ABSTRACT

Since the time of William James’s classic The Varieties of Religious Experience, social scientists who study religion have focused on experience rather than belief. This has allowed social scientists to explore similarities in experiences that previously were masked by a focus on how the experiences were interpreted, often in terms of prior religious beliefs. Not all scholars accept this distinction between experience and interpretation. Some argue that to identify any experience requires language and beliefs that therefore help constitute what is experienced. Also, differing judgments about which religious beliefs are most valid have created divisions within and among the various faith traditions. Such concerns have led many to contrast being religious with being spiritual. Being spiritual is identified with a wide variety of experiences of transcendence, while being religious is identified with formal institutions, clearly specified beliefs (dogma) and ethical behaviors, and obedience to ecclesiastical authority. While most religious persons identify themselves as both religious and spiritual, many spiritual persons refuse to identify themselves as religious. The distinction is less about whether we have similar experiences and more about how we interpret experience.