Atheist scientists 'spiritual but not religious'

[Kilgore Trout]

So 20% of certain types of scientists apply a vague, nebulous, inconsistent label to themselves. Very insightful information.

 

[Skwim]

So 20% of certain types of scientists apply a vague, nebulous, inconsistent label to themselves. Very insightful information.

Hey, as long as someone, the Templeton Foundation in this case, is willing to fork over grant money for stuff like this it'll be snatched up and used.

 

[Magic Man]

So 20% of certain types of scientists apply a vague, nebulous, inconsistent label to themselves. Very insightful information.

Pretty much. Basically, a minority of atheist scientists call themselves "spiritual" probably in an effort to not seem so much different from theists.

 

[Orias]

The misunderstanding between the two lay in obvious misuderstanding of tongues.

"The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves." -Carl Jung


​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pretty much. Basically, a minority of atheist scientists call themselves "spiritual" probably in an effort to not seem so much different from theists.

From the link in the OP:

"While the data indicate that spirituality is mainly an individual pursuit for academic scientists, it is not individualistic in the classic sense of making them more focused on themselves," said Ecklund, director of the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice. "In their sense of things, being spiritual motivates them to provide help for others, and it redirects the ways in which they think about and do their work as scientists."

Ecklund and Long noted that the spiritual scientists saw boundaries between themselves and their nonspiritual colleagues because their spirituality facilitated engagement with the world around them. Such engagement, according to the spiritual scientists, generated a different approach to research and teaching: While nonspiritual colleagues might focus on their own research at the expense of student interaction, spiritual scientists' sense of spiritualty provides nonnegotiable reasons for making sure that they help struggling students succeed.

Rice University | News & Media

If the scientists they surveyed share this misguided - and IMO verging on bigoted - view of what it means to be "nonspiritual", then this might just be these scientists' way of saying that they don't think of themselves as thoughtless, amoral **********.

 

[Skwim]

From the link in the OP:

"While the data indicate that spirituality is mainly an individual pursuit for academic scientists, it is not individualistic in the classic sense of making them more focused on themselves," said Ecklund, director of the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice. "In their sense of things, being spiritual motivates them to provide help for others, and it redirects the ways in which they think about and do their work as scientists."

Ecklund and Long noted that the spiritual scientists saw boundaries between themselves and their nonspiritual colleagues because their spirituality facilitated engagement with the world around them. Such engagement, according to the spiritual scientists, generated a different approach to research and teaching: While nonspiritual colleagues might focus on their own research at the expense of student interaction, spiritual scientists' sense of spiritualty provides nonnegotiable reasons for making sure that they help struggling students succeed.

Rice University | News & Media

I find all of this very hard to swallow.

EDITED TO ADD:

From Ecklund's paper

"scientists, especially the natural scientists in the sample, do work that requires deep and highly technical education about nature and skill in its manipulation (in other words, more than merely appreciating nature, they have an intimate knowledge of it). Their work with the natural world has an impact on their perception of the connection spirituality has to nature. Some scientists see themselves as genuinely unlocking nature's secrets through their science. And for this group of spiritual scientists their sense of access to the deepest aspects of nature via their science also enlivens a sense of spirituality. According to one biologist, spirituality is related to helping students understand how large the natural world really is:"
​

She then cites a single example

"I'm always trying to remind my students that what they're trying to understand is how everything fits together. And it's useful to keep that in mind, in sort of the broader sense of the wonder of things … that's included for me [in my definition of spirituality] but it's not included in everybody's definition."
​

Ecklund then goes on to say:

"For this political scientist, spirituality provides a lens, a worldview, for the way that she does her teaching.". . .
​

Obviously, if this is the quote in its entirety her conclusion is unwarranted.

" . . . Spirituality also provides a demarcation, specifically an ideological boundary (Lamont and Molnar 2002), to define her as different from her colleagues. While her colleagues might focus on their own research at the expense of student interactions, her sense of spirituality provides non-negotiable reasons for making sure that she helps struggling students succeed."
​

It may "[provide] non-negotiable reasons for making sure that she helps struggling students succeed." but where is the evidence that it does?

Ecklund seems to have a pro-spiritual agenda going on that's biased her paper.

 

[Magic Man]

From the link in the OP:



Rice University | News & Media

If the scientists they surveyed share this misguided - and IMO verging on bigoted - view of what it means to be "nonspiritual", then this might just be these scientists' way of saying that they don't think of themselves as thoughtless, amoral **********.

Exactly. It reminds me of people who either "don't believe in the normal God" or "believe in God, but aren't really religious". It's like they're clinging to vestiges of Christianity, or that even despite the lack of belief in God, there is still an association of enlightenment with believing in something more to the universe. They're basically buying into the attitude many theists purvey that claims you're not enlightened if you don't put stock into more "poetic" or "artistic" views of the universe.

 

[AfterGlow]

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

Because a philosophy can just be a set of ideas. Spirituality, like Buddhism or Stoicism, are philosophies that emphasise practical aspects, attempting to bring about changes in the way we perceive and interact with the world. For me, spirituality is about fundamentally changing not only your worldview, but the way you form your worldview.
You can't do that just with speculative thinking, nor by living a purely materialistic lifestyle.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure I understand what the folks who conducted the study meant by "spiritual". It probably doesn't help, in this context, that "spiritual", to me, does not refer to any gods, ghosts, or supernatural entities, but rather to how someone deals with the fact of their consciousness. It seems to me that on how we deal with our consciousness -- how we manage or cope with it -- depends a great deal of things people are sometimes talking about when they say such things as, "She's a spirited individual", or "He has a beautiful spirit". Hence, my appropriation of the word "spiritual" for my nefarious ends.

 

[lunamoth]

Because a philosophy can just be a set of ideas. Spirituality, like Buddhism or Stoicism, are philosophies that emphasise practical aspects, attempting to bring about changes in the way we perceive and interact with the world. For me, spirituality is about fundamentally changing not only your worldview, but the way you form your worldview.
You can't do that just with speculative thinking, nor by living a purely materialistic lifestyle.

This. :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because a philosophy can just be a set of ideas. Spirituality, like Buddhism or Stoicism, are philosophies that emphasise practical aspects, attempting to bring about changes in the way we perceive and interact with the world. For me, spirituality is about fundamentally changing not only your worldview, but the way you form your worldview.

Everybody has a worldview, and everybody has a way they form their worldview. What makes a spiritual worldview different from a non-spiritual one? What are the characteristics of a worldview that would place it in one category or another?

You can't do that just with speculative thinking, nor by living a purely materialistic lifestyle.

See... that's the sort of statement that I have a problem with. "Not spiritual" does not imply "purely materialistic".

 

[AfterGlow]

Everybody has a worldview, and everybody has a way they form their worldview. What makes a spiritual worldview different from a non-spiritual one? What are the characteristics of a worldview that would place it in one category or another?

Spirituality, in my opinion, is the method or process by which we alter our current worldview from one that the Buddhists would call ignorant or clouded, into one where we see things more clearly, and hopefully where we are happier.

See... that's the sort of statement that I have a problem with. "Not spiritual" does not imply "purely materialistic".

They're opposite poles. Either you incorporate some form of spirituality into your life, or you don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Spirituality, in my opinion, is the method or process by which we alter our current worldview from one that the Buddhists would call ignorant or clouded, into one where we see things more clearly, and hopefully where we are happier.


They're opposite poles. Either you incorporate some form of spirituality into your life, or you don't.

And "spiritual" is less ignorant, while "not spiritual" is more ignorant?

I think I was right in my prior assessment: this way of looking at things does seem to be verging on bigotry... or at least chauvinism for a particular worldview.

 

[AfterGlow]

And "spiritual" is less ignorant, while "not spiritual" is more ignorant?

I think I was right in my prior assessment: this way of looking at things does seem to be verging on bigotry... or at least chauvinism for a particular worldview.

Look up how the Buddhists use the term ignorance, then you'll understand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look up how the Buddhists use the term ignorance, then you'll understand.

I know how Buddhists use the term. My point still stands.

 

[Noaidi]

If ‘spirituality’ or ‘spiritual feelings’ are a product of our brain chemistry (as many neurobiologists and psychologists now think), then why shouldn’t scientists be spiritual? After all, being human, they are subject to the actions of brain hormones and molecules as much as anyone else.

In fact, given their subject matter, scientists perhaps may experience spiritual feelings more regularly than most (pure speculation there on my part – don’t ask for sources!).

I mentioned Carl Sagan (an agnostic and skeptic) in an earlier post. Here’s a quote from the first chapter of his book “The Varieties of Scientific Experience” (the word ‘religion’ is used in the sense of ‘to bind to’):

“By far the best way I know to engage the religious sensibility, the sense of awe, is to look up on a clear night. I believe that it is very difficult to know who we are until we understand where and when we are. I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky.
This is reflected throughout the world in both science and religion. Thomas Carlyle said that wonder is the basis of worship. And Albert Einstein said, “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is strongest and noblest motive for scientific research”. So if both Carlyle and Einstein could agree on something, it has a modest possibility of even being right.”

I think we do ourselves a disservice if we dismiss such feelings and experiences as unsubstantial ‘woo’.

 

[AfterGlow]

I know how Buddhists use the term. My point still stands.

What point? I see opinion. It seems to me you don't like the word spiritual and don't like other people having a different understanding of the term to the one you accept.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mentioned Carl Sagan (an agnostic and skeptic) in an earlier post. Here’s a quote from the first chapter of his book “The Varieties of Scientific Experience” (the word ‘religion’ is used in the sense of ‘to bind to’):

“By far the best way I know to engage the religious sensibility, the sense of awe, is to look up on a clear night. I believe that it is very difficult to know who we are until we understand where and when we are. I think everyone in every culture has felt a sense of awe and wonder looking at the sky.
This is reflected throughout the world in both science and religion. Thomas Carlyle said that wonder is the basis of worship. And Albert Einstein said, “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is strongest and noblest motive for scientific research”. So if both Carlyle and Einstein could agree on something, it has a modest possibility of even being right.”

I think we do ourselves a disservice if we dismiss such feelings and experiences as unsubstantial ‘woo’.

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

What point? I see opinion. It seems to me you don't like the word spiritual and don't like other people having a different understanding of the term to the one you accept.

Frankly, I haven't yet found a clear definition of "spiritual" to accept or reject. Like I said earlier in the thread, I think it's a vague weasel-word in most of its usages.

 

[AfterGlow]

Frankly, I haven't yet found a clear definition of "spiritual" to accept or reject. Like I said earlier in the thread, I think it's a vague weasel-word in most of its usages.

Well, you know my opinion, I accept yours, there doesn't seem to be any use in further discussion. I'll take my "bigotry" elsewhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you know my opinion,

I'm not sure I do. Given what you said so far, my best guess is that you equate spirituality with pursuit of prajna.

How deep does this go? Does "spirituality" also require one to follow the Noble Eightfold Path?

Do you think the "spiritual" scientists in the study would agree with your definition of spirituality?