The essence of religiousness is quite difficult to separate from a sense of absolute conviction in a total explanation of things, yet I would argue that such a definition is quite limited, shaped as it is by post-Englightenment Western philosophical concerns with the centrality of rationality in all matters, and failing as it does to account for the richer, more complex and ‘aesthetic’ ways in which humans—traditionally and in postmodernity—actually experience and express religiousness.
Roger R. Jackson, “In Search of a Postmodern Middle” in Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars
Yes! I am pretty ambiguous in terms of my own identity and yet, I have always confidently asserted that I am religious not spiritual, despite deeply secularist tendencies. And this is the same argument I make for why we can’t force the definition of religion into its Latin roots alone. (Roger was one of my teachers in undergrad.)