Edit Note: I changed the mark-up from HTML formatting to that of this forum.
Oh I have to learn such things too. I struggle all the time with my editing.
Okay back on topic. I have now read maybe half or so of all the texts by Julian Baggini in Guardian.
I am not sure what to think. He failed with the "atheists should take ourselves lightly" using his example of We are not Atheists we are rather Heathens manifesto
Not his words my poor recollection. But he sure look very positive to Buddhism due to him stressing that one are for science but against Scienctism.
Good link there to Religious Naturalism. I get the feeling that many of them are former Chardin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
and Alfred North Whitehead supporters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
But that could be my prejudices. Many of them comes from Pantheism views.
So as I get it they rather tend to be "spiritual minded" and not religious minded.
And they do like Buddhism of the Mindfullness of Jon Kabat-Zinn fame used at retreat centers and at Communal Health courses. We have these in Sweden too.
My prejudice is this. Western Buddhists prefer to see themselves as spiritual rather than as religious. They also love to point out that they love science but hate Scientism and Reductionism and they are rather supporting relativism and postmodernism than objective modernism. And they also add they are against materialism.
That is only a prejudice I have. I know too little and have no statistic to back it up.
I come from a very strong atheism where one rather prefer to be religious than to be spiritual. Rather objective than relative, One love reductionism as a tool and one are a physicalist and philosophical materialist but know that that word seems out of vogue in philosophy.
Personally I am a strong anti-philosopher. I have not read any philosopher that I can trust. Three that comes close to put some trust in are Paul and Patricia Churchland with their Scientific Realism and Dan Dennett with his Compatibilism.
I doubt very much that there really exists scientists that adhere to or support Scientism. As I see it Scientism only exists in the head of those that hate science.
But that is my personal temporal take on it.
I wish I where more intelligent so I could get what is really going on.
I can understand that "spiritual" people dislike religion as an institution that force their values and rules onto the believers. I've been a very strong anti-religious person myself but I hated spirituality equally strong so I am too biased to really get what "spiritualists" talk about. I see no evidence for a spiritual world. But much evidence for a religious world understood as a human constructed cultural tradition that makes claims that can not be studied by science.
Being a secular naturalist I wild guess that these religious claims work as a kind of placebo behavior that trigger feel good chemicals like oxytocine or what name these have.
I like to compare it with the "Runners high" and similar release of chemicals that makes one feel good. People get easily hooked on "Training" and pumping muscles and such "Sport" and that seems also be the case for practicing spiritual or religious meditation and such.
It does look like a dependence to me from outside. Could be seen as an unfair description but that is how it looks like.
Julian Baggini point out something that I've noticed too. Some atheists tend to polarize us into one of two groups. Accomodationists or Faithists as they nickname them and themselves which they see as something more positive I've forget their word for it.
Anyway I would not be surprised if they see Baggini as an Accomodationists and to them that is very bad. Worse than being a true fundy believer?