Contd…

Science is also showing interesting evidence of the connection between mind and body:

http://littlurl.com/wtti9

http://littlurl.com/26gal

But not through Christianity; through meditation.

Meditation is a skill that can be learned by anyone – there is nothing supernatural about it. And you don’t have to believe in Buddhism to practise it.

Until formal religions truly accept that there are different world views to theirs and that these views are acceptable and valid, we will continue to experience the divisiveness and hatred that intolerance causes – just look at how Runner has proven my point about justifying bombing abortion clinics.

Another point, while there has been some contribution by males to this thread, not one has had anything to say what makes them feel spiritual, if anything at all. Sad; because I know that men are just as deep as women, for example, just look at male artists.

Interesting link Graham. I note that the respondents in the author's survey were all 21 year olds and wonder if that would have any impact on the results and whether a broader age group might provide different results. I think most 21 year olds (regardless of religious beliefs) are struggling with issues of the "me me generation" including materialism, consumerism and individualism.

Which might also tie in with this quote by Dr Aird: "...found that moving away from traditional religious beliefs to trendy, self-focused spirituality is not making young adults happier." I think there are many factors that make this true.

I wonder also how "trendy" is defined or "self-focussed spirituality" because some mainstream religions refer to Bhuddism as self-focussed and trendy despite its long term historical presence. Paganism is another "old" religion/belief as Romany points out that is sometimes allocated cult status despite Christianity adopting many of its festivals. I don't have a wide knowledge of paganism but believe it was not patriarchial and included many female deities/goddesses.

I always find it interesting that the most disparaging comments on this forum about Socialism/Left (the collective) as opposed to Conservatism/Right (the individual) are from the ardent Christians who are the first to claim individualism as selfish.

We humans are a funny lot but another article with more in-depth information on this issue would be worthy if OLO could manage it.

It's true that I don't think you can assume those who follow an organised religion are uncritical - by and large, I'd say people of moderate belief, in any form, are probably similarly capable of critically evaluating their beliefs as one another.

However, when we look at the extremes of belief and critical evaluation, I'd say we could make a few reasonable assumptions -

People who are genuinely very suggestible would be quite likely to gravitate to an organised religion - as I mentioned, it wouldn't preclude the existence of of reasonable people being there as well, no more than it would exclude healthy people from being in a lolly shop, but bearing in mind it's likely those with unhealthy eating habits would make a beeline for it.

Similarly, those who have a very suspicious or critical mindset, who have difficulties interacting with others, are likely to reject organised religion in favour of developing their own belief set.

If there was any kind of objective way of evaluating this, and I'm somewhat skeptical there is, my assumption would be that on the 'very uncritical' side of the graph, there would be a high number of people in an organised religion, while at the other end, the 'very critical' people would be either areligious or not part of an organised religion.

As a pretty non-religious sort, my assumption would be that the vast majority of people would fall in the middle somewhere, though I think there'd be a slight trend of more critical people, such as scientists and the like, who are a-religious, while perhaps other critical sorts would develop their own faith. But I suspect it would still be a pretty wide scattering.

But of course it's conjecture, though perhaps an article by Dr Aird could shed more light on it.

Pelican, good point when you said, “I think most 21 year olds (regardless of religious beliefs) are struggling with issues of the "me me generation" …”.

GY, I am also very interested to read a more in-depth article by Airds on this.
I understand that, when she talks about spirituality, she is talking specifically about “new-age spirituality”.

I’m sceptical, too, TRTL, I question the reliability of Aird’s research; she compared one belief (traditional religions based on a God) with another belief (new beliefs based on other supernatural beings/higher powers) but I wonder whether she compared apples with apples (or should I say: nuts with nuts?).
For example, if she compared moderate Christians with new-age nuts (the kind that lie buried in mud with an amethyst on their 7th chakra) she would’ve naturally ended up with the results she presented.
I doubt that she compared moderate new-agers with nutty Christians (the kind that believe that computers are a creation of Lucifer and that tertiary education is of the devil).

Also, I think that a lot of new-agers may have been attracted to new-age spirituality for a reason: they might have, in the first place, been unhappy with some aspects of their lives and then try out new-age beliefs or self-help book because it seems like a cheaper fix than seeking proper counselling.
Many people who adhere to a traditional religion haven’t chosen that religion for help with their problems; they have simply grown up with that religion at home or school.

Self-help Gurus not only prey on insecure and unhappy people, they help create them as well.
New-age spirituality is just as irrational as the beliefs of traditional religions.

Dear Celivia,

I totally agree with you. Some people are motivational freaks, they buy all the books, take all the courses, listen to all the tapes, know all the jargon, enjoy all the symptoms.

They pay and pray and hope they'll be saved by any of the hundreds of latter-day profits...er, prophets, who peddle hope for cash.

These are the gullible who think a fairly large cash transaction for a weekend on a meatless diet consisting of group confession, several tearful breakdowns and a handful of softly spoken phrases learned in psychological news-speak, will make them brand new again.

It may do, but it probably won't.

It seems to me we're obsessed with having things. We put ourselves in debt for thirty years in order to own a house. We work at thankless jobs we hate for thirty years in order to have sufficient money to retire with some security and to die in absolute obscurity.

There is another way. The idea is to dream up the things you want to do and then make them happen.

Life is not about having things, life is about doing things.

Doing things usually has a rewarding result. You either make more money than you need without being bored in the process, or you discover that you don't really need all that fiscal security to live happily ever after.

You also die smiling.

Fractelle,

'Another point, while there has been some contribution by males to this thread, not one has had anything to say what makes them feel spiritual, if anything at all. Sad; because I know that men are just as deep as women, for example, just look at male artists.'

Why must men share, communicate, romantisize their feelings the same as women. I really reject societies attempts to feminise men. It reaks of female superiority. Nothing personal, and I know you may just be interested to hear more from men on this, but I think more and more this is considered the ideal. That men be more like women. That there is something wrong with a man if he doesn't want to share his spiritual or emotional side with all and sundry. It's not necessarily an inhibition. And men communicate effectively in their own male way. The stigma of being a closed, supposedly emotionally retarded man for anyone who isn't into group hugs is the sad thing to me.