RE: Spirituality as an atheist?
December 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2015 at 9:08 pm by Reflex.)
This is my final say. (You're probably thinking, “Whew!”)
Look, the question is really quite simple: Can an atheist have a spiritual experience? Atheists here are divided; some say 'yes' and others say 'no.' I have nothing to say to the latter because I agree with them. From the former I want clarity, not agreement and not the careless use of words or their redefinition.
An atheist who answers 'yes' should expect to be cross-examined because they are encroaching on traditionally religious grounds. They should also realize that such a belief carries with it logical consequences; i.e., either the experience is the result of “some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it” ― in which case the word is arbitrary and devoid of any meaning save what they put into it ― or Reality itself (or its source or cause) is itself alive, conscious and intelligent.
Although it may seem like it, this is not a “gotcha” choice put out there by some shyster lawyer. Rather, the atheist put themselves at the crossroads by saying 'yes.' Instead of reconsidering their answer for clarity's sake, the most common response to this conundrum is, “We make our own meaning!” Well, yes, but if you want to have any social order at all, if you want to communicate at all, words have to have a shared meaning: the word “fish” cannot be used in place of the word “bird” and still communicate.
“I'm spiritual but not religious” is quite faddish nowadays, and quite empty. Atheism has picked-up on that emptiness to give “spirit” and “spiritual” a whole new meaning that is equally empty. But this confusion is really just a small chip off a very large iceberg. It's not possible for me to make a list of words that have lost meaning because of the sloppy or 1984-ish use of words.
Look, the question is really quite simple: Can an atheist have a spiritual experience? Atheists here are divided; some say 'yes' and others say 'no.' I have nothing to say to the latter because I agree with them. From the former I want clarity, not agreement and not the careless use of words or their redefinition.
An atheist who answers 'yes' should expect to be cross-examined because they are encroaching on traditionally religious grounds. They should also realize that such a belief carries with it logical consequences; i.e., either the experience is the result of “some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it” ― in which case the word is arbitrary and devoid of any meaning save what they put into it ― or Reality itself (or its source or cause) is itself alive, conscious and intelligent.
Although it may seem like it, this is not a “gotcha” choice put out there by some shyster lawyer. Rather, the atheist put themselves at the crossroads by saying 'yes.' Instead of reconsidering their answer for clarity's sake, the most common response to this conundrum is, “We make our own meaning!” Well, yes, but if you want to have any social order at all, if you want to communicate at all, words have to have a shared meaning: the word “fish” cannot be used in place of the word “bird” and still communicate.
“I'm spiritual but not religious” is quite faddish nowadays, and quite empty. Atheism has picked-up on that emptiness to give “spirit” and “spiritual” a whole new meaning that is equally empty. But this confusion is really just a small chip off a very large iceberg. It's not possible for me to make a list of words that have lost meaning because of the sloppy or 1984-ish use of words.
