Atheist scientists 'spiritual but not religious'

[Noaidi]

I don't dismiss them, but I also don't call them "spiritual". Awe and wonder belong to everyone, not just religion.

I agree.

Could the disagreement on this thread be down to a lack of consensus on the term 'spiritual'? I don't think anyone here is denying the feelings people experience, but the problem seems to be the terminology used to describe them.

Because the word spiritual, in the mind of many, equates to religion and the supernatural, many are loathe to use the term.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree.

Could the disagreement on this thread be down to a lack of consensus on the term 'spiritual'? I don't think anyone here is denying the feelings people experience, but the problem seems to be the terminology used to describe them.

Because the word spiritual, in the mind of many, equates to religion and the supernatural, many are loathe to use the term.

That's a big part of it for me. IMO, using the term "spiritual" invokes, in a vague sort of way, some undefined link to religion. AFAICT, when a person declares themselves to be "spiritual", this is a codeword meaning "I don't consider myself an adherent of any particular religion, but I haven't rejected all 'religious' concepts altogether" or "I'm religious, but I don't want to be associated with the negative things I see in mainstream religion."

Edit: or "I'm religious, but I want to keep my options open and not get tied down to any one religion."


But the problem, IMO, is that absent this connection to religion, the term "spiritual" becomes useless and meaningless.

 

[painted wolf]

It could also indicate Buddhism, a sort of weak Deism, weak Pantheism or even strongly held Secular Humanism. Spiritual, simply means seeking some kind of meaning beyond the self.

That can be seeking balance in family, friends and the world around you. Religious means holding to a particular dogma.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It could also indicate Buddhism, a sort of weak Deism, weak Pantheism or even strongly held Secular Humanism. Spiritual, simply means seeking some kind of meaning beyond the self.

I do that. I don't consider it to be "spiritual".

And I have a hard time believing that the 80% of the scientists in that survey who didn't say they were "spiritual" don't seek some kind of meaning beyond themselves.

 

[Penumbra]

Well, what in what you describe doesn't simply fall under the umbrella of philosophy... without bringing the woo into it?

Generally, I think spirituality necessarily involves a bit of woo, but not really in a bad way. I kind of look at spirituality being different from philosophy (although related, of course), because philosophy is more of an intellectual rigor while spirituality is more of an emotional thing. When an atheist describes their self as being spiritual, it usually has a certain poetic understanding to it.

I agree with some of what you've said in this thread. I don't consider myself spiritual at all, and I prefer more concise words. But I wouldn't say that atheists cannot be spiritual or that spirituality is not a useful term. The atheist I mentioned earlier in this thread told me that in his view, he's not going to let theists hi-jack a perfectly good word, such as "spirit" or "spiritual" and make it mean only one thing rather than all the things it has come to mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Generally, I think spirituality necessarily involves a bit of woo, but not really in a bad way. I kind of look at spirituality being different from philosophy (although related, of course), because philosophy is more of an intellectual rigor while spirituality is more of an emotional thing. When an atheist describes their self as being spiritual, it usually has a certain poetic understanding to it.

Enh. I think it's the sort of term that will get people nodding their heads knowingly, but when you ask them what "spirituality" means, it's hard to get a clear answer out of them.

I agree with some of what you've said in this thread. I don't consider myself spiritual at all, and I prefer more concise words. But I wouldn't say that atheists cannot be spiritual or that spirituality is not a useful term.

Neither would I, although I think that the term has been pretty badly mistreated recently.

The thing I object to is the underlying message in the OP's quote and elsewhere that "spiritual" is roughly equivalent to "deepness", and lack of "spirituality" implies shallowness, lack of thought, or lack of caring.

People can be spiritual if they want. Atheists can be spiritual if they want. But being "spiritual" doesn't make a person better. Some people might find that sprinkling a bit of woo in their philosophy makes it more palateable, but that doesn't mean that their worldview necessarily has more merit than the worldviews of people who don't do that.

The atheist I mentioned earlier in this thread told me that in his view, he's not going to let theists hi-jack a perfectly good word, such as "spirit" or "spiritual" and make it mean only one thing rather than all the things it has come to mean.

There are other senses for the word "spirit", sure: everything from "ghost" to "motivation" to "hard liquor"... but I think I tend to consider them separately to this particular usage we're talking about here.

 

[The Wizard]

I knew an atheist once that consider himself to be spiritual.

I viewed it as being rather contradictory, and had several discussions/debates with him on it. I must say now that I accept his view as rational and not a contradiction; atheists can be spiritual.

This particular atheist used "spirit" in the somewhat common notion of referring to the rather poetical concept of self, such as "the spirit of man", or "high-spirited" and so forth. He viewed himself as being spiritual in the sense that he has rather poetic outlooks on life, finds value in mythology, and strives for continued self improvement of his conscious state.

I assume atheists, and particularly scientific atheists, that view themselves as spiritual mean it in the sense that they have a rather poetic and philosophical outlook in regards to their self, and/or mean it in the sense that they have emotional experiences, such as being filled with awe, when contemplating the universe and the myriad of facets and details contained within it.

It can be a way to dispel the notion that atheists or scientists are out to destroy the creativity and dreams of others. It sort of shows them in another light, and reveals a passionate side.

Well that makes sense. Sort of like pulling the belief system or mystical remnants out of an outlook and bringing it down to being more seculiar or strictly scientific fact based (eg quantum mechanics perhaps). Or, reffering to spiritual as simply human elements (eg the human spirit, etc). So, I stand corrected.

If I were an atheist I could still not discard any views of being one with the universe, so I guess for me that would be my spiritual side. I'm pretty sure someone could be one with the universe and not contradict their atheist piriciples, but I could be wrong because I'm not a devoted atheist, but do support various views...It looks like there will be a million different meanings of the word "spiritual" depending on the person or group... IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well that makes sense. Sort of like pulling the belief system or mystical remnants out of an outlook and bringing it down to being more seculiar or strictly scientific fact based (eg quantum mechanics perhaps). Or, reffering to spiritual as simply human elements (eg the human spirit, etc). So, I stand corrected.

I think this is a good point to bring in this cartoon:

xkcd: Beauty

If I were an atheist I could still not discard any views of being one with the universe, so I guess for me that would be my spiritual side. I'm pretty sure someone could be one with the universe and not contradict their atheist piriciples, but I could be wrong because I'm not a devoted atheist, but do support various views...IMO.

What does "being one with the universe" mean?

 

[The Wizard]

I suppose it would mean something different or unique to everyone if they hold such views. I am not one who could define it to anyone at a public satisfactory level to others, it is perhaps a solely individual thing... What cartoon is going on? I must of missed something, lol.. IMO.

 

[Penumbra]

Enh. I think it's the sort of term that will get people nodding their heads knowingly, but when you ask them what "spirituality" means, it's hard to get a clear answer out of them.

Neither would I, although I think that the term has been pretty badly mistreated recently.

The thing I object to is the underlying message in the OP's quote and elsewhere that "spiritual" is roughly equivalent to "deepness", and lack of "spirituality" implies shallowness, lack of thought, or lack of caring.

People can be spiritual if they want. Atheists can be spiritual if they want. But being "spiritual" doesn't make a person better. Some people might find that sprinkling a bit of woo in their philosophy makes it more palateable, but that doesn't mean that their worldview necessarily has more merit than the worldviews of people who don't do that.

There are other senses for the word "spirit", sure: everything from "ghost" to "motivation" to "hard liquor"... but I think I tend to consider them separately to this particular usage we're talking about here.

I agree with all of these statements.

 

[painted wolf]

I do that. I don't consider it to be "spiritual".

And I have a hard time believing that the 80% of the scientists in that survey who didn't say they were "spiritual" don't seek some kind of meaning beyond themselves.

True... poorly worded.

Thanks for calling me on that...

But I think my distinction between the dogma of religion and the looseness of "spiritual" still has some merit.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True... poorly worded.

Thanks for calling me on that...

But I think my distinction between the dogma of religion and the looseness of "spiritual" still has some merit.

So you'd go with my third option?

Edit: or "I'm religious, but I want to keep my options open and not get tied down to any one religion."

 

[painted wolf]

So you'd go with my third option?

Something like that.... Or, "my spiritual beliefs are so nebulous that no religion fits me... why aren't I a UU?"

wa:do

 

[bain-druie]

It seems that a large part of the argument here is in what the word 'spiritual' means. All human experience is subjective, and therefore all language is also subjective. Human experience seems to differ on a sort of subjectivity scale, with the most 'objective' being the most intersubjectively verifiable (facts, or science). Science is deliberately constructed to be as objective as possible, and part of that is its principle of falsifiability - which is a safeguard dogmatic religions lack.

'Spiritual' is on the opposite end of my imaginary subjectivity scale, because no one person has the same understanding of 'spirituality' or the same experiences thereof. Even within the most dogmatic religions, the people who genuinely believe will describe their experiences with their god differently. So pinning it down is probably impossible; we can agree to be very strict in understanding the definition, but people will still mean something different within the privacy of their own minds when they say it.

Still, for what it's worth, the article linked to in the OP may have merit if 'spiritual' was intended this way, pertaining to the last part of the entry:
World English Dictionary
spiritual (ˈspɪrɪtjʊəl) adj 1. relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible

Source Spiritual | Define Spiritual at Dictionary.com

And I had to go past the first two entries on the page, which shows the difficulty of a consensus. Point being, if we define spiritual this way, it is entirely possible for an atheist to be so, but only if we take the last part (i.e., 'relating....not to physical nature or matter; intangible') and throw out the rest. If we define it in any of 70 million *other* ways, it is *not* possible for an atheist to be spiritual.

I think the root of it is as stated earlier in the thread - however you define spirituality, there is no justification for using it to judge the merit of another person. 'Spiritual' does not, or at least should not, be used to mean 'better'.

 

[Orias]

Something like that.... Or, "my spiritual beliefs are so nebulous that no religion fits me... why aren't I a UU?"

wa:do

I have often observed that people enjoy tying in labels to suite other labels, and I can understand how many people would think that "spiritual" can translate into "religious", though to make a spiritual Aspect "religious" it would require an onus amount of dogma and followers, plus the burden of programming others in spite of One's own degeneration.

"LaVeyan" Satanism is a good example, though the doctrines of Anton LaVey have been decided to be "religious", many of the practitioners still stray from the religious Aspect in that people who consider themselves "atheists" are nothing more.

Its sad to see people passing judgement off of what they see flowing down the stream, instead of what the stream is flowing towards.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I still don't see what the big deal is with a scientist being spiritual. Even Stephen Hawking said science does not prove or disprove god. And ultimately no matter what evidence we have before us, not one of us was here when the universe was created, and not one of us knows for sure what awaits us after death.
If I want to say the big bang was god lighting a fart on fire, how can it ever be proven wrong? Or maybe god had to sneeze and we are nothing more than the products of his/her/its mucus being strewn across an area that we have called our universe. Or perhaps as some bumper sticker I saw said "God spoke and bang it happened." We have speculation, and many reasons to know our best speculations are not always correct.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is basically pointless to use such vaguely defined words as "spiritual" or even "atheist" without making an effort to clarify what they mean.

Myself, I avoid calling anyone spiritual, let alone "spiritual but not religious", because I find that an attempt at having the cake and eating it too, as well as a lost opportunity for reminding people that religion is a lot less (and therefore, a lot more) than belief in God. In a very real sense, religion is necessary because God does not exist, and lack of belief in God is actually a religious advantage.

Far as I can tell, the whole point of anyone claiming to be "spiritual but not religious" is to distance oneself from the weirdness that is belief-based "religion". Betting on a belief is, of course, kind of silly and it is only natural for more reasonable, saner minds to refrain from adopting such a posture in their religious lifes.

It is sad that so many people actually consider themselves religious all the while relying on belief alone.

 

[Orias]

What else do we have to rely on besides belief and opinion?

But Luis I think I know what you mean.

We have words to define other words, and labels to label other labels. Surely, people will want to add more baggage onto something just because they see that other words can be used to define a certain position, without realizing how much the subjective plethora of perceptions can but does not necessarily dictate everyone's view.

Spiritual and religious would be One of these cases, since really any label that One takes onto themselves shows at least an ounce of certain bias towards One's worldview.

Basically, people look for what they think should be, or what they want to be, instead of what actually is. Which leads to semantic and metaphysical debates which really has no foundation for any factual premises.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think most scientists realize now there is no scientific experiment that has proved or disproved the existence of God(s). Most feel they are just wasting away their careers even bothering. They are much more preoccupied with more pressing issues and theories which often urgent require testing for the theories to be set in stone, especially for instance of medical science as to which substances cause cancer for instance, or in the case with geosciences a way and means they can predict earthquakes, because it is one of the few natural disasters they cannot predict for days in advance. Some scientists are religious others are spiritual or just plain philosophical but they do not see the point proving anything like any of the pressing issues with their respective scientific disciplines.

 

[LuisDantas]

What else do we have to rely on besides belief and opinion?

Conscious choice and personal responsibility. Religion is not so much about what one believes to be true as about what one decides to be worth pursuing, nurturing and building.

It is not about "finding God", it is not even about finding the "correct revelation" of God. It is about daring to make do without such events of what is ultimately simple luck (or lack of same). It is about taking a firm decision to be responsible and to seek wisdom.

But Luis I think I know what you mean.

We have words to define other words, and labels to label other labels. Surely, people will want to add more baggage onto something just because they see that other words can be used to define a certain position, without realizing how much the subjective plethora of perceptions can but does not necessarily dictate everyone's view.

Spiritual and religious would be One of these cases, since really any label that One takes onto themselves shows at least an ounce of certain bias towards One's worldview.

Basically, people look for what they think should be, or what they want to be, instead of what actually is. Which leads to semantic and metaphysical debates which really has no foundation for any factual premises.

I really don't know to which extent I agree. Enough for this purpose, I assume.