All of reality is in your mind. Nothing else exists except your perception of reality.
So, let's apply that to daily life shall we. If what you are saying is true, nothing ever happened or exists beyond my mind. It materialises during my process of perceiving it. It pops into existence as I read about it, or see it, or think about it
I could create new species of orchid just going out to look for them in the forest.
Before I was born my mother didn't exist. When I die my family will cease to be real.
If I pick up a fossil, the creature that left it never walked the earth, until I perceived the fossil in the dirt, indeed I poofed the fossil and the dirt into existence
The tsunami in Japan didn't happen until I saw it on TV.
If I put any of that to my doctor next time I go for a check-up, do you think she'll agree?
Or will she refer me to a psychiatrist for an assessment?
SkyWriting, you are out of touch with reality.
Here are 172 peer reviewed papers:
First paper deals with "religion" and "religiosity" without providing a concrete definition of "spiritual". The authors point out that it may be positive or negative for people to bullshit themselves with their own religion. See here:
They propose that many patients use religion both as a coping resource and as an explanatory model for their disorder 1. This can have positive consequences (e.g., “I think my illness is God's punishment for my sins. It gives meaning to what happened to me, so it is less unjust”) or negative ones (e.g., “I have been praying for years. I am still ill because I don't believe in God's healing power enough. I am a bad person”) 2
Second paper deals with the problems of trying to pin down the concept of "spiritual"
Third paper, right up front, makes the point that their definition can't be relied on:
It is only partially related to spirituality and religiosity.
Fourth paper deals not with a scientific definition of spirituality but talking (i.e. giving lip service) to patients about whatever bullshit ideas they themselves happen to have about it:
Patients’ spiritual needs were identified as: need to talk about spiritual concerns, showing sensitivity to patients’ emotions, responding to religious needs; and relatives’ spiritual needs included: supporting them with end of life decisions, supporting them when feeling being lost and unbalanced, encouraging exploration of meaning of life, and providing space, time and privacy to talk.
Fifth paper again fails to define spiritual - it only panders to whatever desires patients and families happen to express:
Veterans and their families expressed a range of spiritual needs ..
No testable concept of "spiritual" there.
Sixth paper doesn't deal with spirituality, but rather "“spiritual dryness”
That's actually people being honest that they have no spirituality
Seventh paper is about two indirect indicators, namely "peace" and "life worthwhile".
The APCA African POS items peace and life worthwhile capture distinct but related constructs which indicate the extent of a patient’s spiritual well-being in palliative care populations in sub-Saharan Africa.
That's seven FAILS in a row. I refuse to go on. Skywriting, please, I am not your research assistant.
Read your references before you post.
Here's a couple titles:
MENTAL DISEASES IN MODERN TIMES – A SPIRITUAL OUTLOOK
Self evolution: 1st domain of spiritual health
To measure the spiritual health, the 4th Dimension, a Spiritual Health Scale consisting of
6 Constructs, and
of spiritual health were identified through a scientific process.
Firstly, alarm bells
"Self evolution" is a contradiction in terms. They are not free to hijack a well understood scientific term like "evolution" for a pseudo-science purpose. At worst it is a DISHONEST attempt at passing off, at best it's just UNPROFESSIONAL.
Then they go on with this nonsense (look past the obvious typos):
The evolution in all spheres of life has reached almost at its zenith and now the research studies are focusing to find out as to how the life evolved on the planet and if there is any super power governing the planet, earth.
So here we have people who think "evolution" has peaked
Now they have burdened themselves with a serious credibility problem.
I go on to read their paper. Instead of a definition of "spiritual", something that I could test or work with in some degree of certainty with a minimum of assumptions, it does nothing but expand the murkiness:
A statistically reliable and valid Spiritual Health Scale (SHS 2011) containing 114 items ....
So instead of getting clarity we now have 114 items
... every one of which means something else in it's own right (and some of which are rubbish)
One good lesson from this one though - it's an excellent demonstration that weird stuff can and does get published in obscure journals
Getting into print doesn't necessarily mean that it has actually passed rigorous peer review in the external scientific community.
But returning to my question about a scientifically usable concept of spiritual. The above paper deals with a sloppy hodgepodge of "spiritual health" - an elaborate confusing substitution of what I asked for. See here is the definition (taken from their key reference) of what they are pretending to do "science" with:
Spiritual health is a: State of being where an individual is able to deal with day-to-day life in a manner which leads to the realization of one's full potential; meaning and purpose of life; and happiness from within.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263147/
Many atheists can do everything required by that definition while rejecting the notion of "spiritual". But they'd be marked down on the SHS 2011 scale because they don't "pray" and would never report "considering oneself as a part of the supreme (beyond self)."
I don't mind doing your homework for you on occasion.
Sadly this homework is a FAIL. Your standards for credulity are clearly not as high as mine.