Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Hmm. I would be surprised to find someone who was/is religious, but not spiritual.

I think that what those people are trying to say is that they are spiritual, but not religious. It's the opposite they're aiming for, I think.

But it raises another question: if they are "spiritual," to what "spirit" are they referring? What do they think a "spirit" is? What do they thing they owe that "spirit"? It gets odd very fast.

But in point of fact, I really think they're not "spiritual" in any sense at all. What they mean is something like, "I'm a good person, moral in my own estimation; and I feel emotional around certain ceremonies or situations." They don't really mean more than that. And they call that "spiritual." I don't think they mean that they worship demi-gods or demons, or even give "spirits" a moments thought, really.

I also don't see the point in arguing that we can't properly define 'spiritual'.

Sure we can. We just have to avoid circularity when we do.

If there's ever a word that simply cannot be defined -- by anyone -- then the word actually means nothing, and should be employed by anyone interested in communication.

[Lacewing]

Circular definition: see, circular definition.

See the dictionary. You're the one who said you don't understand it.

You don't know what a "circular definition" is?

It's a definition that uses the same word to define itself. It's like, "A 'mother' is somebody who is a mother." It fails, as a definition, because it depends on the reader already knowing the very word it purports to inform him about.

So when you say something akin to, "Religious means being religious," or "Spiritual means people who are spiritual," you've added no information at all. So have another go: try defining the distinction without using the words "religious," "spiritual" or "spirit." You'll find it's quite possible to generate non-circular definitions, but it requires one to understand the term one is defining.

Those are dictionary definitions for the words/ideas you claimed to misunderstand. If you do not understand the difference between the words religion and spirit, perhaps you can look up those words and any other associated words. It's not that hard. Then you might be better able to contemplate the difference that people are referring to, even if you want to resist it. Good luck!

[Dontaskme]

If there's ever a word that simply cannot be defined -- by anyone -- then the word actually means nothing, and should be employed by anyone interested in communication.

Brain scans reveal that decisions happen seven seconds before man decides. The scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that human decisions are made seconds before humans become aware of them.

Meaning, meaning is meaningless. The awareness of meaning is AI

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality.

So, in other words IC ....Yer basic!...in other words, nought special.

[Harbal]

But in point of fact, I really think they're not "spiritual" in any sense at all. What they mean is something like, "I'm a good person, moral in my own estimation; and I feel emotional around certain ceremonies or situations." They don't really mean more than that. And they call that "spiritual." I don't think they mean that they worship demi-gods or demons, or even give "spirits" a moments thought, really.

"Spiritual, but not religious" is something a lot of people seem to like to put in their online profile. People mean different things by it, and some have no idea what it means, but like the sound of it. Many seem to see it as a sort of spirit of nature; whether metaphorically or literally, I don't know. It's more about being in tune with it than worshipping it. I've also heard people talk about frequencies of the universe, which one needs to resonate with. It's not my cup of tea, but a lot of people seem to find meaning in it.

[Immanuel Can]

See the dictionary. You're the one who said you don't understand it.

You don't know what a "circular definition" is?

It's a definition that uses the same word to define itself. It's like, "A 'mother' is somebody who is a mother." It fails, as a definition, because it depends on the reader already knowing the very word it purports to inform him about.

So when you say something akin to, "Religious means being religious," or "Spiritual means people who are spiritual," you've added no information at all. So have another go: try defining the distinction without using the words "religious," "spiritual" or "spirit." You'll find it's quite possible to generate non-circular definitions, but it requires one to understand the term one is defining.

Those are dictionary definitions for the words/ideas you claimed to misunderstand.

I understand them...I want to know what YOU understand by them.

And circular definitions are no good...obviously.

[Immanuel Can]

But in point of fact, I really think they're not "spiritual" in any sense at all. What they mean is something like, "I'm a good person, moral in my own estimation; and I feel emotional around certain ceremonies or situations." They don't really mean more than that. And they call that "spiritual." I don't think they mean that they worship demi-gods or demons, or even give "spirits" a moments thought, really.

"Spiritual, but not religious" is something a lot of people seem to like to put in their online profile. People mean different things by it, and some have no idea what it means, but like the sound of it. Many seem to see it as a sort of spirit of nature; whether metaphorically or literally, I don't know. It's more about being in tune with it than worshipping it. I've also heard people talk about frequencies of the universe, which one needs to resonate with. It's not my cup of tea, but a lot of people seem to find meaning in it.

I don't know what they mean by it either, H.

I don't think they know what the "frequencies of the universe" are, far less would know whether they were "resonating" or "not resonating" with them. Maybe they mean "conscience," but I don't think so...

As for the "spirit of nature," what can that mean? Are they animists? That seems more than a little regressive and superstitious, and plausibly occultic. But again, what do they think a "spirit" is? Do they just mean "feeling"? Do they mean, "supernatural entity"? Do they mean, "common mood"? They never say, because nobody ever presses them on it. Everybody just seems to "like the sound of it," and plug in their own feelings, read accordingly, and go happily on their way.

Fortunately, we're on a philosophy forum, so we can ask for more precision than that, without being rude.

[Lacewing]

Nobody ever says 'spiritual' in everyday, scientific, or intelligent philosophical conversations. For this reason the word cannot be defined for itself but it does rather point to self congratulation; as possessing a superior vision of life and stuff like that.

Perhaps religious people do not say/use it, but spiritual people may. I use it... and no, I don't see using that word as some sort of self-congratulation (which would be the opposite of a spiritual view/attitude), as it points to noticing more than surface/material values in people, nature, life. Is that really so far-fetched? Or is it so difficult to imagine such an appreciation and view existing outside of a particular religious order?

[Harbal]

I don't think they know what the "frequencies of the universe" are, far less would know whether they were "resonating" or "not resonating" with them. Maybe they mean "conscience," but I don't think so...

As for the "spirit of nature," what can that mean? Are they animists? That seems more than a little regressive and superstitious, and plausibly occultic. But again, what do they think a "spirit" is? Do they just mean "feeling"? Do they mean, "supernatural entity"? Do they mean, "common mood"? They never say, because nobody ever presses them on it. Everybody just seems to "like the sound of it," and plug in their own feelings, read accordingly, and go happily on their way.

Fortunately, we're on a philosophy forum, so we can ask for more precision than that, without being rude.

There is no one "they", there are different theys, thinking different things. It isn't just one thing that you can dismiss. You would need to take the specific beliefs of a specific person before you could pick holes in their ideas.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think they know what the "frequencies of the universe" are, far less would know whether they were "resonating" or "not resonating" with them. Maybe they mean "conscience," but I don't think so...

As for the "spirit of nature," what can that mean? Are they animists? That seems more than a little regressive and superstitious, and plausibly occultic. But again, what do they think a "spirit" is? Do they just mean "feeling"? Do they mean, "supernatural entity"? Do they mean, "common mood"? They never say, because nobody ever presses them on it. Everybody just seems to "like the sound of it," and plug in their own feelings, read accordingly, and go happily on their way.

Fortunately, we're on a philosophy forum, so we can ask for more precision than that, without being rude.

There is no one "they", there are different theys, thinking different things.

The one feature "they" have in common is using the phrase, "spiritual, not relgious." And unless they mean nothing at all by it, they must be capable, at least, of evaluating what they mean and sharing it.

You would need to take the specific beliefs of a specific person before you could pick holes in their ideas.

Well, their abilities at communication are problematic, right from the get-go...because nobody knows what they actually mean.

But as for taking their specific beliefs into consideration, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm asking THEM what THEY mean, in each case. Because it's certainly not plain to you or to me.

Now's their chance to clear that up, so we can all understand something by their claim. That seems the fairest thing to do.

[Dontaskme]

I don't know what they mean by it either,

The I that does not know is the I known.

No word can define 'what is I', or every word defines 'it'.

A Play on words. Just pure empty meaningless words.

Not getting it - is a way of getting it.

[Lacewing]

Being spiritual doesn't require being religious. Being religious doesn't ensure being spiritual.

Hmm. I would be surprised to find someone who was/is religious, but not spiritual.

God's realm is a spiritual one.

Depending on how an individual interprets God, right? I've seen god-believers who are spiritual, and god-believers who are not. Some are very literal about it and seemingly oblivious to any spiritual quality it could represent.

I also don't see the point in arguing that we can't properly define 'spiritual'. Of course we can't. There are loads of words, and their associated concepts, of which we have only a general grasp, and so, quite naturally, the words we use to describe those concepts are dimly defined too. That's OK, though, because they are general concepts, which appropriately enjoy a general definition.

Agreed! Words can mean many different things to people depending on their use/purpose. It is concepts we are pointing to. Language is limited to what we know so far. There are surely many more concepts to recognize and describe.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hmm. I would be surprised to find someone who was/is religious, but not spiritual.

I think that what those people are trying to say is that they are spiritual, but not religious. It's the opposite they're aiming for, I think.

Yes, but I was responding to this:

Being spiritual doesn't require being religious. Being religious doesn't ensure being spiritual.

I also don't see the point in arguing that we can't properly define 'spiritual'.

Sure we can. We just have to avoid circularity when we do.

Your quoting was a bit selective. What I said, in full, was this:

I also don't see the point in arguing that we can't properly define 'spiritual'. Of course we can't. There are loads of words, and their associated concepts, of which we have only a general grasp, and so, quite naturally, the words we use to describe those concepts are dimly defined too. That's OK, though, because they are general concepts, which appropriately enjoy a general definition.

...and I think (hope) that the original text addresses your query, above.

If there's ever a word that simply cannot be defined -- by anyone -- then the word actually means nothing, and should [not] be employed by anyone interested in communication.

Coincidentally, I addressed this very issue in Another Place, only this morning. [N.B. I was discussing vague definitions, not words that can't be defined.] Here's some of what I wrote:

I'm not sure life is that simple. There are lots of reasons why this should be so. Here are a couple of them:

• Some of our most useful concepts are general, and somewhat vague as a result. So the definitions of the words we use to label them are also vague. But we still find the need to discuss these things...
• If our language was composed solely of words that each had one clear and unambiguous meaning, we would require huge vocabularies, maybe exceeding a million words. Even assuming we could create such a language, I don't think many humans could learn or retain such a huge vocabulary.

[Harbal]

Well, their abilities at communication are problematic, right from the get-go...because nobody knows what they actually mean.

I think you are being a bit unfair, IC. You have explained numerous things to me about your beliefs and I have completely failed to understand much of it.

But as for taking their specific beliefs into consideration, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm asking THEM what THEY mean, in each case. Because it's certainly not plain to you or to me.

Well if someone lays out their beliefs publicly I suppose they should expect to be questioned on them, but perhaps not so much before they have made them public.

Now's their chance to clear that up, so we can all understand something by their claim. That seems the fairest thing to do.

Maybe they are not interested in clearing things up. If a person has a belief system that works for him in some way, he might not care what anyone else thinks about it.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know what they mean by it either,

The I that does not know is the I known.

Ugh.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, their abilities at communication are problematic, right from the get-go...because nobody knows what they actually mean.

I think you are being a bit unfair, IC. You have explained numerous things to me about your beliefs and I have completely failed to understand much of it.

Well, some experiences are "insider" experiences, it's true. From the outside, one has difficulty, through no fault of one's own, "getting" it. But such is not the case in the matter of the self-identified "spiritual" folks. Clearly, they mean to try, at least, to communicate something. And since you and I have had an extended conversation in which I reworded various things in an effort to make it more evident, I think it's not at all unfair to ask the "spiritual" folks to do it...just once.

But as for taking their specific beliefs into consideration, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm asking THEM what THEY mean, in each case. Because it's certainly not plain to you or to me.

Well if someone lays out their beliefs publicly I suppose they should expect to be questioned on them, but perhaps not so much before they have made them public.

Well, they publicly declare themselves "spiritual." And it's not at all out-of-court to give them the opportunity to explain what they mean...if they do, in fact, know.

Now's their chance to clear that up, so we can all understand something by their claim. That seems the fairest thing to do.

Maybe they are not interested in clearing things up.

That would be odd. It would be saying they want to predicate something of themselves, but they don't care to make it clear to anybody what it is.

And maybe that's the truth. Maybe they mean nothing in particular at all, and just don't want people to think they lack some undefined dimension of proper human function, or that they want to convey a vague but ungrounded impression of themselves as "good" people or "open-minded." That's a postulate worth including in the realm of possibilities.

If a person has a belief system that works for him in some way, he might not care what anyone else thinks about it.

Maybe. But then, why say anything about it at all? It's clear they want you to take away some vaguely positive impression about them. We just can't, at present, tell what it is.