Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Is spirituality just another belief system?
People on this thread seem to be dancing around a concept that no one has really thought to define. Nor do they seem to think that such a thing needs to be made clear.
They have made the most fundemental philosophocal mistake of assuming that your terms do not need to be defined, and are running about like the acolytes of a vauge religion with the assumption that everyone knows what they are talking about.
This meake the whole thread an empty catalogue of verbal accretions with no direction.

So has any non theist on the thread the courage to state terms here, as it seems to me that what is the phantom of spiritiality is simply a quality that all humans possess to varing degrees and has no necessary connection with religion or belief.

Yes, the question was whether it is possible to be a "spiritual atheist". I'm guessing that the term "atheist" doesn't need to be defined here. But "spiritual" probably does. The difficulty is that it's such an amorphous concept and different people will have different definitions. My dictionary tells me that it is a term "relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things". So if person describes herself as spiritual, I take her to be someone who believes in "spirit", who believes in something immaterial that is beyond, or not subject to, the deterministic laws that govern the physical universe. I'd be interested to read other people's definitions if they are different to this.

As I've said, I'm an atheist. I don't believed in spirits or gods or anything supernatural. However, I do practice a form of meditation that I find useful. But, again, this has nothing to do with gods or anything supernatural. I don't think my meditation practice makes me a "spiritual" atheist. To my mind that would be a contradiction in terms. That does not mean, however, that I cannot avail myself of a practice that creates a feeling of centeredness, of losing ones "self" and feeling a unity with the rest of cosmos, which is a feeling that is not possible in my ordinary everyday non-meditative conscious state.

I don't think think my mediation practice means I'm trying to keep a foot in both camps. But others may see it differently and I'd be interested to hear their thoughts on it.

I don't think we three should have to convince anyone that we are "proper" atheists. Any such discussion is dead space, re-explaining the obvious.

As I say, I think many problems have because materialistic modern theists have interpreted religious texts as being actual descriptions rather than metaphors for subjective experiences. Like it or not, we come from a very long line of superstitious thinkers, which no doubt epigenetically shapes their brains. We have the "God brain hardware", so it's a matter of leveraging it or not. Superstitions and ritual are proven ways of using the "hardware", but belief in obvious fables is demeaning in this day and age. The option is there to simply leverage the brain hardware passed on by ancestors without compromising one's reason, but the absurd materialistic interpretations have turned many off.

If you want transcendence, I suggest taking up drums. It's the most fun you can have sitting down, immersed in glorious noise, banging away like the apes that we are.

[Lagayascienza]

"Dead space" might be a bit harsh. I think it's a topic worth discussing.

If I'm discussing theism/atheism with someone and, during the course of the discussion, my interlocutor asks, Well, if you're an atheist, how come you do meditation?", I don't think that is an unreasonable question. It's not unreasonable because many people associate meditation with eastern theistic traditions. However, I don't think there is necessarily anything "spiritual" (in the supernatural sense) about practicing my form of meditation. I posted the topic because I wanted people's thoughts on whether it is reasonable to practice meditation whose roots are in Advaita Vedanta and still call oneself an atheist. I think I should have been explicit about that in the OP. In short, I think it's really a discussion about the meaning of the term "spiritual". If I post another topic I'll try to be clearer about the sort of discussion I have in mind.

[Sy Borg]

Are you a true Aussie? A true Scotsman? A true atheist? Who is the arbiter?

Many forms of mediation don't require superstition. Do you need to believe in the supernatural to concentrate on your breathing or to clear your thoughts?

Do you remember game show host, Tony Barber? As a child I saw a feature of him on a current affairs show and I remember him chopping wood outside and saying, 'Mind, body, spirit' in reference to leading a rounded life. Clearly his work occupied his mind and chopping wood is good exercise, so I wondered if that meant he went to church, had a secular way of being spiritual or (what I didn't think of at the time) he was simply parrotting a phrase that sounded good.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I think "spirit" can refer to subjective feelings. For example, “He's in good spirits!”. It can also refer to an ethos: “It goes against the "spirit" of the game to tamper with the ball". “Body mind and spirit” is a good example. It refers to the totality of our subjective feeling. None of these senses of “spirit” have anything to do with supernatural notions and I’m entirely comfortable with them. "Meditation keep me well in "body, mind and spirit".

I remember Tony Barber. I’m a true Aussie.

[Gee]

"Dead space" might be a bit harsh. I think it's a topic worth discussing.

I agree. But I also agree with Sculptor in that it is difficult to discuss something if you do not know what it is you are trying to discuss. The word, spirituality, needs to be defined. Spirituality is difficult to define because it is not something that you can see or hear or touch or smell or taste; it is something that you feel. Just like all things related to feeling and emotion, spirituality is interpreted. In order to share the feeling, we interpret emotion and feeling through art, poetry, dance, music, architecture, and religion. When we interpret emotion and feeling through religion, we call it spirituality.

If you Google spirituality you will find more examples like the following:

Spirituality means different things to different people. For some, it's primarily about a belief in God and active participation in organized religion. For others, it's about non-religious...

The term spirit means "animating or vital principle in man and animals". [web 1] It is derived from the Old French espirit, which comes from the Latin word spiritus (, ghost, courage, vigor, breath) and

spir· i· tu· al ˈspir-i-chə-wəl -i-chəl, -ich-wəl Synonyms of spiritual 1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs 2 a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs

You may note that if it is religious, then there are references to souls, gods, etc. But if the definition is not about religion, then it refers to courage, animation, vigor, breath (breath meant life in older definitions) and ghosts -- or life.

If I'm discussing theism/atheism with someone and, during the course of the discussion, my interlocutor asks, Well, if you're an atheist, how come you do meditation?", I don't think that is an unreasonable question. It's not unreasonable because many people associate meditation with eastern theistic traditions. However, I don't think there is necessarily anything "spiritual" (in the supernatural sense) about practicing my form of meditation.

Why don't you just tell them that you meditate because it is good exercise for your mental health and your emotional health? That does not make you religious. Just like physical exercise does not make you a contender for the Olympics. Religion is a belief system that interprets spirituality into "Gods", angels, demons, souls, etc. -- not the same thing at all.

I posted the topic because I wanted people's thoughts on whether it is reasonable to practice meditation whose roots are in Advaita Vedanta and still call oneself an atheist. I think I should have been explicit about that in the OP. In short, I think it's really a discussion about the meaning of the term "spiritual". If I post another topic I'll try to be clearer about the sort of discussion I have in mind.

I noticed, when I first read your OP, that you used the religious interpretation of the word "spiritual" while disputing the idea that it was religious -- which made no sense to me. You have chosen a word that people have been trying to define for thousands of years, but the closest we have come is various interpretations, if you want a definition, then you are talking about feeling/emotion. Look at the references that Sculptor gave; every damned one of them is about feeling/emotion.

If you want to know why the word spirituality is mostly associated with "God" ideas, it is because religion is the only discipline that actually studies emotion, so it has most of the interpretations to give emotion form. Science pretty much ignores emotion, and philosophy tries to turn emotion into knowledge, but emotion defies defining.

Gee

[Lagayascienza]

Thanks, Gee. Yes, I guess I did use the religious interpretation in the OP. I hadn't really figured out at that stage exactly what I meant by "spirituality" or "spiritual". As you say, it's so hard to define and is open to interpretation. But I think we are getting somewhere now by subjecting the terms to conceptual analysis.

[Lagayascienza]

Now this is interesting, or could be. Are you able/willing to extend this description?

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

I like that definition. Would you agree that the s word is often used in a judgemental context, pejorative or quite otherwise?

I'm using two S words spiritual and supernatural.

Both can be used pejoratively; but are used but people positively by those trying to believe and convnce others that spirit is a supernatural thing.
For my money attributing such things as supernatural is not helpful, and somewhat risible.

There are some interesting ideas here for figuring out precisely what we mean by terms like "spiritual". Used in the sense that you mention, Sculptor, I think that, as an atheist, I can be comfortable with such terms. They don't need to carry supernatural or religious baggage.

[Sy Borg]

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

I like that definition. Would you agree that the s word is often used in a judgemental context, pejorative or quite otherwise?

I'm using two S words spiritual and supernatural.

Both can be used pejoratively; but are used but people positively by those trying to believe and convnce others that spirit is a supernatural thing.
For my money attributing such things as supernatural is not helpful, and somewhat risible.

There are some interesting ideas here for figuring out precisely what we mean by terms like "spiritual". Used in the sense that you mention, Sculptor, I think that, as an atheist, I can be comfortable with such terms. They don't need to carry supernatural or religious baggage.

As Douglas Adams said:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

I am amazed at the Earth and the nature it exuded. It's easy to take it for granted but when you think about what it is and the journey it's been on through time and space, but when you don't take it for granted, the mind boggles.

[Sculptor1]

Yes
Who is John?

I don't even get why you're asking...

Because I did not know who you were quoting obviously. I thought someone on the thread.

My point of bringing up John 1 is that it conveys essentially Platonic cosmology...

It positions Christ as the demiurge, thus his father is monad...

The text is unlikely to even be written by anyone named John so he couldn't be less relevant...

What I can say is that the gospel and first letter show he has experienced this.

Why are you referencing the Bible?
It's odd given the thread subject.
If you think he is reflecting Platonic cosmology then please cite properly. I've never seen John used in any serious philosophical discussion.

[Sculptor1]

I think you would first have to ask a person who considers themselves to be "spiritual" and gather examples of their spiritual experiences and ask yourself if they were any different than the normal everyday awe and wonder we all get when we look at a sunset or look into the eyes of a puppy!

When I get a warm feeling from hugging my partner, or get excited over some new book, surely this is a stimulus to what others call "spirit". The difference here is that for me there is nothing "supernatural" about it. But it also means that my experience, though unique is not qualitatively different from "spiritual people", except that I have no accretions of the delusions that often seem to accompany their claims.

I like that definition. Would you agree that the s word is often used in a judgemental context, pejorative or quite otherwise?

I'm using two S words spiritual and supernatural.

Both can be used pejoratively; but are used but people positively by those trying to believe and convnce others that spirit is a supernatural thing.
For my money attributing such things as supernatural is not helpful, and somewhat risible.

There are some interesting ideas here for figuring out precisely what we mean by terms like "spiritual". Used in the sense that you mention, Sculptor, I think that, as an atheist, I can be comfortable with such terms. They don't need to carry supernatural or religious baggage.

But sometimes word carry a taint.
And given the recent history of Victorian Spiritualism, that has persisted to this day I do not think the term is useful and cannot easily be used without the conflation of ideas.

[Lagayascienza]

Agreed. People get confused about "spiritual". And that was the reason I posted this topic for discussion. In future, if anyone of wants to question my atheism in light of my meditation practice I shall refer back to this thread so I have some quick answers.

[Lagayascienza]

I thought "John" might have been a reference to Da Free John.

[Belindi]

And you immediately respond with supernatural concepts.
WHo is John?

My point is that it's specifically not supernatural, that it points at a legitimate phenomena.

The empiricist mind refuses to step out of newtonian thinking, yet the brain is a particular vibration of the electron field.

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge it might be a function of the field and not the result of fatty tissue?

An absolute idealist does not even believe in a "beginning", as beginning is a function of time. True, some experiencers experience beginnings , and I claim that experience itself is the only absolute.That there is absolute experience is not the same claim as that there is supernatural order of being,

[FrankSophia]

Why are you referencing the Bible?
It's odd given the thread subject.
If you think he is reflecting Platonic cosmology then please cite properly. I've never seen John used in any serious philosophical discussion.

Again, I was trying to show that what others consider supernatural is nothing of the sort...

You're too hung up on your ideas about religion to consider the point though...

You want to feel superior because you're above all that...

You have no clue about that.

[FrankSophia]

An absolute idealist does not even believe in a "beginning", as beginning is a function of time. True, some experiencers experience beginnings , and I claim that experience itself is the only absolute.That there is absolute experience is not the same claim as that there is supernatural order of being,

The beginning is prior to manifestation, it is not the start of existence.

I do think Plotinus is more accurate here, he says the process is constantly going on not some event in the past.

Again though, the point is that we're speaking on the same things philosophy is really about.

If one is rational then all can be approached in the same way.