Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
she has no standard deviation
a rolling spirituality thread, about spiritual stuff
I read this...
"Three forms of spirituality
First, there is religious spirituality, in which religions can be understood as the cultural and institutional expression of the spiritual. This association explains why those who feel antipathy towards religion are wary of bringing spirituality into the public realm. As the Humanist Anthropologist Matthew Engelke put it at a recent RSA workshop on the idea of ‘spiritual commitment’: “the word spiritual has a history, and that history has a politics.”
Second, there is the ‘spiritual but not religious’ category, an expression that does little to illuminate the nature of the spiritual beyond the disassociation with religion. ‘SBNR’ is now a bizarrely demographic box to tick that serves mainly to carve out a space on the census form for amorphous worldviews. Indeed, this large and heterogeneous group does not have anything resembling ‘class consciousness’, nor culturally recognised institutional forms.
One of the reasons we tend not to take spirituality seriously is that people in this category get attacked ‘from both sides’; from atheists for their perceived irrationality and wishful thinking, and from organised religion for their rootless self-indulgence and lack of commitment. However, while survey findings on such matters have be treated with considerable caution, this broad categorisation arguably captures the majority of the British population. For instance, a 2012 meta-analysis of attitude surveys by the thinktank Theos, revealed that about 70% of the British population is neither strictly religious nor strictly non-religious, but rather moving in and out of the undesignated spaces in between.
Thirdly, there is a perspective that might be called secular spirituality, which is typically atheistic or humanistic but does not disavow the idea that some forms of experience, ritual or practice may be deeper or more meaningful than others; a perspective that still finds value in the term ‘spiritual’ as a way to encapsulate that understanding.
Consider, for instance, humanist celebrants giving dignity to marriages and funerals, or the completely open nature of the ‘higher power’ that participants in alcoholics anonymous are asked to place their faith in, or ecstatic dancing, sublime art, the charms of nature, the birth of a child, or even the sexual union that led to it. For all the problems with the word spiritual, there are forms of life where we seem to need it to point towards an appreciation that would otherwise be ineffable."
Here's the whole article, though I'm a bit wary of the way he keeps saying 'we' , the split of church and state is so anyone can have any kind of spiritual life or none and not impose it on anyone else and the question of whether there is or there isn't something else and what we can choose to do about it is for each person for themselves only, the 'we' sounds like the next step could be to start imposing. But I did like the bit above.
Im not so sure about letting the babies have their bottles, i don't want people to believe in things that don't exist, as this can cause them to make bad decisions for themselves and others.
But on the other hand..its none of my fucking business so long as they're not hurting anyone else, but i see it as the thin end of the wedge.
Depends how extreme they are in their beliefs.