Definitions aren't the specialty of philosophy. For definitions, you should turn to a lexicographer.

If philosophy has taught me anything, it's that not everything that looks like a question and feels like a question and seems like a question is actually a question. I know you aren't asking for a link to merriam-webster.com, so what is it really that you think you're asking for? What are you trying to determine?

To make much ado about "spirituality" is to construct for oneself an ivory tower, paradoxically, made largely out of thin air, from which to look down upon the others below. At least that's what it seems to me. — Sapientia

I think those of us who are not spiritual (I don't think I am anyway) are sometimes a little too dismissive. I have often asked for clarification on what people mean by spirituality, and I get two types of answer. The first is the that spirituality is an element of religious belief. Literally pertaining to one's spirit or soul. There's no use talking about spirituality with someone who believes in that sort of dualism, if you do not (and I don't), unless it is solely for the purpose of discussing the dualism itself.

The second type of response I get is like darthbarracuda's. It describes spirituality in vague terms, and always includes an appeal to mystery and the unknown. I've never had much luck in getting clarification from this type of response, so I have a few hypotheses as to why:

1) When I let go of my religious faith, I did it in steps. I was first a christian, then a doubting christian, then an agnostic, then a pantheist (I didn't even know what it was called at the time), then "spiritual but not religious", then a weak atheist, and now just an atheist. Each of these steps represented both a change in my thinking about how the universe worked, but I think more importantly, they represented the way I looked at myself, and these changes happen gradually, and on a continuum. When I considered myself "spiritual but not religious", it was not because I wanted to construct an ivory tower, but because I wasn't ready to let go of the part of my identity and worldview that believed in the possibility of magic (which I now realize is an inherently incoherent notion).

or

2) Maybe there is something to it, and no one has been able to explain it well enough for me to grasp their meaning. If it is either complex enough or subtle enough, perhaps I just missed it.

Now it's a little self serving, but I have been pretty good with complex and/or subtle ideas in the past, and my personal experience also lends weight to the first hypothesis, so that's the one I favor, but I keep my mind open to the second, or the possibility that there's another explanation that I haven't considered yet.

1. Do you buy into the scientific evidence that supports the notion that mindfulness has benefits for both physical and mental health? — Brian

It's pretty well established, as far as I know. Why wouldn't someone buy into it?

2. Does it make sense that increased mindfulness could lead to increased happiness and general well-being? — Brian

General well being? Absolutely. I find that our modern fetishization of happiness detracts from our general sense of well being, so I'll leave that one alone.

3. Do you practice mindfulness at all (or have you in the past) and if so, have you received any benefit from it? Any negative effects? — Brian

Yes, and yes. I am more emotionally self-aware. I act less rashly. I experience anxiety, anger, boredom and/or despair less frequently and they aren't, as a rule, the primary drivers of my behavior.

4. Does anything else in Buddhism meaningfully add to any benefits of mindfulness or should the rest of Buddhist practice and philosophy be rejected? — Brian

One might derive benefit from Buddhism in the same way that one might derive benefit from Christianity (there's some good general life advice in most scriptures), but as far as I'm concerned, there is no element of Buddhism that is required to practice mindfulness to beneficial effect. Michael Taft is a proponent of secular mindfulness. https://themindfulgeek.com/

Mindfulness was one tool that helped me out of a two decade battle with addiction. I am incredibly pleased with my life right now, and there have been a number of elements that led me here, mindfulness is one. I don't suppose I'll ever be able to quantify to what degree.

As a side note, I don't often do mindfulness meditations anymore, but I do try, and I believe succeed to a large degree, to incorporate mindfulness into all sorts of elements of my daily life.

So let's say that this is my idea, not his. I can assure you that the spirit by which I propose it is sincere. Now can we talk about it like rational people and not ideologues?

Edit: The agenda of ID proponents is not the problem, it is that they are suggesting teaching something either outright false, or misleading to a degree that encourages outright false beliefs. I am suggesting teaching kids actual facts about religions.

In a geology section of an elementary school science course, we don't teach kids that rocks are good or bad, we teach them they are igneous or sedimentary et al, and what properties those designations have. Why can't we do the same?

I also don't understand what you're referring to by "we" in this context. In the average school I imagine that the children come from families of various different religions, or at least difderent sects. So the only "we" there needs to be is the "we" that is learning about various different religions.

I judged the idea based on its inspiration , not its "source". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's still fallacious. It does not logically follow that the idea is bad because it's inspiration is somehow flawed.

If there is a political struggle, like with sex education, then no matter what curriculum we end up with it has the baggage of the agenda of various political interests.

A "save them from indoctrination" education is not about the well-being of students. It is powerful elites using students as pawns in a political battle.

I don't care what age the instruction starts at, the material should be designed to help develop a critical perspective that can be used for a lifelong process of self-education and creatively contributing to society.

Creating lifelong narcissists whose modus operandi is being McCarthyists paranoid about indoctrination is not a good idea. Giving people the power to be effective responsible, autonomous self-educators and independent thinkers is. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree with most of this, so I find it strange that you are so resistant to the idea that we teach children about religions without value judgements. No indoctrination for or against any religion. Of course we should also teach critical thinking, but that is a separate concern. We should teach critical thinking not specifically as it applies to religions, but as it applies to everything. From your responses, I feel like you think I have a secret agenda to teach children that religion is bad, and my suggestion is just a Trojan horse. That's totally implausible though, as a majority of teachers, assuming they fall into the broader demographic pattern, are religious. Perhaps you could take the suggestion at face value. It really seems like an unusually reasonable and uncontroversial notion to be getting such push back.

The way I recall it, you asked me specifically about Daniel Dennett's idea. I responded that if Daniel Dennett is the inspiration then it is a bad idea. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's the genetic fallacy. You can't conclude an idea is bad based solely on it's source. Even if Dennett was the most fallible, wrongheaded thinker in the history of human thought, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I then said that if it was going to be done with a spirit more appropriate for a public institution of learning then, by all means, teach children what scholars/intellectuals say about religion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Where did scholars and intellectuals come from? I'm talking about teaching children. I think Aquinas might be jumping ahead a little. How about just teaching them about the basic tenets and orthodoxy of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc.? No value judgements or critiques. No justifications or apologies. Just the facts.

The "facts" and "without treating any one as right or wrong" language betray a political agenda. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How is withholding value judgments betraying an agenda? It is the opposite.

Instead, teach what archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, historians, linguists, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, religious studies scholars, and sociologists have said / are saying about religion. It probably won't make many adults happy--the evangelical atheists, the religious conservatives, the secularists, etc.--but objective truth does not take sides and would give children a powerful tool to defend against the various political interests, left and right; agnostic, atheist and theist; secular and traditional, who are trying to control their lives. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you are talking about teens or young adults, not children. I am referring to starting to teach children about religion at the same time as we start to teach them about everything else in school. Basically starting at 5 years old.

how first and second hand accounts and information is treated and viewed — Arran

You might want to look into Kuhn as well. He did philosophy of science with a focus on the fact that science is an inherently social practice. His seminal work was The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

I never said anything like that. I illustrated, again, "religion" according to people like Daniel Dennett = apples; "religion" as I have experienced it = oranges.

I can't refute Dennett's version of "religion" because, like I said, if every time you see it or hear about it it walks like a straw man and talks like a straw man, it is most likely a straw man. Or a bogeyman. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Different people can have different experiences of the same thing. That doesn't make it a different thing. Some people hate cilantro, some people like it, but it's still cilantro. What you and I and Dennett are talking about is the same thing if we're all speaking English and using the word in a conventional sense. I know I am, and I have no reason to believe Dennett isn't, so unless you're intentionally using the word unconventionally, then we're all talking about the same thing. Even if we experience it differently.

I can't refute Dennett's version of "religion" because, like I said, if every time you see it or hear about it it walks like a straw man and talks like a straw man, it is most likely a straw man. Or a bogeyman. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I never asked you to refute his conception of religion. I asked if it was reasonable to teach children the facts about what different religions believe, without treating any one as right or wrong, in publicly funded schools? You could still answer that question if you wanted.

And what is your exposure to academia? How many professors have you discussed this with? How many have you observed? Are you familiar with how post secondary institutions are funded? Are you suggesting that all academia worldwide is crooked, or just in your country of origin? Do you have any training or knowledge in methods to observe, document and analyse data in such a way as to ensure it is free from your own personal biases? These would all be relevant pieces of information regarding your credibility to make a trustworthy assessment on the subject. Without that, you're just someone on the internet claiming to know more than the experts.

Of course you will as most others. That is why Banks and corporations fund these instructions. To make sure their interests are well represented. It's easy to buy academia. Those who don't you the line (as they v did in graduate school) are banished, or worse yet hounded. Academia is a lovely, lowly community. No backbone — Rich

And your evidence for this is what? What you're saying sounds exactly like a garden variety conspiracy theory. Why should I believe it isn't?

Again, you're free to use whatever method you choose, but I'll take studies over your intuitions.

You understand why anecdote is not a good basis for drawing conclusions? I really don't find your anecdote very compelling, not only because my experience is almost completely the opposite, but more so because I understand the fallibility of anecdotal evidence in principle.

You're free to choose whatever method you prefer to arrive at your conclusions, however I would personally recommend choosing academically researched, peer reviewed studies over personal intuitions. That's the route I'm going to take on this matter anyways.

Social dynamics (which accounts for resource aquisition, but also in group identity issues) does a pretty good job describing Mao and Stalin or Rwanda, and is based on significant research. I think that trying to boil it down to a quest for money or resources is as much of an over simplification as ascribing it all to relegion.

I think the spirit is that indoctrination is bad, and making sure that children can make properly educated decisions regarding religion. I would hope that we all could agree with that. I think it would be wrong to pass any judgement, either pro or anti. Just teach kids what people believe. Like Joe Friday used to say "just the facts ma'am ".

Regardless of your opinion on Dennett in general, I would be curious if you dispute that it would be a worthwhile enterprise to teach the cultural/social phenomena of religions to children in public school, and if so, on what grounds?

But are religion and personal, private belief the same thing? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Of course not, and like with virtually every complex phenomena, there is no bright demarcation line. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered distinct at points outside the blurry lines near demarcation. At the most private, personal beliefs are not publicly shared, and then are not subject to public scrutiny or critique. At the least private are proselytizing religions, which are most open to the same critique. I would suggest that Daniel Dennet's proposal that all children be taught about all of the major religions of the world without a suggestion that one or another is the "right" one at public schools would be a great way to approach the subject, to counteract what could be considered the indoctrination of children into a particular religious heritage and dogma.

Basically just any sort of feeling of belonging in the world or serving a higher purpose that is not immediately concrete and accessible but rather overarching and "cosmic", something that permeates everything and anything. That there is some "other" order to the universe that makes it all "make sense", justifies injustices and to which the aesthetic provides access to.

It's the feeling of being almost-at-home, but not quite, as if you're approaching some big discovery and part of the deal is that it's mysterious, and that once you finally arrive it'll all make sense, including why it had to be mysterious in the first place. Most likely this understanding would seem to reside after death, in some other realm or mode of existence, and which the journey to is life.

I'd say it's a deep, primordial desire to belong and see what it "all" is about, how everything hangs together, to comprehend the necessity of every thing that exists and grasp some grand, metaphysical mosaic of meaning. It's natural and inevitable but I think it's also commonly formed from desperation. It's not just a desire but a need, a demand, that the universe be welcoming and recognize the person. Or at least "open up" to their questions.

So basically it's a feeling that one might be finally getting some answers to the questions that have haunted and plagued humanity since it first started philosophizing. — darthbarracuda

Here's the problem I have with this response.You haven't really clarified anything. When you use the word "spiritual" do you mean "feeling of belonging"? or "serving a higher purpose"? or "almost at home but not quite"(which seems to be a contradiction to "feeling of belonging")? or "a deep, primordial desire to belong and see what it "all" is about"?

With all due respect, it seems to me that you don't really know what you mean, and that the word "spiritual" has become a linguistic placeholder that has the performative function of replacing the word "religious" while escaping some of the connotations that are associated with that word.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you were trying to offer context, and in doing so obfuscated the meaning of the word. If that is the case, could you give me just your working definition of spirituality. The kind that might be found in a dictionary? You know, just a one or two sentence description, perhaps with a synonym? I can dig deeper if I need clarification from there.

But we are talking about a specific context here: evidentialism, epistemic justification, and the assertion that it is morally wrong to have a belief if certain conditions are not met. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Aye, and there's the rub. Justification, in real life, is a post hoc process, unlike how it is regularly viewed in philosophy as being the reason for, or cause of behavior. In any sufficiently complex scenario, multiple rationally defensible but mutually exclusionary justifications are possible. I would submit that it makes more sense to explore under which circumstances people are more likely, or less likely to behave in ways that lead to such things as wars and genocides. I think that there is a case to be made that religions are for the most part exclusionary in principle (heresy is a sin in every religion), if not always in practice, and that this buttresses in-group thinking. There's a great deal of research on in group/out group dynamics, and the social discord that come from it, which include wars and genocide. Again, I think some people overstate this connection as a direct causal chain, but I don't think it's unreasonable to draw some lines. Here's a very reasonable take on the matter:

http://bev.berkeley.edu/Ethnic%20Religious%20Conflict/Ethnic%20and%20Religious%20Conflict/1%20Identity/Journal%20of%20Peace%20Research-1999-Seul-553-69.pdf

I also don't think that it's unreasonable, given those sorts of associations, to conclude that it is more prudent to reject religion. In a sort of a reverse Pascal's wager, I would suggest that religion offers little of value that can't be acquired otherwise, and there is at least some reason to believe that it underpins some of the worst parts of our nature, so it is the most moral choice to both reject it for oneself, and to speak out about it's possible ills.

While I think the point in the original post is reasonable to an extent, I also think it is reasonable, to an extent, to make judgments about how someone's beliefs motivated their actions based on their own explanations. Is it unfair to conclude that 9/11 was motivated by a belief in a specific form of Islamist fundamentalism (a belief system)? Bin Laden explicitly explained it to be part of a holy war. I suppose we could psychologize him, and try to determine proximate vs ultimate causes, but for most practical purposes, can't we just say that his belief, and the beliefs of those who took part in the attack were a significant, even primary, motivating factor?

I'll agree that some people play this hand too strongly, saying that all wars through history have been caused by religious belief. But the overstatement or poor formulation of an idea doesn't mean we should dismiss every formulation of that idea. I would suggest that we should concern ourselves with determining motivation instead of cause, and figuring out to what degree various beliefs or cultural/social institutions help to motivate positive and negative behaviors. Surely it isn't unreasonable to suggest that the various dogma of the social institutions of religion have historically been a large motivating factor in various violent incidents, including many wars and genocides? The Spanish inquisition, the Crusades, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Indian/Pakistani conflicts,etc. Surely that's not controversial?

I disagree since a being who is uninterested in the welfare of others wouldn't be morally perfect.... — lambda

Sorry again. Added on edit: "I'm not sure how you conclude that "A morally perfect being would also be concerned with the well-being of his creatures and therefore have an interest in our behaviors (and consequently must have intentionality as well)". That just sounds like an intuition that meets your personal image of god and perfection (which is really the problem with the ontological argument, and why Aquinas rejected it... it requires someone's conception of perfection, so god becomes contingent on man's mind).".

I disagree since Pascal's wager is specifically an argument for Christianity and I would say the God described in the Sermon on the Mount is morally perfect, worthy of worship, intentional, and caring.

The historical context of Pascal's wager was the christian god, but the argument itself makes no distinction. It is as compelling (or not) an argument for any god who requires belief in order to achieve eternal happiness or avoid eternal punishment. Edit: It's also morally sketchy in itself, as it proposes subjugating a desire for truth to a desire for personal gain. A god that rewarded this prioritization could reasonably be considered a little morally sketchy as well.

Beliefs exist in a context. The majority of people on earth worship one of a number of gods. Atheism, in practice, is a characterization of the commonly espoused and worshiped gods as being mythological. All this nonsense about distinguishing between belief and knowledge is no more relevant to the discussion of the historicity/mythology of the gods than it is to discussions of any other contentious matter of fact/fiction. We hold beliefs with varying degrees of confidence, and when a belief reaches a certain level of confidence, we say we know it to be true. A belief in the mythological nature of gods is no different. I hold my belief that gods are mythological with a high level of confidence.

I'm curious. What exactly is the meaning of "spirituality" in your formulation? I don't consider myself to be spiritual (nor homeless), and I consider the word "spiritual" to be best translated as "psuedo-religious" in most uses. You mean something else I assume?

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said "in most cases", I was making an allowance for the ontological god to be worthy of worship. None the less, the ontological argument doesn't imply an intentional god that has interest in our behaviors (so still a god that doesn't resemble the one most people worship in their churches, mosques or synagogues). The first mover, Pascal's wager doesn't imply a worthy, intentional or caring god.

I'm not sure how you conclude that "A morally perfect being would also be concerned with the well-being of his creatures and therefore have an interest in our behaviors (and consequently must have intentionality as well)". That just sounds like an intuition that meets your personal image of god and perfection (which is really the problem with the ontological argument, and why Aquinas rejected it... it requires someone's conception of perfection, so god becomes contingent on man's mind).

Is there another philosophical argument for god that offers evidence for Jehovah/Yaweh/Elohim/Allah as described in various texts?

I am skeptical that anyone's religious practices are products of the first mover argument (or it's analogues). There is exactly zero reason to conclude that the first mover, God of the ontological argument, God of Pascal's wager, et al, are the commonly worshipped God from whatever neighborhood you live in or grew up in. In most cases, there's no line of reasoning that the God in question even has most of the properties we commonly associate with gods, like intentionally, moral goodness (being worthy of worship), or interest in our behaviours.

I guess that what I'm saying is that philosophy directly informs my everyday approach to religion, spirituality, and theism. Namely, it informs my rejection of all of the above. Religion, as it is commonly practiced, is at best (by my reckoning, informed by philosophy) a waste of time and a distraction, commonly is a means to romanticize irrationality, and at worst a means to subvert critical thinking in morally charged situations. That means that (again, by my reckoning), I am to some degree morally obligated to speak out.

By the same reasoning, how would the ontological argument or the first mover argument obligate someone to go the their local church?

What does "the world as experienced" mean, if not making a distinction between the experience and that which is being experienced (The world )? The phrase implies a world separate of our experience.

It turns out that if your self esteem is low enough, positive self talk can actually have a negative effect.

I think that it can be more complicated than that. For years, the self help industry was based on ideas like positive self-talk. Remember Stuart Smaller?

So what do you mean by caring? I'm not aware of a use for the word that isn't roughly synonymous with being emotionally invested in the object of the caring.

Although we can't usually directly will ourselves into altering our feelings, we can consciously exploit our own emotional and psychological make ups to achieve specific ends. That is more or less what cognitive behavioral therapy is. As someone who studied acting in college, I can attest that you have to learn to manipulate yourself to elicit desired emotional responses, but one can learn to do so.

Perhaps a thesis along the lines of "the basis for ethics is empathy"? No tautology, and I think it's supportable.

It's a tautology. What is caring if not being emotionally invested? It's like saying "You can only eat if you can ingest food". My advice is to rework your thesis.

Do you think that philosophy is, or should be, detached from the everyday activities of our lives? If so, I disagree, and wonder why you would think so?

There are no philosophical arguments for the existence of the god that people go to church to worship.

quantum mechanics, as far as I can tell, is one of those areas of science that is filled with very smart scientists making very stupid metaphysical assumptions — darthbarracuda

That is what I was saying, in a nutshell.

consequently brought naive realist assumptions (which you believe are merely cultural accretions) to their interpretations of QM. — John

Not necessarily merely cultural, but for the sake of this discussion, calling them cultural should be sufficient. That's why I was asking why you felt it necessary to make the distinction between what the average person considers considers objective being cultural and being merely cultural.

A dictator would rather die than cease to be a dictator; which means that (s)he isn't willing to be happy unless they can be happy in the kind of life they want to live (which in this case is ruling over other people). — Agustino

To further clarify on what I believe is John's point, is it not possible, and even likely, that the dictator truly believes that remaining a dictator will lead them to happiness, and they just happen to be mistaken? People are mistaken about thing all the time, and are particularly poor at conceiving of the things which will make them happy.

The other big problem I have about the whole discussion is how poorly defined the notion of happiness is. Martin Seligman, the founder of positive psychology, which basically studies and happiness scientifically, breaks happiness down into types (pleasure, engagement and meaning). Here's his Ted Talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology#

QM is science. It isn't philosophy. How could philosophy possibly sort out which interpretation of a scientific theory is the best scientific interpretation? The only possible way to sort that out is more hypotheses and more empirical testing. — Landru Guide Us

Unless I am greatly mistaken, QM interpretations are absolutely not science. If they were, they would be falsifiable. Rather, each interpretation is equally consistent with all the given evidence, and each will in principle remain consistent with future evidence if any of them does. There is no theoretical scientific manner by which to choose preference between one and the other. So far as I can tell, the only reason they are considered science in any way is that their origins are from scientists working in the field of QM.

If I am incorrect on this, please cite a source for further reading, because so far as I have read, this is the case.