Spirituality as an atheist?

[Iroscato]

I'm just amazed Rik decided to venture outside his pet threads and into other parts of AF. This is truly a week of firsts.

[Reflex]

ok.  I may as well add my two cents worth.

Spirituality.  Well.  If you're really talking about appreciation for life, for exploration, for amazement at the unfathomable scope of the known universe, well, we can hope that all of us are capable of taking a few moments to feel that awe - that awareness that we are small and insignificant and should be grateful to be alive.  I'm not sure that has anything to do with the supernatural.  That type of appreciation is, hopefully, a part of just being human.

But if you're talking about entities that have abilities that we can't prove or describe, about entities that just MIGHT be out there somewhere - eh, that's just another way to claim that god exists.  It's a very, very weak claim.

My experience of "spirituality" is that of former theists that want to believe in god or gods . . . but want to break away from mainstream religion.  So they reach for whatever version of "woo" that seems viable.

It's a misappropriation of a word to call the mere "appreciation for life, for exploration, for amazement at the unfathomable scope of the known universe" spiritual if it is attributed to a natural human response to observed phenomena, and it is an immature understanding of the word that leads one to think it refers to "entities that just MIGHT be out there somewhere."

In short, Little Ric is right.

[Reflex]

Finally, that the spiritual is a result of the ineffable may very well be true, but attributing it to (ineffable) mechanism or chance, which are the only logical alternatives to it's source or cause being something personal (i.e., God), has logical consequences which are spelled out by Alan Watts in Behold the Spirit.*

Thanks for your kind words about my ex-.  She's a good woman, a dear friend, and a great mother.

1) The language of religion fails to express the ineffable, too. It's a sort of Platonic thing, language: the words are the shadows on the cave-walls, and the emotions are the actual things those words seek to describe.  The process is inherently imperfect even with everyday thoughts, concepts, or things; and that's not even considering the fact that in using language, you are seeking to communicate with another mind, which adds yet another layer of interpretation on the conversation. So when you experience the ineffable and attempt to eff it (), you are using a language that isn't equipped to deal with those sorts of rare and intensely personal events, sending it out in words to a listener and reader, and you have to hope that your words capture that experience. Then you have to hope that your listener or reader imbues your words with the same connotations and denotations such that a sense of your ineffable experience is transmitted to their mind. The language of religion uses the same words as the rest of the world. Some of them have special religious connotations or denotations; all that is is religion modifying the language to suit its purpose. And even then it fails.

2) As for whence spirituality, you forgot the person experiencing the feelings. Simply asserting that it must be "(ineffable) mechanism or chance" doesn't mean that that is true.  It's entirely possible for someone to have feelings arise directly out of themselves, and still be mysterious. Do you honestly think people always know why or even what they feel, or how to express their feelings precisely, or even generally at times? How do you explain, then, the psychotherapy industry, which is based on getting people to the roots of their emotions? When I watched my son being born ... man, I still can't tell you exactly what I was feeling. And I'm a writer, who uses the language as a plaything. Finding your god in the limits of language doesn't seem very convincing, to me.

Furthermore, if you're going to posit your god as a source of anything, you're going to have to demonstrate his existence.  I don't dabble in myth and am not interested in poisoning this discussion with PIDOOMA assertions.

So far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to pontificate on the spirituality of others when you experience their emotions.  Until then, the circumspect thing to do is limit your discussion to your own spirituality, if you have any.

I have no disagreement with #1. 

As for #2, I was talking about logical possibilities, not proofs, certainties or demonstrations. Now, this is an atheist forum and I respect that, but atheists go to religious forums all the time and take great pride in being "logical" (and generally get pissed-off when logic fails them). So, let's stick with logic (which amounts to a bit of role-reversal) because atheists generally claim it is their strength whereas I believe it is their weakness.

Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it. Nobody has ever been able to suggest a reasonable alternative. (Alan Watts)

If there is a reasonable alternative to the above choice, feel free to express it. I'm all ears. But simply calling it "ineffable" won't do in a rational exchange of ideas. If you cannot articulate a reasonable alternative, then, logically, either "spirituality" is the result or product of "blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it," or it is the effect of something we call "God" or "Spirit." If it is the former, then there are inevitable logical consequences. Let's deal with them and stop confusing terms. For clarity's sake, atheists should call it "projection" or simply "awe" instead of hijacking the word "spiritual." Awe is just the beginning of spirituality, not spirituality itself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As for #2, I was talking about logical possibilities, not proofs, certainties or demonstrations. Now, this is an atheist forum and I respect that, but atheists go to religious forums all the time and take great pride in being "logical" (and generally get pissed-off when logic fails them). So, let's stick with logic (which amounts to a bit of role-reversal) because it atheist generally claim it is their strength whereas I believe it is their weakness.

I'd appreciate it if you spoke to the points I'm making, rather than simply hector me with your views. I don't think your view on spirituality is any more privileged than anyone else's.

Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it. Nobody has ever been able to suggest a reasonable alternative. (Alan Watts)

If there is a reasonable alternative to the above choice, feel free to express it. I'm all ears. But simply calling it "ineffable" won't do in a rational exchange of ideas. If you cannot articulate a reasonable alternative, then, logically, either "spirituality" is the result or product of "blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it," or it is the effect of something we call "God" or "Spirit." If it is the former, then there are inevitable logical consequences. Let's deal with them and stop misappropriating terms.

What's wrong with a man supplying his own meaning to his own life? And how does that affect what you feel as spirituality? Why should I give a shit what some guy I've never heard of before has to say about this matter? And why can't you speak for yourself instead of making appeals to authority on a topic that obviously (to anyone who has thought even a smidgen about it) is far too personal to recognize any authority outside the emoter himself?

Why are you so arrogant that you should come here and denigrate the views of others on such an intensely personal issue? The idea that you can objectively rank emotions is asinine and reveals a startling lack of insight on your part.

As far as "appropriating terms", language evolves, and spirituality has come to mean more than just a feeling connected with so mythological entity. Get over it -- and yourself, while you're at it.

I'm tired of answering your horseshit with courtesy when you're clearly being so disingenuous.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The question "What is spiritual?" is no less simple and no more difficult than answering the question "What is of the mind?". Mind is a word which intellectuals began to use for the documenting of their work when they were looking for better answers than the their church officials could provide, and they didn't want to lose their heads for stepping on their authority regarding the "spirit". Thus it is no more than an evasive synonym for the same idea, albeit one which is now understood much differently within intellectual circles in that we know it's probably as mortal as the rest of the body. The activity of the poetic "heart", although it may cause specific sensations in the chest, is also now known to take place in a part of the brain. Therefore, "heart", "mind", and "spirit" (or "soul) are quite literally one and the same. Looking at it this way, I don't flip out anymore when somebody uses the word "spiritual", although I may enjoy pointing out how when he uses that word, 

[Reflex]

As for #2, I was talking about logical possibilities, not proofs, certainties or demonstrations. Now, this is an atheist forum and I respect that, but atheists go to religious forums all the time and take great pride in being "logical" (and generally get pissed-off when logic fails them). So, let's stick with logic (which amounts to a bit of role-reversal) because it atheist generally claim it is their strength whereas I believe it is their weakness.

I'd appreciate it if you spoke to the points I'm making, rather than simply hector me with your views.  I don't think your view on spirituality is any more privileged than anyone else's.

If there is a reasonable alternative to the above choice, feel free to express it. I'm all ears. But simply calling it "ineffable" won't do in a rational exchange of ideas. If you cannot articulate a reasonable alternative, then, logically, either "spirituality" is the result or product of "blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it," or it is the effect of something we call "God" or "Spirit." If it is the former, then there are inevitable logical consequences. Let's deal with them and stop misappropriating terms.

What's wrong with a man supplying his own meaning to his own life?  And how does that affect what you feel as spirituality? Why should I give a shit what some guy I've never heard of before has to say about this matter?  And why can't you speak for yourself instead of making appeals to authority on a topic that obviously (to anyone who has thought even a smidgen about it) is far too personal to recognize any authority outside the emoter himself?

Why are you so arrogant that you should come here and denigrate the views of others on such an intensely personal issue? The idea that you can objectively rank emotions is asinine and reveals a startling lack of insight on your part.

As far as "appropriating terms", language evolves, and spirituality has come to  mean more than just a feeling connected with so mythological entity.  Get over it -- and yourself, while you're at it.

I'm tired of answering your horseshit with courtesy when you're clearly being so disingenuous.

When logic fails, obfuscate or get pissed-off.

[Cyberman]

Which are you exhibiting?

[Reflex]

I'm sorry. That was harsh and out of line.

Obviously, we are the creators of our own meaning, but human beings would still be living in caves if everyone went around (as is so common nowadays) using words to mean anything they want. That's all I'm saying. If, as an atheist, one is going to use the word 'spiritual' to express an emotional response, that's fine. But don't ignore the ramifications because they imply something with which you happen to disagree.

The keel of a ship is not the ship itself, and "awe" is not "spiritual" or "spirituality" for the same reason.

[Cyberman]

Obfuscation, then.

[Reflex]

Obfuscation, then.

Exactly. I did not, as was implied, invent the phrase “God is spirit” just to make it difficult for atheists like Tyson to use the word spirit in a meaningful way. It is an ancient and, as I said, a well-nigh universal understanding of the word 'God.' If Tyson or atheists like him want to use use the term to imply that they themselves are “spiritual,” let's explore fully all the ramifications instead of nuancing it into oblivion.

From the online etymology dictionary:

spirit (v.)

1590s, "to make more active or energetic" (of blood, alcohol, etc.), from spirit (n.). The meaning "carry off or away secretly" (as though by supernatural agency) is first recorded 1660s. Related: Spirited; spiriting.

spirit (n.)

mid-13c., "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit "spirit, soul" (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus "a breathing (respiration, and of the wind), breath; breath of a god," hence "inspiration; breath of life," hence "life;" also "disposition, character; high spirit, vigor, courage; pride, arrogance," related to spirare "to breathe," perhaps from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow" (cognates: Old Church Slavonic pisto "to play on the flute"). But de Vaan says "Possibly an onomatopoeic formation imitating the sound of breathing. There are no direct cognates."

Meaning "supernatural immaterial creature; angel, demon; an apparition, invisible corporeal being of an airy nature" is attested from mid-14c.; from late 14c. as "a ghost" (see ghost (n.)). From c. 1500 as "a nature, character"; sense of "essential principle of something" (in a non-theological context, as in Spirit of St. Louis) is attested from 1680s, common after 1800; Spirit of '76 in reference to the qualities that sparked and sustained the American Revolution is attested by 1797 in William Cobbett's "Porcupine's Gazette and Daily Advertiser."

From late 14c. in alchemy as "volatile substance; distillate;" from c. 1500 as "substance capable of uniting the fixed and the volatile elements of the philosopher's stone." Hence spirits "volatile substance;" sense narrowed to "strong alcoholic liquor" by 1670s. This also is the sense in spirit level (1768). Also from mid-14c. as "character, disposition; way of thinking and feeling, state of mind; source of a human desire;" in Middle English freedom of spirit meant "freedom of choice." From late 14c. as "divine substance, divine mind, God;" also "Christ" or His divine nature; "the Holy Ghost; divine power;" also, "extension of divine power to man; inspiration, a charismatic state; charismatic power, especially of prophecy." Also "essential nature, essential quality." From 1580s in metaphoric sense "animation, vitality."

According to Barnhart and OED, originally in English mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the Latin word translates Greek pneuma and Hebrew ruah. Distinction between "soul" and "spirit" (as "seat of emotions") became current in Christian terminology (such as Greek psykhe vs. pneuma, Latin anima vs. spiritus) but "is without significance for earlier periods" [Buck]. Latin spiritus, usually in classical Latin "breath," replaces animus in the sense "spirit" in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Greek pneuma. Spirit-rapping is from 1852.