Talk:Spirituality: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spirituality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 150 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ethics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Ethics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Theology C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I took the liberty of removing the sentence containing the reference to Watchman Nee and the Biblical reference. The language didn't sound proper for a wikipedia page, and it seemed like a bias towards the local churches.

Some excellent resources that further explain the "spiritual Christian" are found in the Bible, Gospel of John 4:24 for example, and in the works of Watchman Nee.[4] Nee probes deeply into the building blocks of mankind and derives that we are Spirit, Body and Soul.

If anyone disagrees with that, feel free to undo it. Mgerb (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section Two, Main article -- The spiritual and the religious, states -

"Some 24% of the United States population identifies itself as spiritual but not religious.[1]"

This is the reference - http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2005/08/Newsweekbeliefnet-Poll-Results.aspx

Which actually says "In early August, 2005, Newsweek and Beliefnet asked 1,004 Americans". The summery results which are used as reference refer to 24% of 1004 americans. Not the population.

For the record 24% of 300 million is 72 million people while 24% of 1004 is roughly 241 people...see my point?

I wonder if anyone reads or understand what is being said in these articles?

I honestly can not read any more for fear of what I would find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good point. Think I'll remove that sentence.TheRingess (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 24% is valid for the entire population, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Please read Statistical survey if you have trouble with the math. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you'll believe anything...

Why is it so difficult to just say in a survey of 1004 people?

The survey was conducted by "Newsweek and Beliefnet"...how? ...if it includes asking subscribers to Beliefnet publications or internet portals then its hardly a cross section of americans since those people are either religious or spiritual by definition!

By the way nice touch calling yourself Dr...does it work?

Write what ever you want... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/213.105.223.232 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a scientific survey was done correctly, then it is reasonable to say that its results reflect the reality of the larger population, within the margin of error. This, in fact, is the very purpose of statistical surveys. If all they could tell you was what those sampled thought, they would be useless. Mathematically, it is as certain to say that the population has the trait measured, as it is to say what the mass of an object in space is, or the temperature of a star, or anything else measured. What you could say is, "according to survey x, y percentage of the U.S. population is z".--Daniel (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the recent U.S. edition of Newsweek, there's an article called "We Are All Hindus Now" with similar statistics (see http://www.newsweek.com/id/212155):

According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life"—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves "spiritual, not religious," according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005.

--Trelawnie (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the source only claims the results of a survey of a specific number of people and does not draw the conclusion that it represents a larger whole, then any such interpretation to apply the results to a larger group is original work. The Newsweek/Beliefnet Results claim that "most believe people of other faiths can go to heaven." This obviously refers only to the people polled and does not state "Most Americans" anywhere in the interpretation. Thus the statement "24% of the United States population identifies itself as spiritual but not religious" is original work and is not encyclopedic. It would be better to state the findings as found rather than interpret them.

The margin of error refers to actual errors found in the tallying of the results that could cause a variation (of 4% in this case) in either direction for the survey results; it is not any indication of reliability that the cross section was representative of the whole, as that cannot be known without a perfect census. While the link to Statistical Survey was helpful in understanding the limitations of surveys and the motivations for using them (cost effective, cheap), it did not provide any mathematical formula, so I cannot imagine what is meant by "if you have trouble with the math."

A second survey taken with completely new people cannot show a change in beliefs of a population, but can only show different results. The survey with new people may have been taken two days later to show a similar variation. That would be like testing a whole new batch of rats to see if the cancer from the first batch had subsided or increased. It is not a scientific conclusion by any stretch of the word. The second survey is not comparable to the first as the second article did not make clear that there were any similarities. In this case it is an opinion of the article's author and not the conclusion of a study that is expressed by "up from 24 percent in 2005." Stating an opinion of an author as though it were fact would not be objective. The whole notion of what percentage of Americans believe what is rather trivial and does not contribute to the understanding of the concept of Spirituality, which is what this wiki needs to focus on. There are also many other countries than the USA. This controversial opinion poll result should be removed permanently in the best interest of the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.95.86.230 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I added section Spiritual Path from the Italian Wikipedia's article on Spiritualità (English: Spirituality), see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualit%C3%A0. Text was translated from Italian to English using the "Full Text Translator" from http://dictionary.reference.com.
--Trelawnie (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I just happened upon this wiki entry through sheer freedom of the will and was surpised to see that there is no criticism section to "Spirituality", though not just for representational nor materialist reasons. With no persuasive argument to the contrary, it will be done. Then again, maybe Plato was right? You see, I was in this cave and was dazzled by these images dancing before me until I realized that this phenomenon was in fact caused by a strange device called a "computer". I proceeded to type these words... Teetotaler 10 September, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for impossible answers

As long as we remain ignorant of what is the purpose of our existence on this earth & what happens to me once I a "die" we will remain confused. This confusion & our own experiences usually traumatic ones will make us look for solace & explanations. God & religion the operating System through which we reach Him are easy simplistic explanations. When we start questioning the rather difficult to comphrehend aspects of life like a criminal, sinner having the best of times then there is a question mark on religion & God. Yet something has to explain our questions & may be we talk of Spirituality of a possible yet unanswered quest of meaning of life. Dr N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.232.37 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are trying to come up with a definition for spirituality. While I don't have all the anthropological data to show that every culture, race, species, etc... has a form of spirituality, I was hoping we could get a section in this article criticizing the notion of spirituality itself. For example, such a criticism might discuss the extent to which typical forms of spirituality depend upon the Fact-Value distinction, or to what forms of spirituality are anti-political, anti-philosophical, anti-intellectual, etc... While some would like to think of spirituality as a natural kind, like say water or thought, it could very well be that it is a social construct of some sort and not a universal psychological phenomenon that we can use to exhaustively describe every sentient being. Teetotaler 30 November, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there Teet, do not thou forget the work of Gandhi who used spirituality for very political reasons, namely as a justification of vegetarianism, fasting, as well as civil disobedience. You see in this instance, spirituality is a category of ethics and politics. Is this spirituality or is spirituality subsumed by holism? Was Gandhi a holist? Hmm..., I think so, but remember, he was also an experimentalist. Perhaps, contrary to Dr N's definition of spirituality, one does not have to give up the game to skepticism to arrive at spirituality. On the contrary, it relies in Gandhi's instance on ethical objecitivism and self-sacrifice. I know its beginning to sound a bit Kantian in here but still sounds like ethics has priority. There is, however, the unholistic parable... Teetotaler 26 December, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to critique spirituality is like trying to critique boredom. We all experience it in different ways, and in some cases they can be completely opposite experiences. What one person finds boring another may find thrilling. Spirituality as defined on http://www.the-spiritual-quest.com says, "The term spiritual … something we cannot see or touch. Words like love, joy, peace, goodness, kindness, faith, and self control are spiritual sensations. The other side of spiritual sensations are fear, anxiety, frustration, anger, stress, etc. These sensations are part of our being." And it continues, "By our focusing on these inner spiritual sensations, both good and bad, we are able to adjust our lives, conduct and actions in a way to maximize the good feelings and minimize the negative." Spirituality is an individual experience, managed from inside one's own consciousness. There is nothing supernatural in the word itself and no one has "The Truth" with respects to spirituality. Those that manage these internal spiritual conditions, like Gandhi, may appear to be supernatural to others. The critique against spirituality would be to those who try and leverage it as something mystical or tangible, as another religion. It's no more or no less than an individual managing his internal awareness which is unique and true for every individual. We all have spiritual sensations and managing these internal sensations is spirituality. Excecutive (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Excecutive[reply]

This article makes it sound like the only spirituality is supernatural. Spirit simply means 'the essence' of something, and spirituality is how you deal with the 'essential' in life. The metaphysical also includes deeper realizations about the relationships between things - it is non-physical, but not necessarily supernatural (cosmology is a part of metaphysics for example). Buddhism, Taoism, and ancient Greek Stoicism all have worldviews which need not include supernatural realms or transcendent phenomena. If you have a path that is sacred, and disciplined on the more profound things about Nature and life, has ritual, and so on, but is all based on a naturalistic understanding of the universe - that is spirituality as well. --Daniel (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this entry into the article. Feel free to amend. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to critique spirituality is like trying to critique boredom. We all experience it in different ways, and in some cases they can be completely opposite experiences. What one person finds boring another may find thrilling. Spirituality as defined on http://www.the-spiritual-quest.com says, "The term spiritual … something we cannot see or touch. Words like love, joy, peace, goodness, kindness, faith, and self control are spiritual sensations. The other side of spiritual sensations are fear, anxiety, frustration, anger, stress, etc. These sensations are part of our being." And it continues, "By our focusing on these inner spiritual sensations, both good and bad, we are able to adjust our lives, conduct and actions in a way to maximize the good feelings and minimize the negative." Spirituality is an individual experience, managed from inside one's own consciousness. There is nothing supernatural in the word itself and no one has "The Truth" with respects to spirituality. Those that manage these internal spiritual conditions, like Gandhi, may appear to be supernatural to others. The critique against spirituality would be to those who try and leverage it as something mystical or tangible, as another religion. It's no more or no less than an individual managing his internal awareness which is unique and true for every individual. We all have spiritual sensations and managing these internal sensations is spirituality. Excecutive (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section Spirituality and religion begins by saying that "an important distinction exists between spirituality within religion and spirituality outside religion", but then goes on to say that, basically, there is no difference - just the path is different. If no one has any objections, I'd like to drop that sentence and reword the paragraph. Obscurasky (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Obscurasky (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passage that has been inserted, deleted and reinserted ought to be discussed.

I've no objection to it's insertion per se, but it is a duplication of a passage in the 'Defining spirituality' section - so perhaps the question should be where is it best positioned? Obscurasky (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead certainly needs to have more content than it would have without this passage. The passage's content seems quite appropriate to an overview of the subject (and thus to the lead section), but I have no objection to modifying it - or to extending the lead in other ways. hgilbert (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a Wikipedia photo supposed to be of the subject at hand? It isn't a photo of spirituality, it's there for dramatic effect. "The eye of GOD..." (echo...echo...echo...echo...) Docsavage20 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality is subjective, and no single image could encompass all the different understandings of its nature. The photo is representational and as such avoids bias towards to any one particular perspective or religion. I think it works well and would oppose its removal.Obscurasky (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's "representational" of...what? There's nothing subjective about the photo, it's a picture of an astronomical phenomenon. Why not use a photo of a marshmallow which doesn't lend bias toward any religion either and has about as much inherent connection to the subject - but of course not the Hollywood name that someone artificially attached to it because of the pareidolia value. This photo would be appropriate in an article on astronomy, not an article about some amorphous, semi-religious notion. Its very presence in the article implies bias. I say chuck it.Docsavage20 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite clear about how this photo introduces a bias...I am not particularly attached to this photo leading the article but don't see it as problematic, either. Docsavage: Do you have a better alternative suggestion than a marshmallow? I wasn't aware that they had particularly spiritual lives. hgilbert (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How it introduces bias is the veiled suggestion that "it's all about God". I see it as problematic for all the reasons I mentioned previously. It isn't a picture "of" spirituality. Why does there have to be an alternative suggestion? The article can survive with no photo.Docsavage20 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't make comments on the Talk pages I read, but I couldn't agree more with Docsavage20. The Helix Nebula (although awe-inspiring and beautiful) has nothing to do with spirituality and the photo should be removed or replaced. Adversive (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the Helix Nebula photo was replaced with the current one, which I find quite disturbing. The description of the photo in Commons reads: People praying at the Nijūbashi bridge, outside the Imperial Palace, following the announcement of Japan's surrender. Surely a more appropriate picture can be found? How about a picture of someone meditating? Makana Chai (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a picture of someone meditating would make more sense than an astronomy photo, as it has direct relevance.--Smcg8374 (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. hgilbert (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a citation needed flag has been added after "no scientific evidence supports the efficacy of prayer". Can any citation provide evidence that no evidence exists? To me it seems a strange statement to demand evidence for. Tayste (talk - contrib) 04:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence" is simply wrong. There are plenty of studies that have been well performed that found a positive result. As to whether the evidence is conclusive is another matter. The sentence about quantum mysticism being pseudo-science also begs some explanation as many of the founders of quantum mechanics were quite take with the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.188.84 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction begins with a dictionary definition that is essentially self-referential (spirituality is that which has to do with spirit). It continues with random bits of commentary. I've trimmed it a bit but would actually like to revise the whole thing, including what I've just done, with reference to decent sources. hgilbert (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could be better worded, though 'spirituality' is subjective and any new opening would have to be worded in such a way as to encompass all the different understands of what 'spirituality' means.

There is also some text in the 'Defining spirituality' section would would be better moved to the 'Spirituality and religion' section. I have read a couple of articles in the last year on the definition of 'spirituality' - unfortunately both of them negative. One was by the NSS, and basically concluded that any definition was ultimately meaningless. I'll see if I can find it again. Alun Williamson (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think meditation is being in a quiet place alone with no distractments and just clearing your mind of everything not thinking of anything at all. consentatingon the silence till ur ears ring of silence - to me silence is loud. 74.130.209.30 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per my remarks at User talk:Michaelhogan73, I propose restoring the citation that was added here and here, removed here, restored (by me) here, and removed again here. To deny the citation of long-uncited content, on the basis that the citing editor may have engaged in questionable behaviour on a different article, strikes me as absurd. It's like saying that, in the film Titanic, since Jack proclaimed himself "King of the World" on the bow of the ship, then he must have been just trying to inflate his ego when he rescued Rose on the stern. (So, if suspected motives on the bow invalidate an otherwise-noble action on the stern, actually removing the citation on this article is sort of analogous to forcing Jack to let Rose fall into the ocean.) For what it's worth, and for reasons that I'll gladly explain if anyone is interested, I think that the situation over at Transcendence (philosophy) was handled completely inappropriately in the first place. Regardless, that situation has no bearing on the value of citing information in this article (and adding a citation is all that he did on this one), that article, or any other article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections in almost a month, so I'm going to restore the citation. Of course, anyone is still at liberty to challenge the inclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think any distinction between religion and spirituality should be removed. Religion and spirituality are the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not necessarily. Religions can, for example, involve the codification into law of their understanding of a natural order. The following, for example, may be categorized as "religious", but seems a far cry from "spiritual": "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you" (KJV, Lev. 11:7). Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a very strong relationship between dirty pigs and "an experience of connectedness with a larger reality". (Okay, so there's a counterpoint: Many Jews regard the Torah as a complex guide to thorough piety. But...you get my drift.) Conversely, a person can be spiritual (e.g., can experience a sense of cosmic connectedness) without subscribing to a particular religion. (Counterpoint: Arguably, religion can be defined in very broad or inclusive terms. See Thomas Luckmann. Still, it should--I hope--be clear by now that the "religion = spirituality" equation is, in and of itself, simplistic or, at best, debatable.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Maybe its just me. But the way this article explains it, spirituality without religion seems to be unintelligible. Sewblon 05:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been hijacked by people with an agenda to seperate spirituality from religion, because they view religion as false. I would argue that the church, temple and mosque have all become corrupt and most will not find spirituality through these corrupt venues, but to seperate God from spirituality is in fact a demonic agenda. There is very little about demonic paths to reach spiritual stations in the unseen world. I have recently added something but it needs citations. The point is spirituality is God awareness and when it is not it is demonic awareness, an attempt to draw people away from the Creator, is commonly understood in all religions as the goal of the devil. Not mentioning that here is both irresponsible and completly false. So I vote that the article be balanced, rewritten, pretty much overhauled, as the spiritualists who want a short cut to the unseen without God are hard at work - no surpirse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes at the bottom, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). See WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:TEND, and WP:NOTBLOG. What editors personally believe does not matter, Wikipedia doesn't deal with "truth," it just summerizes what sources are out there. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this section - many new entries were just added. I have removed some links as they appear clearly not to be related links (unless opposites are related) or to be too specific (e.g. Roman Catholic Church). If anyone feels strongly that any of these belong here, please do put them back in. We should agree on policy for this and clean up the section. hgilbert (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added back Atheism since it was there before my edits, but didn't since as an opposite it's redundant with reason. Opposites are definitely appropriate for compare and contrast purposes in a See Also section. Agree that the particular spirituality of Roman Catholicism should be pulled as being at the wrong level of generality. 72.228.177.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Cited information has been removed from the introduction with the explanation that it's validly referenced, but "false". Please see Wikipedia's WP:Truth and WP:Original research policies; what any of us believe is truth is not the ultimate criterion, but rather what can be cited to a valid source. The information should be restored. hgilbert (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the information in the lead is presented as if being universally accurate. This is certainly not the case. It merely consists of opinions of individuals (regardless of their academic background) on a topic they feel strongly about. I would agree on the inclusion of cited information such as "Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life." only if the author of the notion is clearly mentioned, e.g. "Waaijman claims that spirituality is often..." Otherwise the reader gets the impression that these are are scientific or scholarly statements.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want a NPOV on this controversial topic. It actually is offensive for me to read that "prayer and meditation ... often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality", as if this is somehow applicable to all individuals. A more balanced way to present the topic should be sought after. Mvaldemar (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality is a quality or a state relating to or affecting the spirit is not a good lead sentence for obvious reasons. It would be like having the lead sentence of the article on science be Science consists of those activities or writings done by scientists. The substantial content was valid and drawn from mainstream sources. Let's improve what's there.

In addition, it is not necessary or appropriate to say that "John Smith suggests"... unless John Smith is original in saying so. Widely agreed ideas, even if cited to a particular source, should be stated as widely agreed ideas. hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims by theologians are not widely agreed idea. The Burkhardt and Nagai-Jacobson book seems to be a personal account, and certainly not up to Wikipedia standards. Mvaldemar (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the following work as new opening sentences?

Spirituality is awareness of or belief that life has some spiritual realm or realms, and statements and practices representing or intentionally consistent with such awareness or belief

Such awareness or belief and statements and practices may be considered religious or to constitute a religion, but people may also have spiritual awareness or beliefs and associated statements and practices while considering them to be quite non-religious or outside any currently existing recognisable religion

Also, I would like to see something along the following lines somewhere within the article, perhaps as or in a section headed "Terminology"

Historically, the English language terms spirituality and religion have been practically synonyms of Christianity, and are now very closely associated with monotheistic religion

"Spirituality" is not quite so associated as "religion", but finding truly objective English language with which to discuss spirituality remains very problematic

Laurel Bush (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing would be to draw on widely accepted reference works to formulate a clear and comprehensive lead. Finding citations for your suggestions above would help give them weight for future inclusion, and might lead to improving their formulation as well. hgilbert (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note this article has no section on spiritual drug use, while Spiritual drug and Spiritual drug use redirect to Entheogen
Why is this?
To my mind, Spiritual drug and Spiritual drug use should redirect to Spirituality, which should have a drug use section linked to Entheogen
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a bit Bold and trimmed uncited and apparently peripheral material extensively, as well as adding some cited and hopefully more central text. I'd like it if others would join in raising the standard of this section - in particular ensuring that material is supported by citations to high-quality, verifiable sources. This is particularly important in an area where everyone has a strong opinion! hgilbert (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section can discuss the neutrality box and propose removing the box, or paragraphs which need to be addressed before removal. I could not see any current part of this talk page specifically moving towards removal of the dispute box. I note that previous discussions on "Original research" disputed the wording on prayer and meditation. The article lead now appears to have found a compromise which is acceptable for the participants in the April 2011 discussion, on "Original Research" >> hist-link << Mediation4u (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to neaten up the article, I propose removing the dispute box in seven days' time. Please let me know if anyone agrees / disagrees with removing the dispute box from the head of the article. Many thanks. Mediation4u (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The issues appear to have been resolved. hgilbert (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the review of the dispute discussion; agreement to the proposal to remove the dispute box and 7 days' notice given, I will remove the neutrality dispute box from the article tomorrow. Mediation4u (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

Consensus reached and so I have removed the POV dispute box. Mediation4u (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

My personal view is that the article looks more aesthetically pleasing without lots of dispute boxes and tags on it. I think the content is well written with an engaging style and is currently sufficiently neutral and balanced. Mediation4u (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

"Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality" is really not helpful: nobody says "I believe in spirituality" with the intention of conveying the fact that they believe in such a reality. Is there any good reason not to insert "a belief in" after "refer to"? I notice that the intro has been discussed above, and I generally don't edit topics like this, so I'd rather not damage a consensus of which I'm not aware. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "mutually positive influences" in the science section is value laden. Wikipedia shouldn't be saying that the influences were "positive" nor should Wikipedia be saying that they were "negative" only that there were influences and leave the evaluation of the effect of those influences up to opinion pieces. I suggest reverting this.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text cited specifically describes the full range of relationships: positive, antagonistic, and complementary. The book is an excellent source, by the way; if we want more detail, it's a good place to go. hgilbert (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Complementary" in the sentence is positive enough. Author J.H. Brooke is clear that, among historians, it is an extreme position that religion had a positive effect on science, and another extreme position that it had a negative effect. The mainstream middle position is that "puritan ideals resulted in a higher value being placed on certain forms of science, notably those promising practical benefits". This is a far cry from asserting in the editorial voice that mutually positive effects are acknowledged (by mainstream observers) between science and spirituality. If further detail is placed into the article, we should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and plainly state who is the proponent of the non-mainstream viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have rewritten this accordingly, emphasizing that the middle one is the primary effect seen. I've also included some other bits from Brooke's Science and Religion. He does repeatedly mention that many people describe hostile, and many describe positive relations between the two - these are not at all a matter of unusual positions. It's just that Brooke believes that the middle description of complementarity is most true to history, both extremes being somewhat distortions of the full picture.

I'm not sure what to do about the specify tag; when an author is cited as saying that "many" scientists consider something to be true, is it actually necessary to give specific names? I can see the need when there is no citation to back this up. I would recommend removing the tag. hgilbert (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation for the word "many" to any particular author that I can find. Can you provide the quote? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a specify tag to the sentence: Many scientists continue to consider science and spirituality to be complementary, not contradictory. The source does not indicate that "many" scientists think this. I think that "many" is an example of WP:WEASEL. Please come up with a better way to phrase it. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The cited author says 'many' scientists think this; weasel words are normally inserted by editors. hgilbert (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have to say it's the author's opinion. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I checked the cited book and I could not find it. Please give a quote. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this:

Twentieth century developments in particle physics reopened the debate about complementarity between scientific and religious discourse and rekindled for many an interest in holistic conceptions on reality.^[1]: 322

First of all, who is equating particle physics and quantum mechanics? They are related but different fields.

Secondly, where is this supposed "debate" happening? It's not happening in the scientific fields. No quantum physicists of any renown would argue that quantum flapdoodle has "reopened" a debate regarding "science and religion". This is a popular misconception.

Thirdly, what is the "holistic conception on reality" supposed to mean? It is a meaningless phrase as far as I can tell.

All Brooke has said on page 322 is that "for many commentators, another consequence of the revolution in physics has been a rekindling of interest in holistic conceptions of reality". Who cares about commentators? This is a section about science, not commentary.

I removed this awful sentence.

128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel that this is a popular misconception, but there is an established author published by Cambridge University Press who said the above. The thrust of Wikipedia is to give precedence to established authors; editor's opinions should take a back seat. I suggest the sentence be restored; it is neutral in tone and well-cited.

BTW: Although it is pretty obvious that by 20th century developments in particle physics the author means quantum theory, I am happy to remove the explicit mention of the latter to avoid any appearance of WP:Original research. hgilbert (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't good enough. The fact is that no quantum physicists accept this claim and that is documented in the paragraph referenced above that was removed completely from the article. If you want to include some bit about quantum flapdoodle nonsense, we'll necessarily have to include the fact that it is considered rank pseudoscience by the scientific community. Not very relevant for an article on spirituality, if you ask me. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is moved from a user talk page as being more relevant here:

This edit places a value-judgment into the text of Wikipedia (that there exist influences between science and spirituality which were mutually positive). This is an opinion, and, as such, needs to be either cited to the person who holds that opinion or changed so it is not an opinion and simply a fact. I'd prefer the latter, but I would point out that the source you claims supports your revert does not, in fact, declare it to be a fact that the influences were mutually "positive". 128.59.169.46 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reference's placing is ambiguous; the text actually supports the whole sentence - that some influences were positive, others antagonistic, others complementary. hgilbert (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text says that some people think that influences were positive, others think the influences were antagonistic, but most take a somewhat complementary view. Please stop misrepresenting sources. You did it again with re-inclusion of quantum flapdoodle on the same page.128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...that's exactly what the text I originally put in said. I think you changed this, didn't you? I didn't include any mention of quantum flapdoodle, however. hgilbert (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your paraphrase leaved a lot to be desired and by cherry-picking a single quote out of the tome that seems to align with your apparent spiritualist perspective, you are slanting the article. There was an entire paragraph that was removed from the article about the idiocy of quantum New Age baloney, but it was removed as it is only vaguely related to the topic at hand: spirituality. That charlatans like Deepak Chopra make hay out of misrepresenting quantum physics to match their own private beliefs is perhaps notable, but so is the fact that these quacks are roundly excoriated by scientists. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an article about spirituality, so one would think that references to spirituality would be appropriate. By the way, the past tense of leave is left. hgilbert (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you feel about including the entire paragraph here? I think we need to use either all the sources or none of the sources. The single sentence you're proposing simply doesn't cut it. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the material on the split between science and religion, partly influenced by Freud, is relevant - but I'd draw this from the following paragraph, which is clearer. hgilbert (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I included the bits about the fact that quantum flapdoodle is pseudoscience. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Robert Fuller, which I have moved to a more appropriate place, is quite nice, but really needs a citation. Otherwise it should probably go, alas. hgilbert (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If one has such a belief and feels that relationship to such beings is the foundation of happiness then spiritual practice will be pursued on that basis: if one has no such belief spiritual practice is still essential for the management and understanding of thoughts and emotions which otherwise prevent happiness." This string of ideas defies several conventions. Use of the colon following "basis" is inappropriate; a period would be appropriate. Can the statement "...spiritual practice is still essential for the management and understanding of thoughts and emotions which otherwise prevent happiness." be verified? I'm surprised that psychiatrists, psychologists or other behavioral scientists haven't rephrased it.Determinist (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that statements claiming that spirituality is "essential" for well-being are presumptuous and strongly POV. I'm also concerned that the sources cited such as the Wilkinson book represent the author's personal opinions rather than evidence based findings. I think the article needs to have a section about well-being but more credible sources that report empirical research findings would be more appropriate. Otherwise it should be made clear when particular statements represent unverified beliefs attributable to particular individuals rather than supposed facts.--Smcg8374 (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am editor of an online Spiritual Journal - a quality periodical that publishes select texts on subjects relevant to spirituality. It is a non-commercial and an independent site, developed for academic and reference purposes. The link is;

http://www.thespiritual.net

If you think that this site will add value to this page (Spirituality), please add the site link as an External Link for access by the viewers.

I am an academic myself, and a great admirer of Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Vivek Sharma Editor TheSpiritual: Journal of Natural Spirituality

Thespiritual (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why do religious people play such importance on prayer as a spiritual activity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.109.141 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least one peer reviewed study says; "Far from disappearing, religion and religious movements appear to be resurging around the globe." --Emerson & Hartman

Quote Wiki article:

declining membership of organized religions and the growth of secularism in the western world have given rise to a broader view of spirituality.[5] The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" was formerly employed; compare James' 1902 lectures on the "Varieties of Religious Experience".

A popular meme or saying (or political-religious-theocratic propaganda point) is that religion is on the decline since the time of America's founding fathers (even though "the new U.S.A." were very secular ideas of the very secular Enlightenment) or "Age of Reason."

See: Emerson, Michael O., and David Hartman "The Rise of Religious Fundamentalism." Annual Review of Sociology, 32 (2006) 127-144.
http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=055ECEDA4784A7E6
also:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20269196/Emerson-MO-and-Hartman-The-Rise-of-Religious-Fundamentalism
First published online as a Review in Advance on April 5, 2006
THE RISE OF RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
1Department of Sociology, Rice University, Houston, Texas
2Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556;

As Almond et al. (2003, p. 1) write in Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World:

Since the Iranian Revolution, purported fundamentalist movements have risen to the highest levels of power in five countries—in Iran in 1979, in the Sudan in 1993, in Turkey, Afghanistan, and India in 1996, and in India again in 1998 and 1999. There have been even more frequent penetrations by fundamentalist movements into the parliaments, assemblies, and political parties of such countries as Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and the United States.

--69.227.85.153 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Well, we know, but do you have any objection to any part of the article? I think the article doesn't claim that it is disappearing. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 02:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very pleased by the current definition, which might correctly refer to citations, but gives a very off-topical impression, especially by elevating "secular spirituality" as a most major concept. I would prefer a base definition more like the one is Psychology Today, which stresses the fuzziness of the concept, but connects it with human mind processes. My personal (unciteable) image of "spirituality" is that it regards behaviors that serve the purpose of supporting inner reconciliations with facts of life. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 02:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an "unreliable sources" tag to the heading of this article because many of the article's references seem to be written by people closely associated with the subject who wish to promote their own personal opinions. Scholarly sources that present an academic consensus on the subject seem to be in the minority. A number of sections in the article, such as "near death experience" and "study" appear to be written from the POV of spiritual practitioners. I note that "personal well-being" has recently been rewritten in a more neutral tone (a definite improvement) although it could still do with some better sources.--Smcg8374 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve the article, including more reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the Criticism section. It read:

Criticism

Jesus Christ, during his Sermon of the Mount according to the Gospel of Matthew, stated "blessed are the poor in spirit".

Thomas Aquinas holds that "poverty of spirit" is the beatitude corresponding to the "gift of fear".[43] He argues, that "poverty of spirit properly corresponds to fear. Because, since it belongs to filial fear to show reverence and submission to God, whatever results from this submission belongs to the gift of fear. Now from the very fact that a man submits to God, it follows that he ceases to seek greatness either in himself or in another but seeks it only in God."

Aquinas also quotes St. Augustine: "The fear of the Lord is befitting the humble of whom it is said: Blessed are the poor in spirit."

Should it be reinstalled? Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary given when this section was removed said, "wildly off topic and certainly not criticism" and I concur completely. This section was not even sensible. I believe a "criticism" section is certainly warranted but common sense suggests that it must be clear about what is actually being criticised and on what grounds, not just quote some unexplained and ambiguous religious sayings.--Smcg8374 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the image used for the "spirituality" sidebar an astronomical photograph? I'm not challenging anyone's finding some spirituality in the image, but I don't see the value in promoting a scientific image, taken by a scientific organization of a natural physical phenomenon, as Wikipedia's representation of spirituality (something which is inherently non-physical and unquantifiable.) Spirituality is a matter of subjective experience, the objective contents of the image are decidedly not spiritual and its use is misleading.

Tucyviubh (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair question, and one that has arisen before. Perhaps we need a small gallery of images that represent various aspects of spirituality: e.g. in the cosmos, in a single human being (perhaps a meditatant), in human interaction. hgilbert (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A gallery sounds like a good idea, as it would be helpful to provide some context to images used. The astronomy image currently lacks any context that would explain its relevance. Even a caption like "Some people experience a sense of awe they describe as 'spiritual' when contemplating natural phenomena" would provide clarification.--Smcg8374 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A great site for spiritual articles by well known masters is Speaking Tree [1]. Some of the articles from this site should be quoted in this article.

Wkuser25 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sorely lacking input from a contemporary or even historical philosophical perspective, which seems odd given the metaphysical nature of the topic. I suggest something like this (which has been removed):

Contemporary philosophers would reject the vocabulary of spirituality, since it is generally agreed in the academic community that all that is really meant by terms like 'spiritual' is deep (philosophical) thinking or internal experience. In other words, according to philosophers, all that spirituality entails is the sort of thinking that philosophers do on a regular basis (and that any person does from time to time), and isn't necessarily tied to religion, mysticism, or any other sort of supernatural practice. Further, since the sort of thinking that people refer to as 'spiritual' is ontologically indistinguishable from other types of thinking, a claim to being spiritual is really nothing more than a claim to being a self-reflective, thinking being, which all humans are. In this sense, spiritual experiences can be described simply as regular mental experiences that we regard as significant, impactful, enlightening, powerful, paradigm-shifting, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.30.120 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed the latest version again. A section presenting the viewpoint of various philosophers on spirituality might be a good idea, though the article already has such views. Your only reference on this paragraph was a book by Daniel Dennett, who is a member of the Secular Coalition for America advisory board. Perhaps the views of such people should be in this article, but not presented as the viewpoint of the entire field of philosophy and not from the writings of a single philosopher. See WP:UNDUE particularly the part paraphrased from Jimbo Wales. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:208.104.180.99 undid diff my improvements of the article with the following edit-summary: "Joshua Jonathan, this page was developed as a community. Please use the talk page to discuss improvements".
That's not the way to cooperate. I've left edit-summaries for all of my edits. Wikipedia encourages WP:BOLD, and the use of Talk Pages in case of different opinions. Simply reverting all my edits without discussion is not exactly 'setting the example'. Be specific. And the use of an anonymous IP-adress to mention "community effort" is not an example of "community". use a proper account, so other editors know who's discussing.

To give a short overview of my edits:

• I changed the lead, giving a summary of the article, replacing 'esoteric' sources by a well-respected scholar on spirituality
• The definition is made more specific, (re)moving related topics to other sections
• I've added an overview of the development of the concept of spirituality, which was mostly lacking
• I've grouped several topics under the header of "Traditional and modern spirituality", adding links to relevant Wiki-articles
• I have expanded the section on "Spiritual experience", giving background information
• I've grouped the subjects realting to science

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:208.104.180.99 added the following sentence to the lead:

The established anthropological view is that it is more probable that humankind first developed religious and spiritual beliefs during the Middle Paleolithic or Upper Paleolithic. Source: About OriginsNet by James Harrod

OriginsNet does not reflect an "established anthropological view", but gives James B. Harrod's personal view:

On the basis of recent discoveries in palaeoanthropology, protolinguistics and related sciences, OriginsNet argues for a new paradigm. We believe that the archaeological record provides evidence that art-making, religion, and language have been evolving throughout the almost 3,000,000 years of hominid evolution. The evidence indicates that there were four major stages of human physical, technological, art, and mind evolution--four diasporas out of Africa--during the three million year evolution of human consciousness.[2]

Wikipedia asks for WP:RELIABLESOURCES. A personal website promoting an unusual point of view at least raises questions about reliability, and for sure is not an "established anthropological view". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the established anthropological view on when religion and spiritual beliefs first developed? Do you have a source that contradicts this? That said the source is not WP:RS. I have removed the paragraph based on WP:SELFPUB and mentioned WP:FRINGE. It would be nice to have a paragraph like it though, properly sourced. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's a topic of debate, the so-called Paleolithic Revolution. See Behavioral modernity, The Upper Paleolithic Revolution and Google Scholar, paleolithic revolution. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on this, and I agree that OriginsNet is not a WP:RS source. I also think the IP'S mass revert was not done right.

Regarding the very definition of the term, I would comment that there is no general agreement on that in any case, and that should be clarified:

• Handbook of Religion and Health by Harold Koenig, Dana King, Verna B. Carson, Oxford UP 2012 page 36 states that "there is no widely agreed on definition of spirituality today".

• Oxford Textbook of Spirituality in Healthcare by Mark R Cobb, Christina M Puchalski and Bruce Rumbold (Oct 1, 2012) page 213 states: "The spiritual dimension is deeply subjective and there is no authoritative definition of spirituality"

So different people have different definitions, and in many cases misunderstandings come about exactly because of that, e.g. that a patient's concept is so different from that of a care giver, etc. So the topic as a whole is somewhat fluid, and that needs work. But OriginsNet is not the way to go about it. History2007 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added your citations as an introduction & note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't know if I can say anything of depth here given that I have no idea how the term can be defined across cultures and disciplines. In fact, all I see is debate among scholars, and at times empty definitions, e.g.:

Andrew Wright: Spirituality is the relationship of the individual, within community and tradition, to that which is - or is perceived to be - of ultimate concern

Now what does that mean? It does not tell me anything. On Wall Street, the "ultimate community concern" is profit. So does Wall Street spirituality involve the relationship between people and the dollar? All we need now is a book on that. And there are all these televangelists types who promote success spirituality and what not... I think it is utterly shameful, but anyway it is very strange really.

Now, try this. What was Aztec spirituality like? I have no idea. It was not modern spirituality for sure. Probably not Buddhist or Jewish either. Now this says that there are 27 definitions anyway. So I am not really sure if I understand the overall definition, across cultures, let alone say something useful on it beyond bewilderment... History2007 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great comment! I've tried to figure out the meaning of "spirituality" when I wrote the thesis for my last study, and also became bewildered. But one thing I'm very sure of: "spirituality" has acquired a different meaning in modern times. It has become some sort of broad container-term, with a meaning akin to the Dutch "zingeving". Typically, there is no English equivalent for that word. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the earlier, better, more accurate, less POV version that cites more well known and eminent authorities than those introduced by User:Joshua Jonathan. Mr Jonathan is not a native speaker of English and is unaware that there is no such thing as 'religious transformation' or 'refind'. The cited source also clearly has a less that competent command of English as well. The earlier definition was honed over a long period and is more inclusive than Mr Jonathon's. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, and contain sourced statements.

• "Esoteric spirituality" and Rupert Sheldrake reflect a modern, syncretistic understanding of spirituality
• "Spiritual practices [...] divine realm" reflect the same syncretistic understanding, and are not representative for the whole of "spirituality"
• "Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life" is a menaingless sentence; are there instances where spirituality is not "a source of inspiration or orientation in life"?
• "It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world." - That's a selective listing of what may be part of spirituality, again according to a modern, syncretistic point of view

Putting WP:UNDUE stress on a modern, syncretizing understanding is WP:POV. By mentioning a traditional and a modern point of view, a summary of the article is provided, based on solid sources.

I've changed "transformation" to "reformation", and "refind" to "recover", per [3], and removed "religious" from the paraphrasing of Waaijman in the lead. According to Waaijman, there is such thing as "reformation" and "refind".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an unsourced, essay-like addition by User:81.106.127.14 per WP:RS and WP:OR. It is close to WP:DISRUPT. Moving Waaijman to a note is WP:POV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This unsourced section has been re-inserted two times, without discussion or explanation. I've added an "unreferenced section" template. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted recent work by Joshua Jonathan (this is not his real name). He uses all sorts of pseudo-scholarly ruses to exercise his now out of hand control freakery. I know this because I am an internationally recognised scholar of religion whose work has been translated into several languages and I am well acquainted with people whose egos are out of control. Other editors are equally offended by his overbearing sophistry. Please do not hesitate to express your just indignation at his destruction of many months of painstaking work. If you examine carefully his arguments against the existing article they are entirely bogus and simply reflect his need to get his way even if means destroying the excellent work of other people. Here I refer to the careful work that a community of scholars has made over several years to this article. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP 81.106.127.14, the internationally recognised scholar, may I also ask you for an opinion on this article as well? History2007 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan has made a lot of changes and the views expressed are not the broad views of Spirituality. However, IP 81.106.127.14, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I quote: "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please just point by point say what you think should be restored, in a new section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll request third opinions on the lead and the definition, from User:Yworo, User:History2007 and User:Tao2911, who all three are critical (also on my edits) editors; from User:Lova Falk, who's interested in spirituality and an experienced editor; and from User:Buddhipriya, who's a specialist on Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult question. I don't have access to any of the sources, so I can just say what I think. The definition preferred by 81.106.127.14 doesn't mention the word God, which I think should be part of the lead; on the other hand the definition preferred by JJ is way too short; it doesn't explain enough. So my suggestion, and this is not a very "beautiful" one, is a compromise by writing that spirituality is defined in different ways, and that JJ's sentence is merged into the definition preferred by 81.106.127.14. Lova Falk talk 08:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lova. Thanks for your balanced response! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of the article, and contain sourced statements, per WP:LEAD. Following the article, I suggest the following points:

• The term spirituality lacks a definitve definition^[2][3], although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.^[4]
• The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.^[5]
• In modern times spirituality has been separated from religion,^[6] and connotes a blend of (humanistic) psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.^[7]
• The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.^[8]

I've not mentioned "spiritual practice", since the article does not offer a sourced definition of "spiritual practice". What makes a praxis a "spiritual practice"? To define that, there has first to be a definition of "spirituality" - "the sacred". But that may include any "religious practice". So, at best, I think, this section can offer a sourced overview of what different traditions regard to be "spiritual practices".

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine with me. I'll invite editor 81.106.127.14 to give their comments. Lova Falk talk 07:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Jonathan is not a scholar of either religion or spirituality (he's a social worker) and he does not have the necessary knowledge to be editing many of the articles that he has made major edits to. He projects his own lack of knowledge onto the scholarly community and then says "there is no widely accepted definition of...". He has just attempted to do this to the Brahman article; has succeeded in doing this to the Zen article and now you are proposing to let him do this to the spirituality artcle. Mr Jonathans edits are highly POV and do not represent the consensus of the mainstream scholarly community. Mr Jonathan is a sceptic and an atheist who has no knowledge of theology. Lastly, his edits are crude and display a lack of understanding of the basic principles of copy-editing. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I don't even know what's going on here yet, but was asked to weigh in because of my experience on other spirituality pages. Mr. Jonathan and I have not always agreed on issues, but he edits with good faith and is fair, evenhanded, and knowledgeable. it should go without saying that these kinds of ad hominim personal attacks are not only completely against the culture of Wikipedia and its rules, but in this case simply rude and furthermore ridiculous. I'd suggest this anonymous user be nominated for a block. Tao2911 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported 81.106.127.14. Lova Falk talk 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]