Ship of Fools: Being 'Spiritual,' but not 'Religious,' is hazardous to one's health.

Thread: Being 'Spiritual,' but not 'Religious,' is hazardous to one's health. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024558

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

According to a recent study cited by CNN

quote:
The study, published in the January edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry, says spiritual but not religious people, as opposed to people who are religious, agnostic or atheist, were more likely to develop a "mental disorder," "be dependent on drugs" and "have abnormal eating attitudes,” like bulimia and anorexia.

I'm curious to know Shipmates' takes on the above (hoping this is the best Board for it).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'd be quite interested to know what people really think they mean by saying they are 'spiritual but not religious'. Can anyone explain this in terms that is clear and easy to understand for someone who does not make this claim?

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

AIUI, those who say that they are "spiritual" without being "religious" believe themselves to be in tune or connected to the "spiritual world" without feeling the need for the scaffolding provided by a religion. What is meant by "spiritual" or "spiritual world" varies between individuals. Generally, it is some sort of urge to connect to something other-worldly, to something that is beyond the physical world that can be appreciated by the physical senses.

Being "religious", on the other hand, requires a connection with and agreement with others who adhere to the same religion. For example, while Christianity has a wide range of beliefs within it, there is a shared structure. This means that the "other-worldly" in Christianity is a shared belief system rather than something at the whim of one individual's imagination. I expect that the sharing leads to a "reining in" of the wilder flights of fantasy to which the human imagination is prone. It also likely helps to have a written source book to which one can refer or some sort of group authority.

It occurs to me that the reining-in mechanism I've just described is something that is absent in many cults because the belief system there is usually the construct of a single person's imagination - that is, the single leader.

It also occurs to me that Jesus' statement "wherever two or three are gathered together, I am there with them" is a direct invocation of the reining-in mechanism.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Isn't there the usual problem of correlation and causation here? I mean, is the study actually saying that being spiritual causes various problems, or is just found alongside them?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The expanation given in the link is that:

quote:
organized religion provides three outlets that benefit churchgoers' well being: social support, attachment to a loving God and the organized practice of prayer.

"When you become spiritual but not religious, you are losing the first two points and most spiritual but not religious people aren’t participating in the third,” [the psychological anthropologist Tanya] Luhrmann said. “It is not just a generic belief in God that works; it is specific practices that work.”

The point is that the supportive communal and structural aspects of institutional religion are missing from people who identify as 'spiritual by not religious', and they suffer from that lack. 'Spirituality' is more of a DIY, individualistic sort of thing.

Maybe there's also the possibility that some 'spiritual' people are dabbling in things that are potentially psychologically damaging in themselves, e.g. ouijah boards, or superstitions of various kinds?

BTW, the other day I came across a fascinating article that seems relevant to the topic of this thread. An Anglican vicar had daringly decided that his church would run a stall at a local Mind-Body-Spirit festival. The article outlines his impressions of the place and the attendees. Could it be said that some of these people are less healthy than Christians? Or indeed, more healthy? (After all, a 'spiritual' interest in 'organic health foods' should presumably lead to good health. Most mainstream Christian denominations have no particular focus on promoting healthy eating, or connecting good health with spirituality.)

http://www.theway.org.uk/back/464Biddington.pdf

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

12-step programs describe themselves as spiritual, not religious. People in 12-step programs are liable to be there seeking help for substance abuse or eating problems. Seems like correlation, not causation to me.

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Agreed, Nic.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

To add to what Dal Segno said, the word religion now holds a lot of baggage, both historically and currently thanks to terrorism and wars. It also conjures up the stereotype of puritanical, judgemental, superior types.

People who do believe in God or in 'something out there' often don't want to be associated with the word 'religion', and so come up with the socially acceptable 'spiritual' label to describe themselves.

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

Sorry to use technical jargon but my feeling is that ‘the spiritual not religious’ may well not be a ‘harmonious population’. It may be that there are at least two groups.

The first is similar in characteristics to the religious. They even might migrate to an organised religion: their choice. The second containing those with substance abuse issues or mental illness may well find a recognised religious group either 1) not congenial - including too disciplined or even 2) might reject them. This fits into the correlation versus causality thesis advance earlier.

Please note, before you take offence that you/ your group does not fit into this etc, it is a theoretical analysis and also I said ‘there are at least two groups’.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

Dal Segno's 'reining in' (regression to the mean?) makes sense in some religions but no one has picked up on the claim in the OP that atheists and agnostics also do better than the spiritual. Ignoring (please?) militant atheists, we don't have that 'reining in' effect or do we?

I think the wording of the question would be interesting to know.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

They are actually

The document suggests

"spiritual" -> mental illness

people are suggesting that instead there may be reasons why

mental illness -> "spiritual"

i.e. that certain interventions for people with mental illness are likely to increase the chances of them describing themselves in this way rather than "atheist" or "agnostic"

Jengie

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

Jengie - Assuming your response related to my post, I agree that most responses here are suggesting mental illness leads to being spiritual but the report say it's the other way. I tend to agree with the majority of shipmates but did the study, for example, ask people if they were once religious/agnostic/atheist and became spiritual after becoming mentally ill?

If most people said they'd always been 'spiritual' then maybe it's as the report claimed, if most were religious/agnostic/atheist then became ill then became spiritual we're in a different ball game.

My personal experience of 'spirituals' (several within my extended family) is that they seem to be forever searching for something and not finding it. Somehow nothing 'ordinary' does it, they are looking for the magic key.

Maybe what the religious/agnostics/atheists have in common is that we've found something that works for us - and we don't believe in magic keys.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
My personal experience of 'spirituals' (several within my extended family) is that they seem to be forever searching for something and not finding it. Somehow nothing 'ordinary' does it, they are looking for the magic key.

Maybe what the religious/agnostics/atheists have in common is that we've found something that works for us - and we don't believe in magic keys.

This accords with my experience, too. I think your post makes good sense.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I looked at the Journal entry but did not wish to pay to read the paper.

As to the categories Spiritual and religious etc.
How was the allocation made?
Did the sample self assign? Were allocations based on other indicator questions.
How were they defined? Connotations vary tremendously.
Were there any cultural differences?
Is there any predictive value that could be of use?

And how is the causation supported?

Because newspapers (even The Guardian, which also had an article) sell on sensationalism, and even journal publication prefers something eyecatching, and is unlikely to publish research that says "No link found between spirituality and mental health", and because I have not heard this confirmed by other reseach, I think it pays to suspend judgement.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

I took the liberty of digging up the study from the journal. I can access it through my university library. There's a link in the newspaper article.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
i.e. that certain interventions for people with mental illness are likely to increase the chances of them describing themselves in this way rather than "atheist" or "agnostic"

Unfortunately this doesn't pan out, in this study. The references were to alcohol/drug abuse treatment programs, but the split for non-religious/spiritual/religious for "ever used drugs" (32%/30%/16%), "used any drug in the last year" (12%/11%/5%), and "hazardous drinker" (30%/23%/17%) all suggest that the neithers are worse off with those problems than the spiritual-but-not-religious. Of course, "drug dependent" shows an uptick for the spiritual-but-not-religious (4%/5%/1%), so that could be the twelve-step-program effect?

Most of the other effects listed (panic disorder, generalized anxiety, anxiety/depression, OCD, phobias, depression) were not statistically significant at α = 0.05.* However, the spiritual-but-not-religious were still consistently (even if not always significantly) worse-off on these variables. "Any neurotic disorder" and "receiving pharmacological treatment" were significantly higher among the spiritual-but-not-religious, although "receiving counseling" was not.

There are no causal claims implied in this (journal) article, as far as I can see.

* For those who aren't statistics buffs: if something was significant at this α, it would mean that the data would have to be randomly more extreme than 95% of the data. In this case, there's a chance that the differences in the data for these variables is just the result of the particular sample taken.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Was the research set up to investigate a hypothesis, or was the survey done and then the conclusions drawn from the results?
In the second case the chance of a α = 0.05 significant difference being found is more than 1 in 20.
I would expect researchers and peer reviewers to be across this, but I wouldn't rely on it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
My personal experience of 'spirituals' (several within my extended family) is that they seem to be forever searching for something and not finding it. Somehow nothing 'ordinary' does it, they are looking for the magic key.

Somebody said of an organisation which described itself as for 'Seekers after Truth',
"They are seekers after truth, but have no intention of finding it".

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd be quite interested to know what people really think they mean by saying they are 'spiritual but not religious'. Can anyone explain this in terms that is clear and easy to understand for someone who does not make this claim?

Good question. While I accept the possibility that people can be making a robust conscientious distinction, my own understanding is that often the phrase "spiritual but not religious" means something like "I'll believe what I want and you can keep your dogma thank you very much".

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0