Spirituality

Hi Bluejay,

quote:

---

What does "spiritual" mean?

---

I have absolutely no idea.

quote:

---

I have listened to hundreds of people talk about spirituality, and everybody except me seems to know what is being talked about.

---

I'm not sure they do. Most of the answers you will get to your question are likely to be inconsistent and contradictory. Generally, the term seems to mean very different things to different people. I find it confusing and unhelpful.Here is the Free Online Dictionary's definition; Now I understand definitions 1, 3 and 4 but they are clearly not the ones that atheists are using. I guess they make sense for theists. 5 is, I think, what people mean when they utter the dreaded phrase "I'm not religious, but I'm a very spiritual person." which I usually take to mean "I don't care for organised religion, but I am still desperate or credulous enough to believe in the various kinds of New Age woo that I happen to find appealing.". It's a phrase that seems to be associated with often vague notions of deism or pantheism.

quote:

---

I have often heard non-religious people and atheists talk about spiritual experiences; and non-religious experiences being described as spiritual by all kinds of people.

---

I think the the closest thing to the term as used by non-theists (who do not believe in the supernatural) is definition 2, "Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.". Now this is obviously perfectly meaningful for someone who believes in a soul, that's straightforward. What I think is that those who don't believe in a soul are doing is using the concept in a poetic sense.Example; the popular phrase "confession is good for the soul". It makes sense in a literal context (especially if you're Catholic!). In a looser, metaphorical sense, it just means "confession will make you feel better, help tackle unresolved feelings of guilt and make you an emotionally healthier person". Since the latter version is more complex and doesn't really have an associated vocabulary that can be quickly and easily applied, we use the shorthand version - soul. It is standing in for entirely secular emotional and psychological concepts.One popular use of the term "spiritual" is to describe especially meaningful or transcendent moments. The feeling of joy one gets from climbing a mountain and looking out from its peak, or the feeling of being caught up in an especially moving piece of music are good examples.I think we are caught in something of a linguistic trap here. these kinds of moments have, throughout most of human history, been associated with religion, gods or the supernatural. Any sense of the transcendent has had these associations placed upon it and, culturally speaking it is hard to escape from them, even when we are now able to de-couple these emotional states from a religious context that never made much sense in the first place.There is a sense amongst some atheists that we should be trying to make a distinction between this sense of transcendence and the supernatural. Christopher Hitchens has suggested the use of the word "numinous" to make this distinction. I think this is a good idea, because it seems to me that theists (and any non-theists who nonetheless ascribe to a sense of the supernatural) need to know that even those of us who have no belief in gods or magic still have these moments of transcendence. The sense of the numinous is not lost for atheists, it's just different and not associated with any explicit religious notion.I think that's important because many potential apostates may worry that they are going to lose these feelings, which they (quite rightly) value, if they abandon their religion. They're not. we all feel this way sometimes and there is no requirement to believe in any supernatural entity.That's my take for now. Hope it helps.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Shane and welcome to the site. Well more than one for a start. The problem I see with some of your comments about spirit and spirituality is that you present no way to empirically confirm the existence of this spirit. It's all very well saying that you can detect your spirit by meditation, but how can confirm that? No matter how long I meditate, I won't be able to detect your spirit, will I? This kind of evidence is entirely subjective. In my opinion this makes it all but valueless.What would make me take notions of spirit seriously?Well, for starters, a definition of "spirit" and "spirituality" that we can all agree on. Then some kind of empirical, objective, repeatable evidence that anybody can observe.Until then (and I'm not holding my breath), talk of spirituality is always going to be vague, subjective and essentially fruitless.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Shane, Well quite, and please don't imagine that I can't see the bind you are in here. It's not going to possible to provide material evidence of a non-material object.My problem is that, without any material evidence, what reason do we have left to believe in "spirit" at all? How do you know? Or, more specifically, how do you know that spirit is what's responsible? How do you rule out other causes?Given what we know about the workings of the brain, it seems to me that our thoughts and emotions are intrinsically linked to that organ; a material cause.How do you separate the two causes? The scientific method teaches us to take steps in experiments, whereby external or alternative causes are ruled out. This is important, because it allows us to hone in on the causes/effects that we are interested in. I just don't see how you can do this with a subjective, non-material entity like a spirit or soul. That is because I am interested in knowing, in terms as absolute as is possible. This is possible with a materialistic outlook. With a non-material approach, all is subjective and we can't be at all sure about anything. This is exactly what moves me to criticise your approach I'm afraid. You don't know that when others talk about a "soul", they are talking about the same thing. You have no way of knowing. You could both be talking about entirely separate phenomena, but merely couching them in the same language. How would you know? How would you rule out this possibility?You couldn't. That is why I regard talk of "spirituality" as, for the most part, meaningless.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Shane, This may be a basic question, but it's not the basic question, at least, not for the purposes of this discussion. The origin of the universe is not really the issue here. This is a pretty vague statement, but in essence, it sounds like a materialist observation. We are all indeed connected, to each other and the universe at large, by being composed of matter. Again, how do you know? You're not answering my questions. It's all very well for you to say that I have a spirit, but if you can't demonstrate the truth of your statement, why should I take it seriously? Doesn't the sort of independent minded approach mean that you have more responsibility than anyone to back up what you claim or believe? Aside from the difficulties of knowing what exists after death, it's not a matter of "deserving" anything. There either is or is not such a thing as a soul. Whether we deserve it or not is irrelevant.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Shane, Well this is where we part company. Feelings may be important to us all, but they are a poor guide to reality. Feelings are often wrong. Then why not call it "fulfilment" or "passion"? Why conflate these emotions with notions of spirit?What has emotion got to do with spirit anyway? I see no connection between a spirit (in the sense of "soul") and emotional response. I do however see a connection between emotion and the brain; only entities with brains seem to possess emotion and emotional response is known to be affected by brain damage. That would be a good start! It is at least an objective measure. I agree that feelings are real. They are not always accurate though. Probably because our experience of love can be objectively observed, at least to some extent. Changes in behaviour, changes in brain chemistry and such like...You seem to be constantly conflating the concepts of "spirit" and "emotion". Why is this? Is spirit synonymous with emotion? If so, why refer to spirit at all? If not, how can they be differentiated?If you can't answer these kind of questions, I think that you should seriously consider the possibility that this "spirit" that you are pondering over is actually nothing more than a vague notion. Maybe it really is no more than a figment of our imagination.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Shane, Yes. They emanate from the brain. Which prett ymuch leaves you chasing your tail... This is, in my view, a very selfish attitude. Every scientific advance improves the lives of future generations. That makes knowledge valuable in it own right. The reality or unreality of a soul or spirit has nothing to do with this. Just because spirits are unknowable doesn't mean that everything is. We can still learn much about our universe even if some things must remain speculative.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Shane, That is not my opinion. In fact, I'm not even sure what you're talking about there.I believe that an objective reality exists. I also believe that no matter how we choose to feel about this reality, what is real will remain real and what is unreal will continue to be unreal.Spirit is either real or it is not. I've used both tarot cards and a Ouija board before now. Ouija boards can be said to "work" in that they produce an effect - the planchette will move around and spell out words (although never providing any information that the players themselves could not know). The questions to ask are whether that effect is connected to any "spiritual" cause and whether that effect can be explained by reference to observable material causes.In the case of Ouija boards there is a rational, non-spiritual explanation - the Ideomotor Effect. Since Ouija boards behave exactly as if they were merely ideomotor effects, we have a strong, observable, objective, repeatable and material explanation for why Ouija boards appear to work.Why would we reject this in favour of an explanation that offers no evidence other than a vague gesture towards "spirituality"? But with no objective evidence in favour, you leave me with no reason to suppose that there is a soul in the first place. In fact, since you seem unable to clearly define what you mean by "spirit", I am left wondering what it might be that I'm even supposed to believe in... What!? That's a very silly idea. Reality is not a democracy. The spirit is either real or it is not; taking a straw poll won't alter reality one little bit.Frankly, I suggest that you reconsider some of your basic ways of thinking about how the world works. You could say that about absolutely anything. Ultimately it's just a refuge for a failed argument.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Quote box error.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod