Talk:Spiritual but not religious/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michellerow, Ruthchitiz, Hpearlman, BrynnHarlock.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What exactly ...

are "Institionalists" mentioned in the diagram? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, "Institutionalists" maybe? As in, members of "institutional" churches? Although I'm not sure they even belong in that corner of the diagram; although I think it depends on which church they belong to. Eastern Orthodox would be definitely both spiritual and religious, as would many Catholics, and some Anglicans. Southern Baptists and other fundamentalism-inclined denominations tend to be more dogmatic and so most would qualify as RBNS. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Atheists ?

I would add Atheists as "Religious but not Spiritual" as they hold onto their beliefs dogmatically, and try to convert others to their point of view.  :) Mrdavenport (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "atheists" as an undifferentiated group is as inappropriate as saying "Jews hold their beliefs dogmatically" or "Christians try to convert others." Some atheists do as you describe, and many do not. Gowser (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Atheists deny the believe in any God, thank you... And no, as atheist don't believe there is a God, u can not say atheists are believers. An atheist thinks about the probability of the existence of talking snakes and 72 virgins in paradise and then makes a decision about what he "believes". That's a whole different thing then taking a BS story for granted. This is also the reason I deleted the term "spiritual atheists". The obvious to whoever put it up there: An atheist does not believe in fairy tales! Feeling "spiritual" is not what describes ANY atheist. That's because as soon as an individual formerly known as atheist is feeling spiritual, he is called SBNR!!! Further readings on that in the criticism part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wijsneus99 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

An Atheist is simply anyone who does not believe there is, or ever was, a Sky God (or any other god or gods) who controls the Universe and performs supernatural feats of power. Thats it. This means many Buddhists, Daoists, and so on are Atheists, as are most people who identify as 'agnostic' mistakenly. To understand what this means, all Christians are A-tooth-fairy-ists and A-Thor-ists, which is exactly the same sentiment, except with respect to some other supernatural being. Atheists apply that same idea to all possible gods. So, Atheism is not a 'belief' in the way you are using it here. You can't 'convert' to Atheism.. if you become an Atheist, you have 'de converted' and have replaced your religious beliefs with nothing. Becoming an Atheist is the same (as far as Atheists are concerned) as stopping believing in the Tooth Fairy. http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism Knomegnome (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Beyond late to the (probably no longer existing) discussion. However, here are my two cents worth. The common definition of atheism is a non-belief in God. What this exactly means to individuals practicing atheism seems to depend heavily on their degree of reliance on a societal monotheistic worldview. I have known self-defined atheists who are dogmatic in rejecting all things religious and spiritual, some even to the point of outright evangelism of their atheism. I have also known self-defined atheists who would fall firmly within the RBNS category in their beliefs, but insist that they are atheists because they are not monotheistic (or any "dominant god" theistic) within their society's norms, and also do not follow an outright polytheistic structure. What I have never yet seen is a professed atheism within a broadly polytheistic syncretic structure. - Tenebris 66.11.165.110 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Equivocation on spiritual and/or religious

The problem with the phrase "Spiritual, but not religious" is that both are loaded words. You can call something a spiritual religion and not have any conflict. But you can't easily remove he meanings within religion that are attatched to the spiritual, and vise versa. If by religion you simply mean a practice that is done repeatedly with great commitment, then you could consider breathing a religion. It is obvious that this is not what most people mean when they say "I'm religious". Likewise, we ought to be tease out the specific meanings tied to the spiritual. What is a spirit? This is difficult to talk about clearly, which may be part of the problem I'm seeing. When someone says "I'm dressing like this in the spirit of Halloween." , they are speaking about the underlying meanings associated with Halloween. On the other hand if they say "I'm dressed as a spirit for Halloween." they are talking about something specific. So what is someone saying when they say "I'm spiritual, but not religious."? By the meanings above it seems like they're saying "I believe in the underlying meaning behind things, but not in regularly aknowledging the existence of a supreme being." But this is not the meaning that is often intended, particularly when the idea of religious but not spiritual is applied to the humanist, the atheist, and the naturalist. Generally, the people identifying with these groups will deny the existence of the supernatural of any kind, and will therefor not generally acknowledge any intrinsic underlying meanings in reality. Meaning is applied by the thinker, and thus is only implied to be underlying an idea, but in fact these ideas (spirits) are non-underlying. So in this context, if I say I'm spiritual but not religious, it means, "I think about stuff, but I don't believe in a religion." Which is basically communicating very little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurgerKM09 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's like that guy who says he's crazy about American Football, only he never watches a game, doesn't know the rules, it just pops up in his mind once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wijsneus99 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree.. I would classify as SBNR, and know a LOT about religion, have practiced three, and have studied many more. What it means to me, and what I suspect it means to a large segment of people, is that they do not believe in unsupported claims of supernatural miracles, the existence of particular gods, etc.. but DO feel that there is more to life than simply material. That there is a worthy, numinous aspect to life and consciousness that demands exploration, even though we don't yet have good language to describe it non dogmatically. Knomegnome (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

The view expressed above is exactly the kind of criticism we need in this article. For thousands of years and up to this day religion has been an institution where u follow a certain doctrine. When you say you're a Christian, you say u believe in Jesus. When u say u are SBNR u say Jesus might've been a God or might've been just another guy or might've been not true at all. But hé, u still believe in that "higher power". I can only imagine what the pope has to say. For me, saying there is "something between heaven and earth", plus denying all the established religious institutions, which for many people SBNR means, is closer to atheism then anything at all. Only 1 more step. A good thing imo, but that aside.

Reality is many of these SBNR people don't see this reality.... They feel very spiritual, but not religious. But because they feel so spiritual and connected to God, actually they feel very much religious also, but without all the stuff that comes with it like church and reading the bible. Does that make sense? My point exactly.

U believe in God or u do not. We can all agree on that do we not? Therefore u are religious or u are not. A Theist or an Atheist. You can't be a theist and at the same time deny theism. If you think u can't see it that black/white I will ask again: Is there a God or not?

I think this is a big hiat in the criticism section. Also there are allot of references that support my and BurgerKM's opinion. I invite anyone with better english skills then this foreigner to make the proper modification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wijsneus99 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

None of these criticisms has a legitimate place on Wikipedia, in my view. They are nothing but opinions. There are no source citations for most of them and when there are source citations they are from authors with an axe to grind rather than objective scholars or journalists or others with fact and objectivity as their driving principles.

The fact that there is a *section* called "Criticism" but not one called "Support" belies the purpose of the editors who have come before. It may be *difficult* to have an objective, reasoned discussion of this subject but that doesn't excuse the laziness exhibited here.

Dshafer (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

·Excellent quotation by Reverend Lillian Daniel

·“Classical mysticism” – "classical" typically refers to Greco-Roman world

·“Other critics take issue with the intellectual legitimacy of SBNR scholarship. When contrasted with professional or academic theology, spiritual philosophies can appear unpolished, disjointed, or inconsistently sourced.” – but SBNR scholarship would mean religious studies, no? So why the comparison with theology?

MonstreDélicat (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Helpful articles

Hi there!

I've found some articles that might be able to help with rounding out the article some more. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianityforthesbnr/ Looking at people who do identify with a religion but also as SBNR.

"Spiritual, but Not Religious": The Impact of Parental Divorce on the Religious and Spiritual Identities of Young Adults in the United States" This article found that children with divorced parents were more likely to be SBNR.

"WHAT’S IN A NAME? A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE “SPIRITUAL BUT NOT RELIGIOUS” by Philip D. Kenneson goes into the popular phrase "the rise of the Nones".

Would it be worth it to look into the connections between workplace spirituality and SBNR? I've found some articles about it. http://blog.hosfeld.com/conscious-business/meaning-making-and-relationships-priorities-in-the-spiritual-but-not-religious-workplace/

     - I found this article really interesting and a good connection to SBNR. Maybe you could even look into connecting spiritual humanism as well? - Allison  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccannallison (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 

Thanks! Michellerow (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I found this cool article that goes into SBNR in the media and well gives a short history of SBNR. As it is from the popular TV show Mad Men is it worth to add in? http://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/05/why-the-mad-men-finale-marks-a-cultural-milestone/ Michellerow (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

This is really preliminary, but here's how I might rewrite the lead section! I just made a few changes...Feel free to edit!

"Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR) is a popular phrase and initialism used to self-identify a life stance of spirituality that rejects traditional organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth. Spirituality places an emphasis upon the wellbeing of the "mind-body-spirit," so "holistic" activities such as tai chi, reki, and yoga are common within the SBNR movement. In contrast to religion, spirituality has often been associated with the interior life of the individual.

The term is used world-wide, but is most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious. Other surveys report lower percentages ranging from 24% to 10%. The term has been called cliché by popular religious writers such as Robert Wright, but is gaining in popularity. The SBNR lifestyle is most studied in the population of the United States]. Some scholars argue that early forms of modern "spirituality" can be traced to origins in Romanticism.

Some useful and recent sources that I think will help with the debates on this talkpage due to their scholarly nature:

• Carrette, Jeremy and Richard King. Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
• Heelas, Paul. Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Print.
• Heelas, Paul and Linda Woodhead. The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.
• Martin, Craig. Capitalizing Religion: Ideology and the Opiate of the Bourgeoisie. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrynnHarlock (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Supernatural in SBNR

When looking at SBNR since it is tied with spirituality, I've found it difficult to find sources that look into the supernatural and mystical side of SBNR because it's such a personal thing. The most effective way to look at SBNR is on a case by case basis but even then we only get a small look into what a few people think about SBNR. With spirituality being varied for every person is it even worth it to study spirituality in depth? Religion has rules to follow but spirituality doesn't, which of course attracts many people to it. Perhaps spirituality is more widely received because it doesn't have one true definition or negative connotations like religion? Michellerow (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A sentence appears in this passage about"colonial America," where some people "had a supernatural curiosity that was often combined with free-thinking rationalism advocated by intellectuals such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson" – who? As a Wikipedia editor one can’t say these people would today identify as SBNR, but if a particular scholar argued this, then you could report that. MonstreDélicat (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Having trouble with the very first paragraph. "Spirituality places an emphasis upon the well-being of the "mind-body-spirit," so "holistic" activities such as tai chi, reiki, and yoga are common within the SBNR movement. In contrast to religion, spirituality has often been associated with the interior life of the individual." After the first sentence, to use the words "In contrast" implies that spirituality and religion are exclusive concepts. Obviously, spirituality is a hallmark of religion. To describe one's self as "spiritual but not religious" implies that it's outside the common expectation for religion. Also, the last sentence describes a "SBNR movement". To me this implies an organized effort. I disagree that there's an actual "movement". --Eddylyons (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplication and Overlap of Sections

Spirituality in religion section is duplicated – these three sections (“Spirituality in religion,” “What is Spirituality” and “Spirituality in religion” again) need work. A lot of this seems as though it should be moved to “Definition” or at least go before the subsections that don’t deal with defining the central terms (eg. Music, Supernatural, etc.). Maybe some of this should be collapsed and moved into a “debates” section?

The first Spirituality in Religion section would need more fleshing out. I would suggest linking to a page (maybe something on critical religion) that goes into depth on the whole nomenclature debate and the fact that Religious Studies cannot agree on what “religious” means or what it is studying as a field.

The "What is Spirituality" section had a lot of parts where conflicting claims were being advanced without being tied to a particular population and study

Here are some specific passages that need attention:

“To appreciate the "god within" is not a twentieth century notion linked to the 1960s counterculture with its eastern-mystical or hippie drug scene or even the 1980s New Age movement for that matter. Spirituality is made up of three parts: nature, divine wisdom from a high power, and the self.” These two sentences don’t relate to each other. They need additional context or explanation in order to fit together and with the rest of the paragraph. They are also presented here as arguments. Since they are not established and agreed upon facts, and since this is an encyclopedia rather than an essay, they need to be communicated as the arguments of somebody in order to avoid appearing to advocate them.

In the second Spirituality and Religion Section there needs to be more transition work to explain why it jumps into “Abrahamic religions” right after contrasting “religion and spirituality.” Whose argument are being rehearsed? Is this being reported as a majority opinion? That would have to be noted explicitly rather than just putting forward one person’s argument and allowing readers to assume it’s the consensus view.

“Spirituality is about much more than going to church and agreeing or disagreeing with church doctrines.” This isn’t neutral. It can be included if it is noted as someone else’s published argument, but it can't be presented as common sense. Further, it implies that “religion” is just going to church and agreeing or disagreeing with church doctrines, which is certainly not the case, especially because putting it this way reifies “religion” as though it really exists apart from its discursive construction.

“Spirituality is the shorthand term we use in our society to talk about a person’s relationship with God.” What is "our" society? Canada? The society of Religion scholars? English Wikipedia might be read and edited by all kinds of people all over the world.

“For many people, how they think about it is certainly guided by what they see and do in their congregations.” It = unclear referent. Is "it" referring to religion or spirituality? Also, which congregations? There is an assumption here that “people” in general belong to congregations. What is the supposed relationship between congregations, religion, and spirituality being referenced here? These problems, plus tense changes and grammatical errors continue in the next sentences.

“Religion is seen as a complex adaptive network of myths, symbols, rituals and concepts that simultaneously figure patterns of feeling, thinking, and acting and disrupt stable structures of meaning and purpose.” Passive voice/neutrality issue – seen by whom? This is another argument here.

Another argument: “Both spirituality and religion consist of four basic components: beliefs, desire, rituals, and behavioural expectations.” This might be one scholar’s definition, but it’s surely a provisional one. We can’t just say this is a fact. Religious Studies as a scholarly field emphasizes that these concepts don’t have one final definition.

Abrupt – no transition. “When Mercandante has spoken with SBNRs, they take a decidedly anti-dogmatic stance against religious belief in general. They claim not only that belief is non-essential, but that it is potentially harmful or at least a hindrance to spirituality.” Mercandante hasn’t been mentioned in quite a while at this point when her name reappears.

MonstreDélicat (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Definition

·Keep capitalization consistent in phrase "Spiritual but Not Religious"

·Could pipe “Romantic” to Romanticism

·Why is only "William" and not the full name "William James" linked?

·Consider in “definition” section including the point that “spiritual” or “spiritual movements” aren’t clearly defined by scholars or practitioners as one thing; just to note for readers that, like religion, it’s still a majorly puzzling concept with no certain meaning

MonstreDélicat (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Types

This section includes the phrase "people who are looking for a spiritual home but contemplate recovering earlier religious identities" – this is confusing. The meaning is unclear, so it needs to be reworded.

MonstreDélicat (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging Limitations

One of the difficulties that I found while writing my section was a lack of information on internal practices and mysticism. Spirituality is such a personal thing that it can be difficult to find academic/peer reviewed information about someone's personal beliefs. People are attracted to SBNR because it doesn't have strict guidelines but that makes it even trickier as an academic study. Pick up from where I left off, in order to provide a holistic view of SBNR, I suggest looking at perhaps more interviews. The article relies on Linda Mercandante's Belief without the Bordersbut diversifying the texts more will beneficial for the article. Michellerow (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In writing the definition section for SBNR, I was met with the issue that we are often faced with as students focusing on an aspect of academia that can be extremely difficult to define. I wasn't entirely sure which definitions of of "spiritual" or "spirituality" should be used for the purpose of this article, because as we know, these are pretty fluid terms whose definitions are continuously up for debate. I tried to include what I found to be the most common in the articles I read regarding SBNR. As Michelle stated above, I think that moving forward, interviews are extremely helpful in gaining a better understanding of this topic because they allow for a more rounded understanding of the way spirituality is defined by different people.Hpearlman (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

All the difficulties I found writing the section "Types and Practices" boil down to the fact that there is a lack of consensus with regards to what Spiritual But Not Religious actually means, which translates to an infinite scope of potential types and practices that could possibly fit under this loosely defined umbrella term. This lack of concrete definitions allows Wikipedia editors to use a wide range of material for their contributions, but becomes challenging when it comes to picking and choosing which types and practices to include because these decisions feel somewhat arbitrary. The difficulties associated with my contributions highlight the lack of sufficient concrete definitions and explanations for the SBRN movement. The paradox however is that SBNR is supposed to be unconventional and anti-conservativism with regards to institutional religion, so providing concrete definitions of types and practices relegates SBNR to a form of conservative and systematic religiosity that the very movement is trying to break away from. Ruthchitiz (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Another limitation that we came across was that we wanted to change the title of the article to reflect the work that we did. We wanted to change the title to "Spiritual but Not Religious" but turns out it takes some more difficult coding than we anticipated. If anyone knows how to change the article title that would be much appreciated! Michellerow (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)