"Spiritual but not religious"

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

One of the things I've never been able to wrap my head around in religious discourse is the popular phrase, "spiritual but not religious."  A few atheist friends of mine (and I believe one of the atheists on this forum) have used the phrase to describe themselves.  I also know an agnostic-leaning girl who calls herself spiritual, but I never understood what it meant since she never subscribed to the belief in a creator God.

So what does it actually mean?  If one rejects metaphysics and claims of the supernatural, how can they use the word "spiritual" to describe oneself?  If the phrase implies nothing more than a state of mental well-being, why bother using the word, "spiritual?"

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Because people like to feel transcendent or somesuch while also not having to believe in anything they care not to and subscribe themselves to a moral code beyond one of their own choosing.

[Blue3]

One of the things I've never been able to wrap my head around in religious discourse is the popular phrase, "spiritual but not religious."  A few atheist friends of mine (and I believe one of the atheists on this forum) have used the phrase to describe themselves.  I also know an agnostic-leaning girl who calls herself spiritual, but I never understood what it meant since she never subscribed to the belief in a creator God.

So what does it actually mean?  If one rejects metaphysics and claims of the supernatural, how can they use the word "spiritual" to describe oneself?  If the phrase implies nothing more than a state of mental well-being, why bother using the word, "spiritual?"

You can be "spiritual but not religious" and still believe in God, or be a Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ugh, those people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always got the sense that this tended to indicate a very individual, atomistic approach to one's higher life, as opposed to the communal, dialectic approach implicit in religion as such.

[afleitch]

I always got the sense that this tended to indicate a very individual, inward-focused, atomistic approach to one's higher life, as opposed to the communal, ritual, dialectic approach implicit in religion as such.

Individual yes, but not necessarily inward focused. In fact it's usually quite the opposite. People can be in awe at the world around them in a 'spiritual' manner while not personalising it through a creator god nor feeling that they are are a special, important or even necessary part of it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always got the sense that this tended to indicate a very individual, inward-focused, atomistic approach to one's higher life, as opposed to the communal, ritual, dialectic approach implicit in religion as such.

Individual yes, but not necessarily inward focused. In fact it's usually quite the opposite. People can be in awe at the world around them in a 'spiritual' manner while not personalising it through a creator god nor feeling that they are are a special, important or even necessary part of it.

This is probably just a function of us knowing different people, but the people I know whose attitudes fit what you're describing generally refer to themselves as religious humanists or something else along those lines--one of my friends will sometimes namedrop Spinoza if he thinks the person he's talking to will understand what he means--whereas the people I know who use the set phrase 'spiritual but not religious' tend to be somewhat more narrowly attuned to their own concerns.

[afleitch]

I always got the sense that this tended to indicate a very individual, inward-focused, atomistic approach to one's higher life, as opposed to the communal, ritual, dialectic approach implicit in religion as such.

Individual yes, but not necessarily inward focused. In fact it's usually quite the opposite. People can be in awe at the world around them in a 'spiritual' manner while not personalising it through a creator god nor feeling that they are are a special, important or even necessary part of it.

This is probably just a function of us knowing different people, but the people I know whose attitudes fit what you're describing generally refer to themselves as religious humanists or something else along those lines--one of my friends will sometimes namedrop Spinoza if he thinks the person he's talking to will understand what he means--whereas the people I know who use the set phrase 'spiritual but not religious' tend to be somewhat more narrowly attuned to their own concerns.

But there's no dichotomy which is what your comment appears to suggest. Spiritual but not religious people being 'attuned to their own concerns' and religious people not being, that is. It's a bit of a lazy assertion

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I always got the sense that this tended to indicate a very individual, inward-focused, atomistic approach to one's higher life, as opposed to the communal, ritual, dialectic approach implicit in religion as such.

Individual yes, but not necessarily inward focused. In fact it's usually quite the opposite. People can be in awe at the world around them in a 'spiritual' manner while not personalising it through a creator god nor feeling that they are are a special, important or even necessary part of it.

This is probably just a function of us knowing different people, but the people I know whose attitudes fit what you're describing generally refer to themselves as religious humanists or something else along those lines--one of my friends will sometimes namedrop Spinoza if he thinks the person he's talking to will understand what he means--whereas the people I know who use the set phrase 'spiritual but not religious' tend to be somewhat more narrowly attuned to their own concerns.

But there's no dichotomy which is what your comment appears to suggest. Spiritual but not religious people being 'attuned to their own concerns' and religious people not being, that is. It's a bit of a lazy assertion

I wasn't trying to suggest a dichotomy so much as a continuum, but the extent to which I'm willing to double down on the assertion can probably be covered by the other two sets of adjectives.

My first post in this thread edited accordingly, striking 'inward-focused' and 'ritual', and frankly, I think the sentence also flows better this way.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I think people may use it as a way to distinguish themselves from the people who take religion too seriously or believe in some form of spirituality, but not necessarily one of a mainstream religion.

[DemPGH]

Yeah, whether inward or outward (in my experience it's more inward than outward with people who profess this), "spiritual but not religious" is a rejection of dogma, priestly knowledge, and formalized ritual in favor of more personalized notions about God, gods, the afterlife, and the related milieu. God is "the Man upstairs," so to speak.

If you stopped ten people on the street and asked them to define God, I'd bet you'd get about eight or nine really different answers. I can imagine that most people, although they may identify with a religion, heavily personalize it in some way. In past eras when literacy was 15% and the Catholic church had a hard, firm, iron, dictatorial grip on how everyone perceived the world, this would probably not have been so. Out of ten people you might have gotten one or two answers as to what / who God was.

Or, "spiritual but not religious" could simply be liminal territory between belief and non-belief. I hope that's the case.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I always figured it's essentially saying that one believes in God but not "organized religion" because of all the flaws and baggage that come with religion. Or because their beliefs don't accurately fit into the doctrine of any established church or sect.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, whether inward or outward (in my experience it's more inward than outward with people who profess this), "spiritual but not religious" is a rejection of dogma, priestly knowledge, and formalized ritual in favor of more personalized notions about God, gods, the afterlife, and the related milieu. God is "the Man upstairs," so to speak.

If you stopped ten people on the street and asked them to define God, I'd bet you'd get about eight or nine really different answers. I can imagine that most people, although they may identify with a religion, heavily personalize it in some way. In past eras when literacy was 15% and the Catholic church had a hard, firm, iron, dictatorial grip on how everyone perceived the world, this would probably not have been so. Out of ten people you might have gotten one or two answers as to what / who God was.

Or, "spiritual but not religious" could simply be liminal territory between belief and non-belief. I hope that's the case.

The Church has never had a dictatorial grip on how everyone perceived the world - perhaps especially not when literacy was low. At that point religious texts were less influential and folk religion likely to be more so.   

"Spiritual but not religious" people I've encountered tend toward a pantheistic view of reality.  I think it might be called a search religious feeling without the religious doctrine or tradition which may have negative associations.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It makes perfect sense to me. I understand the phrase as describing people who believe in the existence of a reality that transcends the material/physical words, without subscribing to the clear set of beliefs as to what exactly this metaphysical reality consists of. I lean towards that view myself, occasionally.

[anvi]

I always figured it's essentially saying that one believes in God but not "organized religion" because of all the flaws and baggage that come with religion. Or because their beliefs don't accurately fit into the doctrine of any established church or sect.

This is what I've generally taken the expression to mean also, maybe with the added rider that a person who describes themselves in this way believes something or other but doesn't belong to a religious institution or go to official services of any kind.  But that's just my understanding--people who use the rather vague expression to describe themselves probably mean different things by it in individual cases.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I usually took it as someone who believes in an ethereal dimension, or other side to reality, separate from our everyday experience, but not necessarily a "god".  I know some people who think that we have souls that are created when our bodies are, but not necessarily a god.  I probably even fell into this category for a while in my initial transition to agnosticism. 

[DC Al Fine]

It makes perfect sense to me. I understand the phrase as describing people who believe in the existence of a reality that transcends the material/physical words, without subscribing to the clear set of beliefs as to what exactly this metaphysical reality consists of. I lean towards that view myself, occasionally.

More or less this. I can't really see the sort of scientific rationalism espoused by the New Atheists having mass appeal. This sort of thing appeals to the non-religious elements who still want some sort of God/religion connection.

[DemPGH]

"Spiritual but not religious" . . .  might be called a search religious feeling without the religious doctrine or tradition which may have negative associations.

Agreed.

The Church has never had a dictatorial grip on how everyone perceived the world - perhaps especially not when literacy was low. At that point religious texts were less influential and folk religion likely to be more so.

That's really at best an astounding misconception that I honestly have not run into elsewhere (hard to tell where that's coming from here), and this is the second or third time here I have been told that. It's just bad information or worse apologetics.   

Of course there are always folk traditions and customs.

Literacy rates improving in the 17th and 18th centuries brought about all the branch-off religions and alternative faiths! As well as atheism. Because people could read, and suddenly didn't want to be told everything by the priests.

Further, I mean, there was the way the Lollards were treated, the way Galileo was treated, the fact that Copernicus was originally published with an apology that said that what he was arguing was not "really true," there were DEGREES of heresy for which you could be severely punished, and there was the gem of all gems, the Inquisition. I hope you do not think of that stuff as "spiritual mentoring" or something.

[DC Al Fine]

[

The Church has never had a dictatorial grip on how everyone perceived the world - perhaps especially not when literacy was low. At that point religious texts were less influential and folk religion likely to be more so.

That's really at best an astounding misconception that I honestly have not run into elsewhere (hard to tell where that's coming from here), and this is the second or third time here I have been told that. It's just bad information or worse apologetics.   

Of course there are always folk traditions and customs.

Literacy rates improving in the 17th and 18th centuries brought about all the branch-off religions and alternative faiths! As well as atheism. Because people could read, and suddenly didn't want to be told everything by the priests.

Further, I mean, there was the way the Lollards were treated, the way Galileo was treated, the fact that Copernicus was originally published with an apology that said that what he was arguing was not "really true," there were DEGREES of heresy for which you could be severely punished, and there was the gem of all gems, the Inquisition. I hope you do not think of that stuff as "spiritual mentoring" or something.

DemPGH, the Hussites, Cathars, Bogomils, and Waldensians all emerged during the Middle Ages, to say nothing of the various anti-popes.. That hardly indicates the iron grip that you speak of.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My own take on the phrase is that someone who is "spiritual but not religious" believes in the existence of the Divine without believing that it is concentrated into a locus or loci of the sort we call God or Gods.

[free my dawg]

I always figured it's essentially saying that one believes in God but not "organized religion" because of all the flaws and baggage that come with religion. Or because their beliefs don't accurately fit into the doctrine of any established church or sect.

This is basically me.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think it was TJ who said that he once described himself as "religious but not spiritual". I have since borrowed that term.

[The Mikado]

I think it was TJ who said that he once described himself as "religious but not spiritual". I have since borrowed that term.

To be honest, I've slowly been moving in that direction.  I've been a member of a Talmud study class for about half a year now and spend a remarkable amount of time reading about the church doctrines of various religions, but outside of a vague Platonic view that the world we see around us isn't the real world, I'm lacking in much of the way of spiritual convictions.

[Oakvale]

I think that was Nix, Xahar, but yeah it's a good term. The aspects of religion I find most harmful are the "spiritual" ones, really - BRTD's belief in magical faith healing springs to mind. The sense of community that one finds with organised religion, while it doesn't appeal to me personally, is far more valuable to society IMO.

[afleitch]

I think that was Nix, Xahar, but yeah it's a good term. The aspects of religion I find most harmful are the "spiritual" ones, really - BRTD's belief in magical faith healing springs to mind. The sense of community that one finds with organised religion, while it doesn't appeal to me personally, is far more valuable to society IMO.

Depends on how the 'in' community treats the 'out' community, but yeah.