I consider myself this term and this was an interesting article from, yes, beliefnet.com.

"Spiritual, But Not Religious
More than one fifth of Americans describe themselves with this phrase. What does it mean?

By Robert C. Fulller



From "Spiritual, But Not Religious," by Robert C. Fuller. Used with permission from Oxford University Press.

A large number of Americans identify themselves as "spiritual but not religious." It is likely that perhaps one in every five persons (roughly half of all the unchurched) could describe themselves in this way. This phrase probably means different things to different people. The confusion stems from the fact that the words "spiritual" and "religious" are really synonyms. Both connote belief in a Higher Power of some kind. Both also imply a desire to connect, or enter into a more intense relationship, with this Higher Power. And, finally, both connote interest in rituals, practices, and daily moral behaviors that foster such a connection or relationship.

Before the 20th century the terms religious and spiritual were used more or less interchangeably. But a number of modern intellectual and cultural forces have accentuated differences between the "private" and "public" spheres of life. The increasing prestige of the sciences, the insights of modern biblical scholarship, and greater awareness of cultural relativism all made it more difficult for educated American to sustain unqualified loyalty to religious institutions. Many began to associate genuine faith with the "private" realm of personal experience rather than with the "public" realm of institutions, creeds, and rituals. The word spiritual gradually came to be associated with a private realm of thought and experience while the word religious came to be connected with the public realm of membership in religious institutions, participation in formal rituals, and adherence to official denominational doctrines.

A group of social scientists studied 346 people representing a wide range of religious backgrounds in an attempt to clarify what is implied when individuals describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious." Religiousness, they found, was associated with higher levels of interest in church attendance and commitment to orthodox beliefs. Spirituality, in contrast, was associated with higher levels of interest in mysticism, experimentation with unorthodox beliefs and practices, and negative feelings toward both clergy and churches. Most respondents in the study tried to integrate elements of religiousness and spirituality. Yet 19 percent of their sample constituted a separate category best described as "spiritual, not religious." Compared with those who connected interest in private spirituality with membership in a public religious group, the "spiritual, but not religious" group was

less likely to evaluate religiousness positively, less likely to engage in traditional forms of worship such as church attendance and prayer, less likely to engage in group experiences related to spiritual growth, more likely to be agnostic, more likely to characterize religiousness and spirituality as different and nonoverlapping concepts, more likely to hold nontraditional beliefs, and more likely to have had mystical experiences.
Those who see themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" reject traditional organized religion as the sole—or even the most valuable—means of furthering their spiritual growth. Many have had negative experiences with churches or church leaders. For example, they may have perceived church leaders as more concerned with building an organization than promoting spirituality, as hypocritical, or as narrow-minded. Some may have experienced various forms of emotional or even sexual abuse.

Forsaking formal religious organizations, these people have instead embraced an individualized spirituality that includes picking and choosing from a wide range of alternative religious philosophies. They typically view spirituality as a journey intimately linked with the pursuit of personal growth or development. A woman who joined a meditation center after going through a divorce and experiencing low self-esteem offers an excellent example. All she originally sought was a way to lose weight and get her life back on track. The Eastern religious philosophy that accompanied the meditation exercises was of little or no interest to her. Yet she received so many benefits from this initial exposure to alternative spiritual practice that she began experimenting with other systems including vegetarianism, mandalas, incense, breathing practices, and crystals. When interviewed nine years later by sociologist Marilyn McGuire, this woman reported that she was still "just beginning to grow" and she was continuing to shop around for new spiritual insights.


McGuire found that many spiritual seekers use the "journey" image to describe a weekend workshop or retreat—the modern equivalents of religious pilgrimages. The fact that most seekers dabble or experiment rather than making once-and-forever commitments is in McGuire's opinion "particularly apt for late modern societies with their high degrees of pluralism, mobility and temporally limited social ties, communications, and voluntarism."

Finally, we also know a few things about today's unchurched seekers as a group. They are more likely than other Americans to have a college education, to belong to a white-collar profession, to be liberal in their political views, to have parents who attended church less frequently, and to be more independent in the sense of having weaker social relationships. Quantitative data about how those who are "spiritual, but not religious" differ socially and economically from their church counterparts is helpful. But it is difficult to move to a more qualitative understanding. We don't fully understand how unchurched Americans assemble various bits and pieces of spiritual philosophy into a meaningful whole. We are even further from understanding how to compare the overall spirituality of unchurched persons with that of those who belong to spiritual institutions.

Spirituality exists wherever we struggle with the issue of how our lives fit into the greater cosmic scheme of things. This is true even when our questions never give way to specific answers or give rise to specific practices such as prayer or meditation. We encounter spiritual issues every time we wonder where the universe comes from, why we are here, or what happens when we die. We also become spiritual when we become moved by values such as beauty, love, or creativity that seem to reveal a meaning or power beyond our visible world. An idea or practice is "spiritual" when it reveals our personal desire to establish a felt-relationship with the deepest meanings or powers governing life. "

Hmmm...should be an interesting place 2 post this, with all the JW's and interesting folks like Icenine on this site.

I'm neither spiritual or religious, just drunk.

I'm religiously spiritual...

What's with all the labels?

huh

I consider myself spiritual but not religious also.

This piece seems highly loaded. It's entirely possible to recognise and wish to discover a close connection with a "higher power" without ANY submission to existing manmade form of worship.

Neither, nor.

Is anyone not spiritual? Doesn't 'spiritual' just mean you believe you aren't the only thing in the universe and that medicine and science don't hold ALL the answers? As humans are we not by definition 'spiritual'?

Cornerman said:

The dictionary definition of spiritual:

spir·i·tu·al Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l)
adj.
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.



I do not believe in any of that stuff, therefore I am not spiritual... according to that definition.

Essence said:

Yes, I agree with you. The whole 'religious' and 'spiritual' are supposed to be synonyms and that 'spritual' people have rituals and etc... seems pretty one-sided. Whatever. That's enough of this thread.

IceNine said:

Your right. And I should not have excluded you by saying things that make you 'not like the rest of humaninty' via my own definition. On the other hand, would you say that you honestly do not believe in ghosts, spirits, souls, or anything of that sort?

"spiritual but not religious":

busy doing the devil's work

Prince of Darkness gives an enthusiastic "thumbs up!"

Cornerman said:

Yep... I am absolutely certain that I do not believe in any sort of spiritual entities of any sort, be they gods, ghosts, spirits or souls.

IceNine said:

Why do other people then? I mean, honestly. I'll grant you 'people are sheep' and what not, but not a single culture that ever existed on this earth did not believe in some kind of spiritual presence. Why does it persist if there is no truth in any of it?

I like the way Wellbeyond put it.Same here sweetie

Cornerman said:

Recent neurobilogical research has demonstrated that most humans are hard-wired for spirituality and that it is a function of the brain...

As far as traditional thinking on the matter goes, I will paraphrase Joseph Campbell:

Humans and societies need myths in order to feel fulfilled. The myths are very important and provide order and structure to an otherwise random existence.

Joseph Campbell wrote a great series of books on this matter called "The Masks of God." There were four volumes:

Primative Mythology
Creative Mythology
Occidental Mythology
Oriental Mythology

Anyone who is interested in the origins and patterns of world spiritual mythology should really check these books out... they are great.

Actually I was following "Prince's Word".. until he dropped the ball and decided to follow another "human's book"

Hey I still have everything before The rainbow childeren

IceNine said:

Can't argue with you if this is what you believe. But it sounds like you're taking someone elses word for it, which is what religious people do also. (That's just something to think about. lol.) I'll check out those books. "Cyote" Joe Cambell has been recomended to me before.

locoarts said:

You following Prince's word wasn't silly, but his beliefs are?


He who digs a pit for others falls into it himself.

Supernova said:

That happens to Team Rocket all the damned time!!!

IceNine said:

Who's Team Rocket? Any connection to Hakeem Olajuwan?

Supernova said:

Nope... they are Ash Ketchum's arch enemies on Pokemon... they are always digging holes in half-witted attempts to capture Ash's Pikachu...

My son is a big fan of Pokemon and I have watched MANY hours of it... MANY.

"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see..." - John Lennon

Ahh. I see.

God is not bothered by scientist. They're his creation too!

I'm with Wellbeyond on this one!!

LeGrind said:

I hear you, but who could deny that Lennon was in some sense a spiritual guy? (and in others a hypocite. lol. of course we're peasents to him we're peasents many stars that we make in to kings, queens, or dietys.) What about Bob Marley? Does the spirit of his work not move us? And at the same time he fought against orginizations of power.

Rhondab said:

I get your joke, but why do people need to seperate spirituality/religion and science? The truest scientists I've met are very spiritual, the find amazement and wonder in the glory of this earth, in the complexity and tradgedy of our world. It doesn't seem that these should be seperated. Unless we're talking science for profit, but there's plenty of religion for profit too, so again...

I'm religious - Roman Catholic & proud of it. I don't need any of this fashionable ambiguity. Oh, & truly enlightened religious orders, such as the Jesuits, encourage the pursuit of knowledge - even scientific - & it has no impact on their faith. Faith is believing in something. Science is knowing something.

Very spiritual***I dont go for this religious stuff!..