Which Countries Seem Very Spiritual, Which Seem Less So? (big home, live in)

[dunno what to put here]

If I remember correctly, religion is on the decline in the UK, while secularism is rising. London attracts religious people from all over the UK, so no surprise it may experience a decline in secularism.

[Citizen401]

Originally Posted by

The connotations/associations/implications for Spiritual and Religious is not always synonymous with each other and can have a varying way of being.

You seem to be appealing to an idiosyncratic definition, or mysticised preconceptions, of spirituality in attempting to cite examples of religious cultures that are not spiritual.

Spirituality simply means the degree to which an individual commits to supernatural ontological beliefs. Given the centrality of spiritual commitment to religious beliefs, and the epistemic relationship between the two, religiosity invariably entails spirituality (though not vice-versa given that one can have spiritual convictions that are independent of any formal religious doctrine).

To put it more simply, if a certain social group commits to religious practices for non-spiritual purposes, then their religiosity is brought into question; not just their spirituality.

[xcij]

I would say a host of Asian countries are very spiritual, like ones in southeast Asia or India. In addition, add Africa and Latin America to the list.

Christianity is popular in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Buddhism and Hinduism is popular in Asia.

It's hard to define spirituality. Most religions have lots of spirituality though, so I listed the above religious areas.

As for the least spiritual areas... I'd say Nordic countries also. Sweden, I've heard, is one of the most atheist countries in the world.

Bear in mind, Nordic countries are among the richest and most developed in the world. With wealth and more education and luxury, comes less of a desire for a higher power. The same just can't be said for Sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America, they are developing regions and huge numbers of people are in poverty, even if they received a college education, they're families would probably still be very religious.

The U.S. is also still very religious and spiritual. So many people in the U.S. are from various backgrounds and believe distinct things, in addition to atheism.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Note by 'spiritual' I DO NOT simply mean religious. One can be religious, just following doctrines etc without much of a sense of spirituality of the 'other dimension.'

Originally Posted by french user

I think this is ambiguous, because I don't feel that the most spiritual countries are necessarily the most religious ones.

I agree with that and I said a similar philosophical statement in the earlier post and this post too.

Originally Posted by Citizen401

You seem to be appealing to an idiosyncratic definition, or mysticised preconceptions, of spirituality in attempting to cite examples of religious cultures that are not spiritual.

Spirituality simply means the degree to which an individual commits to supernatural ontological beliefs. Given the centrality of spiritual commitment to religious beliefs, and the epistemic relationship between the two, religiosity invariably entails spirituality (though not vice-versa given that one can have spiritual convictions that are independent of any formal religious doctrine).

To put it more simply, if a certain social group commits to religious practices for non-spiritual purposes, then their religiosity is brought into question; not just their spirituality.

Yes and No to that at the same time.

Other than idiosyncratic definition, and mystical preconceptions, I was also referring to collective consciousness/objective standards, and easy to decipher observations for the entire debate between Spiritual vs. Religious.

Well, I see Spirituality have a wider range in definition and what it indicates so someone can be Religious and not Spiritual.

A lot of forms of religion is authentic and can have deep honest sincere value, but there is also some forms of religion that is misleading/manipulative/delusional and ends up not being spiritual at all.

[irish_bob]

Originally Posted by french user

I think this is ambiguous, because I don't feel that the most spiritual countries are neceessaly the most religious ones.
For exemple the USA are VERY religious, but it is more like a social tradition than a real attractiveness of the people for spiritual life. I don't feel the US or the Gulf countries to be very spiritual in the sense that I view them as very materialistically oriented.

religon in america tends to go hand in hand with hardcore capitalism and materialism which is plain weird

so called religous members of the republican party prioritise the very wealthy above the very poor , thats pretty unique by global standards , in the likes of the uk , members of the conservative party might do the same but you would never get theese individuals dragging god into any discussion

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by irish_bob

religon in america tends to go hand in hand with hardcore capitalism and materialism which is plain weird

so called religous members of the republican party prioritise the very wealthy above the very poor , thats pretty unique by global standards , in the likes of the uk , members of the conservative party might do the same but you would never get theese individuals dragging god into any discussion

Nowhere else in the world is being a follower of Jesus actually ASSOCIATED with being pro-war as in America. Weird is indeed right.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by

I agree with that and I said a similar philosophical statement in the earlier post and this post too.




Yes and No to that at the same time.

Other than idiosyncratic definition, and mystical preconceptions, I was also referring to collective consciousness/objective standards, and easy to decipher observations for the entire debate between Spiritual vs. Religious.

Well, I see Spirituality have a wider range in definition and what it indicates so someone can be Religious and not Spiritual.

A lot of forms of religion is authentic and can have deep honest sincere value, but there is also some forms of religion that is misleading/manipulative/delusional and ends up not being spiritual at all.

Yeah I think it's just the way you look at the world. And it depends on personality, character - including the national character or psyche. For instance how common it is to think deeply about the big questions in life. It seems even though they may not have been brought up religious, I'm willing to bet a French person has probably thought about these big questions as much as any American who attends church weekly. There are those who go to church but then don't have another spiritual thought all week. Even an atheist can be spiritual in a sense if they strive for deeper meaning to the universe and their lives.

[Citizen401]

Originally Posted by

Other than idiosyncratic definition, and mystical preconceptions, I was also referring to collective consciousness/objective standards, and easy to decipher observations for the entire debate between Spiritual vs. Religious.

I agree with regard to objective standards, but the notion of collective consciousness is a specific form of spirituality that is generally associated with the ancient eastern mysticism, the new age and the occult, and cannot be said to be a definitive criterion for spirituality in general. This is precisely what I meant when I referred to mysticised preconceptions.

Well, I see Spirituality have a wider range in definition and what it indicates so someone can be Religious and not Spiritual.

I think you have the subsets the wrong way round. If religiosity is a subset of spirituality (given the necessary entailment from religiosity to spirituality), then you can have examples of spirituality that are non-religious, but the same doesn't hold true vice-versa.

A lot of forms of religion is authentic and can have deep honest sincere value, but there is also some forms of religion that is misleading/manipulative/delusional and ends up not being spiritual at all.

I think your argument here demonstrates your own preconception of spirituality, rather than the actual epistemological definition of the term. Indeed, one may argue that there are mind cults, delusional and harmful religious movements, but they all have in common a commitment to supernatural ontic priors in some sense.

One may argue that they are not necessarily helpful or salubrious, or even argue that they are downright evil, but that does not make them in any sense less spiritual.

[Citizen401]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Yeah I think it's just the way you look at the world. And it depends on personality, character - including the national character or psyche. For instance how common it is to think deeply about the big questions in life. It seems even though they may not have been brought up religious, I'm willing to bet a French person has probably thought about these big questions as much as any American who attends church weekly. There are those who go to church but then don't have another spiritual thought all week. Even an atheist can be spiritual in a sense if they strive for deeper meaning to the universe and their lives.

Though I agree with your initial concern that spirituality and religiosity are not necessarily synonymous, it appears to me that, in your case, you argue this distinction by conflating philosophy with spirituality. Philosophy does cover metaphysics and ontology, meaning that there is some degree of overlap between the two. However, it is far less epistemically stringent than spirituality, meaning that many problems arise from trying to equate the two.

It's also interesting that you agree with the other poster above, given that your reasons for distinguishing spirituality and religiosity are polar opposites. You do so by expanding the definite criteria for spirituality; the other respondent does so by restricting them.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by seasushi

Least spiritually inclined: very difficult choice, but if I had to choose one I would probably say Russia. I heard the word "Russia" and I think of oligarchs making it rain in a nightclub while swilling Cristal with a hot Russian supermodel on their lap - or I think of Putin. So yeah, Russia.

One of the wrongest assumptions I've ever read.
Russia is one of the most spiritual countries by default, even in its present form.
The country that's historically standing on crossroads between East and West, the one that went through biggest social experiments in history, the one that historically combined staunch atheism with staunch Orthodoxy ( not to mention the admixture of paganism.) The definitions of what is "East" and "West" - the positives and negatives of both, the social problems of past and present in the country, the moral issues, the philosophical questions, the scientific questions that Russians ( often educated in physics) love to ponder in their spare time, the discussions about the place and meaning of Russia in history, about the future of the country - all of it is still there, in spite of the materialistic nature of today's ruling class, (or may be because of its controversy the spirituality is actually again on the rise.)