. I don’t need to “believe” in a natural biological process like evolution any more than I need to “believe” in another natural biological process like digestion or reproduction. I have a working knowledge of how it occurs, and I understand the evidence that supports it, and sll the ways humans use this knowledge today. And that it would be the most remarkable thing ever, more than your literal magic, if we completely got evolution wrong, and yet, somehow, DNA and genetic testing still works.

For all the various gods’ sake, please learn about evolution, I beg you. Ignorance is not something to be celebrated.

By the way, I find this line of “reasoning” to be exceedingly dishonest, considering you’ve literally just trotted out nothing but a litany of anecdotes you didn’t witness personally, and yet are baffled that I won’t believe you.... you know... third-hand.

Everything you’ve rambled about for the last half-dozen “asks,” you’ve literally just refuted all of it (remember the supposed “millions” for which you admitted you don’t have “proof” and could not have been an eyewitness). So, are you dishonest, or is your cognitive dissonance really that debilitating?

If you want to engage with me at all going forward, then watch “Open-mindedness” because the majority of what is confusing you is explained there. If you can’t grasp even this simple video, I doubt there’s anything useful to be achieved.

Avatar

A lot of folks I know seem to be into new age spirituality/astrology, and even though that is viewed as “not as harmful” as Christianity or the other major religions, I tend to view the direct pipelines to pseudoscience to be egregiously dangerous. Thoughts on new age spirituality/astrology?

Avatar

I absolutely agree. Belief in reiki or healing crystals or The Secret or whatever is a doorway to anti-vax and other baseless bullshit.

We need to care about what we believe. We need to give a shit about whether something is actually true or we just want it to be true. As soon as you give up the former, you open yourself up completely to chance, to whichever quack comes along first to exploit your insecurities, fears or desires with what you want to hear.

And it’s not “open-minded” to believe random, unjustified shit. It’s actually close-minded. As with religion, if they can justify it in a repeatable, verifiable way, I’ll accept it. But there’s no way you can ever “disprove” these - usually poorly defined - ideas to them. There’s always some friend’s cousin’s co-worker who heard an anecdote of a tale of a story of a myth about it - not unlike the bible’s claim of 500 people seeing Jesus after his supposed crucifixion. Or “not everything can be detected by science,” even though they think they can - which is the “god is immaterial, undetectable, etc” argument you get from theists.

What’s weird is how some of them will deride religion, with specific venom at organised religion, and proudly tell you that they don’t believe in any of that stuff. You even hear these things from atheists who don’t believe in gods but believe in “energy” and “vibrations” and detoxes and conspiracy theories and Himalayan salt lamps and Deepak Chopra (literally anything he has to say) and all sorts of stuff that they can’t show to reflect reality. Meanwhile looking down their noses at the religious. I’ve said to more than one person that I don’t really care about the “organised’ part - the minutae of how they structure the mortal human 

But it’s the exact same thing. It’s a faith claim - an unfalsifiable belief without good reason. For any of these spiritual/new-age defences, I bet you I can find an analogous apologetic from a Xtian. This is the problem with inconsistent skepticism and believing things based on unreliable, subjective feelings and “lived experience.” It’s no better than feeling “god n my heart.”

I’ve had a few people comment about why anti-”anti-vax” and anti-”anti-chemicals” stuff appears on an atheist page. It’s true they’re not inherently related. Where they overlap, though, is in the area of skepticism and not letting myths, fallacies and misinformation permeate and influence society. There’s a meme out there that says something like “Creationism: the belief that Kirk Cameron knows more about the nature and origin of the universe than Stephen Hawking.” And it’s the same here too. The belief that David Wolfe or Jenny McCarthy or John Edward know more about gravity and toxicology, immunology, and neuroscience and thanology than those who’ve studied it extensively. It’s an attempt corrupt how we acquire knowledge and validate ideas, for profit and other agendas. If you can be convinced of one bullshit new-age concept uncritically, then you leave yourself open the next and the next.

These need to be treated the same way as religious ideas: challenged for justification and dismissed or even ridiculed when offence is taken or immunity demanded.

Avatar

All the great historic religions have, perhaps, some of the truth. All need to be separated from, or combined into, Spirituality.

What little truth they have is true because it’s true, not because it’s in any of these silly books. Egypt is a real place. Water is wet. Having your head cut off will kill you. It’s nice to be nice to people. These things were true before these books were dreamed up, and they’ll be true long after nobody remembers them. There is no revealed knowledge or truth in any of them, nothing contemporary humans at the time the fables were written - or even centuries or thousands of years prior - didn’t already know.

On the other hand, Sodom and Gomorrah never existed. Humans never spoke the same language. The Earth is not flat and does not rest on pillars. Everything about human consciousness, personality and memory is tied to the physical brain, making a “soul” both impossible and unnecessary, reincarnation or any kind of afterlife a narcissistic fantasy, and ghosts nothing but a baseless myth. Slavery and rape actually aren’t justified or moral, despite instructions to the contrary.

“Spirituality” is a nonsense buzzword trotted out to appear different to “traditional religions”, under the pretence of “open mindedness”, while being just a different flavor of the same magical thinking. The only difference is the strategy of being vague and non-specific to the point of being incomprehensible and having no real relevance. Its worthlessness is demonstrated by the fact none of you “spiritual” people can actually agree what it even means. It distracts from valuing tangible, real humans in preference to valuing and chasing after silly myths you concocted to avoid understanding and accepting your own mortality, and to feel better about not living fully in the one and only life you know you will ever get, because you think you deserve “wishing for more wishes.”

Source: twitter.com
Avatar

Do you think there’s a difference between being religious and being “spiritual”?

Avatar

No.

And I think you touched on it immediately by putting quotes around “spiritual.”

From my experience, the only difference is in the language used.

Religious claims are specific, based on specific claims in their scripture or mythology. Xtianity requires a resurrected Jewish blood sacrifice. Islam requires a pedophile warlord self-appointed prophet. And so on. These specific claims require equally specific justification. Which also means they’re easily dismissed because they can be readily shown to be inaccurate by simply addressing the specifics. For example, we can easily determine that the god character of the bible is a fiction, because the attributes given to it are self-refuting, and there are historical inaccuracies in it which place it into a fictional version of our reality. Like Harry Potter.

Those who are “spiritual not religious” begin by declining to even explain what they mean by “spiritual,” then attempt to avoid this specificity problem and the inevitable Burden of Proof that results by ensuring their claims are vague, using words like “energy,” “forces” and “non-physical” that are as ambiguous as “spiritual” and don’t convey any real meaning, to the point of being incoherent and worthless. Disassociating themselves from “organized religion” but without addressing the basis for why their magical idea is true (aside from “I feel it” and “you can’t explain X”).

If you ever manage to pin down someone’s Whack-a-Mole of “spiritual,” at its core, the claims are typically the same as the religious ones, just attributing intent, opinions, consciousness, purpose, capability (such as creation) and other attributes to the universe, the planet, the sky, or supernatural entities that can be simplified down to inter-dimensional aliens.

Karma, for example, is basically the universe having an accounting ledger, an opinion on, and a working model of “good vs bad” regarding how I conduct my life. And nothing better to do than manipulate the world around me to balance things out. Dishonestly invoking Newtonian physics doesn’t resolve this.

The notions of ghosts and psychics likewise require similar justification as the “soul” that religionists think goes into the afterlife - how memory, personality and consequences to this proposed remnant make any sense in the absence of a physical brain.

I’ve had people ask me about “spirit beings” and when I asked them to explain what they meant, they acted like I was just arguing and simply restated the question without providing the clarity I requested.

Essentially, supernatural claims wrapped in a fog to avoid the language associated with religious god-based supernatural claims. Which I find suspicious: if they can’t actually explain their concept clearly, then not only do I not have any reason to believe them, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason why they believe it.

And in both cases, it’s still just magical thinking that defies our understanding of the natural world around us, based on comfort and a gap in either our or their knowledge. Or worse: a con artist.

A vague, poorly-defined, unsubstantiated “spiritual” idea is of no more value to me than a primitive, barbaric, unsubstantiated “religious” idea. Either way, they haven’t justified why I should believe them or pay it any attention.

Avatar

I don’t know what happened, why this question appears in my activity but not my inbox. I’m going to take the liberty of assuming that the question from @michellegt2012 is largely complete, and not much of significance, if anything, is represented by the “...”

I am skeptical of all magical thinking, whether that’s associated with 1 god, 2 gods, 3 gods... or zero gods.

Spiritual but not religious” is of no value to me. Firstly, it doesn’t tell me what you believe, and secondly it doesn’t suggest any more validity to it than the existence of a theistic sky monster. It’s a weasel word to try and duck under the same burden of proof we expect the religious to shoulder, by claiming to be different somehow. Despite it still being magical superstition that contradicts our reality. And, in my experience, usually seems to reflect more on the need of the claimer to feel “special” and different from the religious herd while still believing in nonsense.

There is no more evidence for karma, souls, ghosts, spirit animals, reincarnation, astrology, telepathy, psychics (and so on) than there is for Yahweh/Allah, Vishnu, Xenu, Zeus or Ra. That they may sometimes be associated with various noble indigenous cultures doesn’t make them any more real than Xtianity or Hinduism, and don’t provide any more insight into the facts of the world around us.

And returning to the original point that "spiritual”/”spiritualism” doesn’t provide any explanatory power, I’m sure there’s plenty of supernatural/paranormal ideas that you reject as being ludicrous, but would still fall under the “spiritual” banner. And it shouldn’t surprise you that I would pull out the same questions I ask theists: how did you come to the conclusion that your “thing” is real but those other “things” are not? How did you rule those other things out? How did you eliminate all natural answers for your thing?

As with theism, this gets worse when an “unexplained” experience is trotted out. QualiaSoup goes into this quite well with the “Open-mindedness” video. In essence, you’re declaring an magical/supernatural “explanation” for an ‘unexplained” event (which is inherently nonsensical), without comprehensive knowledge of all possible natural explanations - including mental conditions. Basically, you don’t know, therefore nobody else could either. Which is devoid of reason.

I’ve had people tell me that “not everything can be tested, not everything can be measured!” The problem is that by virtue of you claiming it to be “real,” by necessity you have supposedly tested it, and separated it from things that aren’t real. Seen it or experienced it, confirmed it, eliminated all other options, etc. How come myself and others can’t obtain access to the same data? If it’s “non-physical,” we should still be able to test its effects, how it influences our reality or manifests. For example, we can detect Dark Matter indirectly, and brain scans can distinguish different mental processes, which is how we know theist ideas about the desires of “god” are ego-centric, not divine influence.

If it’s untestable, intangible, imperceptible, and doesn’t manifest or demonstrate influence in our reality, then how did you even come to the conclusion it’s real? How on Earth am I supposed to come to the same conclusion? Show your work. For that matter, why should I even care about or pay any attention to it, given you’ve described it as being indistinguishable from non-existent?

Yes, there are things in this universe we haven’t figured out yet. But even when we don’t understand what something is, we often understand what it is not. We also understand statistics, probability, coincidence, apophenia, humanity’s poor perception of randomness, how our emotions, identity and thought processes work, and so on.

Even without those, you don’t get to shove a conjured “spiritual” superstition in place of a gap in our knowledge any more than theists can shove “god”... not without good reasons and evidence.

Here is Wikipedia’s List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal. There’s one striking, noticeably common thing about every single one of them: they’re all unclaimed.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net