Started this morning by getting angry at PZ Meyers again.¬† Maybe you can experience the same by reading his: “Spirituality”? Another word for lies and empty noise.¬† The comments redeem the post.¬† I think the problem is that I use the term “spiritual” as a way of stripping certain concepts from their religiosity, but people like Meyers feel it is explicitly connected to religion.
We use spirituality a lot on this site.  Maybe we should pause and talk about what we really mean by the term.
For me, spiritual has nothing to do with the spirit or with God.¬† I don’t believe in a spirit or soul or God.¬† Objectively, I’m a 100% biological being, all water, carbon-chains, oxygen, electrons, etc. interacting to write this blog post before showering and going off to work.¬† Subjectively, I have experiences that make me feel connected to the universe and to you and that imbue me with purpose and help me to overcome the existential angst I feel when I realize that I live in a universe without purpose or a guiding intelligence.¬† I often use (but am not limited to) “religious technologies,” like group meditation and narrative and symbolism to solve my existential problems.¬† I admire some people who would be defined foremost by their “spirituality,” like St. Francis and Simone Weil. “Spiritual” is a convenient term that seems to capture these subjective elements.
Maybe “spiritual” causes more communication problems than it overcomes.¬† Are there better words to cover what I mean by spiritual?¬† What do you mean when you use the word “spirituality”?
30 responses so far ↓
1 Bored in Vernal // Mar 15, 2007 at 11:25 am
John, there’s a question I’ve been wanting to ask you for quite a while. But I have hesitated to ask because, while it is something I can picture discussing over tea or across the garden fence, I’m worried about bringing it up over the internet. I know what the question is in my head, but I don’t know how to put it in words. I’m afraid it won’t come out the way I mean it, and there might be a potential to sound condemning. But since I don’t see a trip to California on my docket any time soon, and I’m thinking you might not be out to Vernal this year, I’m going to go ahead and ask.
Anyway, why do you think you have such an interest in spirituality if there’s nothing there? Why do you even want to join a Church if you only want to be an “non-theist” member? (There being so many other communities to join up with!) Why do you have a compulsion to go and visit different faith groups? Why do you admire (and, I will say, appeal to) people who are defined by their spirituality? What draws you to group meditation, etc.? I sense in you the same kind of questing that I feel myself, so I’m not denigrating these things. I just wonder how you can keep on looking if you’ve already decided there’s no point to the search.
This is all one question; but there’s more, ’cause like I said, it’s hard to put into words. Do you think your decision that there is no Spirit or Diving Being has lessened your desire to quest after these things? Do you see yourself moving on to something else? Personally, I hope not, because I don’t think I could bear coming back here day after day if this blog lost it’s beautiful poignant spiritual overtones.
So if I had you in person I would look into your eyes and if I saw hurt there I would back off and somehow convince you that I didn’t mean this in a censuring way. And then we would have a funny light conversation about computers or politics or books we’ve read. But if I saw you look off into the distance and begin to ponder, we would have a discussion that would last far into the night.
That brings me to my answer to your question above. Yes, I think the word spirituality pertains to the spirit or soul as distinguished from the physical world. I see in the dictionary that another meaning can be “of or relating to the mind or intellect,” and perhaps that is where you would like to take the word. But I think that that would be a great loss…
2 Miko // Mar 15, 2007 at 2:29 pm
spirituality n on the Aristotelian scale of extremes, where “religion” is one extreme and “atheism” is the other, spirituality is the golden mean
John, I think it’s a good idea to define our terms, thank you. I suppose one must take it as a given that we’ll all come up with different definitions for important terms, but it’s still a good conversation. I actually caught an interview with the winner of the Templeton Award on NPR last night & thought how wonderful it was that (a) this was recognized and (b) scientists were publicly being spirtitual. I guess Pharyngula heard it and thought the exact opposite…
Incidentally, I’d like to put in my two cents: I don’t think you’re 100% physical. I think you’re only 50% physical. The other 50%, well, that’s between you and The Divine. But it’s also what seperates you from a chair.
BiV: I’d like to answer your question (though it wasn’t directed at me) because it’s one that I get often and one that I generally don’t take well. You said you weren’t sure how it would come out over the internet. I often find it a hostile question, which is unfair, since I’m reading words without inflection.
Sometimes I honestly feel that I can’t live without religion because I was brought up to believe in it. Like suddenly trying to convince me that up was down. I might go along like I really did think gravity was working backwards, but inside, I’d know it wasn’t. And I’d look for websites like this with other people who thought the same. When I was a kid, it seemed like there was something to religion that everyone else got that was a mystery to me. For the religion in question, it’s still a great mystery. But if they’re happy, I now can feel happy for them.
I’ve experienced things that can’t be explained by the laws of the secular world. But I’ve experienced enough religions to know that either none of them can explain it either, or all of them explain it with a different language. And at the end of the day, I think that’s it. I think we’re all (all religious, all spiritual people) talking about the same thing in different languages. Sometimes, we’ll hear a word someone else says that sounds a lot like a word we know. This leads us either to kill them or nod sagely thinking, “they’ve almost got it!”. There’s a parable explaining The Divine (not the elephant and the blind men, but that’s good, too) as the moon and all the religions of the world are pointing at the moon. But we get caught up in the shape and tilt of the fingers doing the pointing. So when we think we’re arguing about the moon, in fact we’re arguing about the fingers.
I don’t think I have all the answers and I don’t like people who think they do. Most religions seem to me to think they have all the answers. And so, I try to get my kicks some other way. Like this website. Like visiting churches, temples, and mosques. Like reading apologies and comparisons for various faiths. Like reading about archeological/historical findings as they pertain to various faiths. And somewhere in all that, I think, is the moon.
So I go through my life, living as good a life as I can, knowing that there’s something else, something indescribable. And my sisters would say that this is the emptiness left by leaving the church. But it doesn’t feel like empty. It feels like unknowing. Of all the things my parents tried to teach me, that education is important is one of the few things I still believe.
3 Bored in Vernal // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Miko, I’m so glad to have your response to my question(s) too. Much of what you had to say really resonated with me. Although I have come to rest in a particular church, I don’t always feel so comfortable there. And I certainly don’t think they have all the answers. I love looking around at all the other answers different faith traditions have come up with. (But like you, I rrreally don’t like people who think they have all the answers. I guess I’m more drawn to people who have lots of questions.)
But sort of what I’m getting out of your reply to my very inarticulate question is that you believe there is a Moon, but that we don’t know the shape of it, or anything much about it. Is it tangible? Does it send forth light, reflect light? Can we really see it or is it a reflection of our cultural biases? These questions are worth asking and talking about if there is Something. But why would we have an interest in those questions if we knew _for sure_ that there was Nothing?
I keep writing another paragraph and crossing it out. I just wish I could have you all over to my house and get to know you better!
4 Elise // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Miko, I like your last comment about living life as good as you can, knowing there is something else but that it is indescribable. I identify with Christianity - in a liberal, mystic way - and do consider myself both religious and spiritual, and yet if you asked me to really define what that meant, I’d eventually come up with the exact same thing: living as good as I can, knowing there is something else, and being unable to describe it. I think this is probably what you mean when you say we’re all talking about the same thing with different words - the words you use as an athiest describe almost perfectly the way I feel as a God-believing Christian.
John, when I use the word spirituality with regards to myself, I am referring to my relationship with a diving being. But when I hear some one who doesn’t believe in a divine being, I interpret it as a deep feeling of respect, connection, and/or unity with nature and with other living things. Since I have never met or directly encountered a/the divine being with my five physical senses, I have to define my experience with a divine being as a feeling of respect, connection, and/or unity with nature and other living things, as well as a feeling of peace and love and eternity. So, when I say divine being and use the word spirituality, there are definitely similarities between your interpretation and my interpretatiion of that word. Differences, too, but I like the idea of bringing out the similarities. Which, in regards to your MoF Musings post, is probably one of the main purposes of this site.
Very good questions, both John and BiV. BiV, I understand your fear of coming across rude or arrogant. I think you sounded sincere and appreicate your questions as well, though.
5 Retired in Sasebo // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:49 pm
How is communication possible if we can not agree on the meaning of words? I want to thank John for seeking to clarify the term.
I have been logging onto John’s page for a little while now and have found it interesting and a little perplexing. Convictions once held so strongly, then abandoned, replaced (for a while) with confidence and doubt.
I am not a religious individual. I see the Bible and other works only as attempts to communicate “concepts” to others outside of one’s immediate circle and time. There in lies the problem; words/terms are ever changing and subject to manipulation by those who desire power/control over others.
Spiritual, or of the spirit, nonmaterial.
I believe in the spirit, it is all that I have that is of value; all that I am, in the end. The material is soon gone. Do I understand it? Can I explain it? No. But it is as real as the love when I first held each of my children; as real as the pain when one of them is hurt.
How then to “know” or “understand” the spirit or spiritual? I have decided that that is the wrong question for me to ask. Can I not just be satisfied, at least for awhile, with feeling it, experiencing it, enjoying it? Only with my own mind can I do this. To that end I endeavor not to waste my potential to learn about, explore, and accept all the beauty that life has to offer. And hopefully help a few others along the way.
Each day I give thanks for “one more chance” at life, kiss my wife good morning, focus on my goals, do no harm/allow no harm, do a random act of kindness, and most difficult, be honest with myself at all times. (Do not always like what I see, but it gives me something else to work on.)
This is the first site that I have ever “responded” to/on, so if I have broken some protocol, please do not hesitate to lend some guidance to this senior citizen.
6 Elaine Frei // Mar 15, 2007 at 8:29 pm
As to definitions…all of the definitions I can find relate spirituality and the spiritual to religion and the supernatural, which kind of makes my agnostic nature nervous. So, I am a little more comfortable with terms relating to mysticism, specifically the second definition according to Mirriam-Webster Online: “The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).”
I’m still not completely satisfied with that if it insists that such knowledge can be found only using subjective means. However, any scientist worth his or her salt will tell you that the use of intuition or insight is an important part of the scientific endeavor which, after all, has at its goal knowledge of ultimate reality, at least of the physical universe. And in that way, because the definition of mysticism mentions an “ultimate reality” that might or might not be related to religious beliefs, I can find sympathy with that, since I believe that science does have the potential of discovering at least most things about the universe even if it is currently limited by the present state of technology.
While I consider myself an agnostic, that mostly means that I believe that if there is a God or gods, humans are not equipped to understand the mind or essence of that entity or entities. It doesn’t mean that I reject the possibility that something akin to what we use the word “God” to name exists out of hand…although my personal bias, at least at the moment, is that he/she/it likely does not exist in any way that humans conceive of he/she/it. The universe is, after all, not only “stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine,” as astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington is supposed to have said. In slightly different phrasing, the same sentiment is known as Haldane’s Law, after evolutionary biologist J. B. S. Haldane.
But, that also doesn’t mean, to answer your question BiV, that I don’t see a value in exploring the spiritual or mystical expressions that exist among believers, semi-believers, and even non-believers. Expressions of spirituality and mysticism are an essential part of being human. These expressions might not relate to what we in the Western world call God. They might relate to connections to ancestors, or to nature, or to some other expression. But such expressions are part of what make humans human, and that interests me as a human being myself as well as someone who studied cultural anthropology in school.
7 John // Mar 15, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Bored (#1), I feel completely safe with you, so don’t worry about offending or hurting me. I’ll do my best to respond to your question(s).
— pausing for thought —
I think that the only answer I can give you is that while we may not agree about the object of our spiritual yearnings (and I would go so far as to say that most of us who believe in the object would find it difficult to come to a consensus on what it is), I acknowledge that you and I and most of the world have these yearnings and are capable of feeling:
- deep existential angst,
- total isolation and loneliness,
- inexpressible beauty and
- a powerful desire to connect with each other and with the universe.
I feel that God (and Karma and the soul) are the products of these feelings, whereas most theists would say that the feelings are proof of the existence of God, the spirit, etc.
Where I differ from dogmatic atheists like PZ Meyers is that I acknowledge the importance of these yearnings and feelings of connection. I don’t think that nontheists should dismiss them, but should cultivate them and explore them together with people who have similar feelings but interpret them very differently. I suppose that may be what the core of Mind on Fire might be. Am I making any sense?
8 Jonathan // Mar 15, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I have a weird perspective on this: I have always thought of “spiritual” in terms of a science-fiction perspective and with that language. It is the dimension beyond what Carl Sagan would call the Cosmos. It is a reality outside the physical laws that govern this universe, and cannot be detected by our physical bodily senses. However, I have always believed people to be multi-dimensional beings, composed of both physical stuff and spiritual stuff, intertwined in some complex way that seems to leave traces of each on each other: the physical body has a “ghost in the shell”, and so does the spirit (SF anime influence coming out). So since we are spiritual, we can sense and communicate in the spiritual as well. Music and myth seem to be things that engage the full person (all senses, both spiritual and physical) and for that reason above all others draws us in a powerful way to indulge in them.
Anyway, it seems to me that what you are trying to describe outside a spiritual world view would be as you said: “existential angst.” I think Miko caught this feeling well - it is a place where you don’t believe in religious crap, but you aren’t quite satisfied with taking the thinking of “the Cosmos is all we have…” to its fullest logical conclusion. The former is definitely flawed, but the later leaves some portion of reality uncomfortably unexplained. Again, like Miko said, something between those two extremes is where the “spiritual” life is.
I agree with BoV… this is more a conversation worthy of 4 or 5 hours during an evening face to face. But I fear that you, like me (except in my case it is in regards to the church), have a lot of anger behind this subject because of your past, so it might not be a fun discussion.
9 John // Mar 15, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Bored, are you going to Sunstone this summer?
10 mel // Mar 15, 2007 at 9:24 pm
The problem definitely arises from the fact that religion basically owns the word if it did not in fact invent it.
I prefer the term: “strange loopiness”. As in this article in the current issue of SEED:
I Am A Strange Loop: G??del, Escher, Bach author Douglas Hofstadter lays out his newest ideas about consciousness and what it means to be human.
11 John // Mar 15, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Retired, it is wonderful to see you here. Welcome! I don’t think that we’ll be able to come to any agreement on this term, but we’ve managed to communicate over some time now. Maybe communication is more of a process, or even a way of life, than a single (or even series of) event(s). Thank you for your comment, and I hope to hear more!
I’m amazed at the range and the beauty of all of your responses, and Miko was right when she suggested that we would all come up with different definitions. Can I just say that I would love to sit down in a group with all of you and have this discussion?
Jonathan: as much anger as I may have towards “religion,” I have warm fuzzies towards the “spiritual” (at least as I define it). I think that we could have a happy dialog on that topic.
I just re-read Elaine’s comment and wanted to highlight one part:
But, that also doesn‚Äôt mean, to answer your question BiV, that I don‚Äôt see a value in exploring the spiritual or mystical expressions that exist among believers, semi-believers, and even non-believers. Expressions of spirituality and mysticism are an essential part of being human. These expressions might not relate to what we in the Western world call God. They might relate to connections to ancestors, or to nature, or to some other expression. But such expressions are part of what make humans human…
Amen, sister.
12 SunflowerP // Mar 16, 2007 at 5:58 am
John said:
“Where I differ from dogmatic atheists like PZ Meyers is that I acknowledge the importance of these yearnings and feelings of connection. I don‚Äôt think that nontheists should dismiss them, but should cultivate them and explore them together with people who have similar feelings but interpret them very differently. I suppose that may be what the core of Mind on Fire might be. Am I making any sense?”
I certainly hope that’s at least part of the core of MoF - it’s why I’m a reader.
Popular (mis)conception equates atheism with a lack of, and scorn for, those yearnings. I’ve often met (particularly in my UU years in the mid-’90s) folks whose reason rejected theism, and who therefore were constantly struggling to banish such “atheistically heretical” desires from their psyches. The logical flaw in that frustrates me (if you’re rejecting theism by your own reason, why do others’ definitions and not your own reason define your atheism?), but I’m sympathetic to their plight; my own reason rejects many theistic conventions. I’m technically a middling hard polytheist (among other things) rather than an atheist, but my “deities” aren’t very godlike by most standards - “tutelary spirits” might be a better way to refer to them - and “worship” is a misleading way to describe my relationship with them. Nor do I acknowledge any self-aware, volitional power higher than that. (”Omni-foo-foo Supreme Creator” is right out!) And ever and always my “agnostic nature” (excellent expression, Elaine) runs through it: these things are my working paradigms, the model I use, a way to describe something experiential that may have no reality outside my mind (or may have a reality of which my description is a pale metaphor).
To return to the topic at hand, what I mean when I use the word “spirituality”: I think you said it better than I could, John. Those yearnings and feelings of connection, whatever their source, are a reality; to acknowledge them and their importance, and to cultivate and explore them, is spirituality. Religion is one way - but not the only one - to do that. An atheist dies, and hir atheist family marks it with a… well, they might call it a funeral, or a wake, or a memorial, or a celebration of hir life, but chances are they have one. That, sure as sunrise, isn’t “religious” - but I’d call it “spiritual”.
(John, your response to my very first comment included a subtle invitation to share my POV; in some ways this topic is a natural opportunity, but I find I’m reluctant to detail more of it than what I said above. The issue seems to be that I’m uncertain how familiar some of my terminology would be; I wouldn’t be comfortable derailing a good philosophic discussion [like this one] with too much self-explanation. If this discussion is any indication, though, it’ll come up a bit at a time as it applies to the conversations stimulated by various posts.)
Sunflower
13 Miko // Mar 16, 2007 at 7:58 am
I don’t really have an articulate response, but I’d like to repeat/emphasize/agree with the following comments:
BiV:
Elise:
I sometimes am surprised by the similarities between my feelings & others even though our beliefs are so different. My role model for religion is a sufi preacher I met at a funeral. I wish for everyone to have the happiness and love for The Divine that she had.
Retired:
Hear, hear! When reading through various religious texts, one is struck by the similarities among them. I don’t think that means they were ultimately inspired by the same divinity. i think that means that the Truths of the universe are so unknowable that we can only ever come close to them, never know them completely.
John:
and
Sunflower:
Pharyngula seems to believe that there is no difference between atheists and nontheists. My father once told me that the singular sin of atheists is that they were a- or against god. I think that I might be aCatholic, but a nontheist. Somehow, nontheism leaves open the opportunity to have a spiritual experience in a way that atheism does not. And, as I believe that we’re all half spirit, I think this is a very important distinction.
Jonathan:
*nodding* “Who sings, prays twice.” I love finding an experience that shuts off the physical side so that all one is is spirit. Currently, the breathing techniques we’re taught in tai chi are doing that for me, but I’ve also felt it while reading, singing, or listening to music.
14 Elise // Mar 16, 2007 at 8:24 am
Retired in Sasebo - thanks for your observation to the tune of “Can I not just be satisfied, at least for awhile, with feeling it, experiencing it, enjoying it?”
Sometimes I feel like trying to figure out why, why, why and how, how, how can be exasperating. Living a life 100% wrapped up in these questions seems like a life lived inside one’s own head, which isn’t really living at all.
I think it’s important to have balance between both - asking why, and also being satisfied and experiencing the moment. I’m still working on that balance, but there are certain days when I really find myself naturally sitting back and enjoying. My husband does a really good job of experiencing the moment and is great at reminding me to stop thinking about everything so hard and just relax and enjoy the day at hand.
For what it’s worth, knowing John personally, I really appreciate his balance between the two. This blog gives some insight into the “why and how” questions he asks, but interacting with him in person gives me the chance to realize he is experiencing and enjyoing life, too.
Sorry if this comment repeats converstaion already had, I didn’t have time to read all of the comments but wanted to respond to this one.
15 Johnny // Mar 16, 2007 at 8:38 am
I hate being late to posts like this
Anyway, I have had to work to understand what John has meant by “spiritual” and I am glad he clarified it. There is a strange space of ambiguity for non-traditional believers and atheists who want to engage with some aspects of religiosity and not others. I wonder if “spiritual” is the best word for this.
My experience is that most people who speak of themselves being “spiritual” but not “religious” have meant it in a shallow sort-of “new age” kind of way. That is not bad, but I am sure it’s not what John means by it, because his approach is the very antithesis of superficiality.
I don’t know…I’ll have to think about this some more.
16 Bored in Vernal // Mar 16, 2007 at 9:04 am
This is a lovely conversation. Don’t you wish you could pick who your neighbors were?
I guess I’ve been guilty of popular (mis)conception equating atheism with a lack of, and scorn for, those yearnings. I haven’t been acquainted with many people who don’t believe in God, so I missed the subtleties of John calling himself a “non-theist.” I think I’m coming to a better understanding.
I just revel in all the different understandings of the word “spirituality.” And I love how this conversation has been inquisitive and accepting of each one. Why can’t people understand that listening to others’ descriptions of the elephant will give us all a greater understanding? You really have to listen trusting that the other person’s understanding is completely valid.
Retired– I, too, liked your thoughts on the Bible and have been trying to read it that way for a while. I take it more symbolically than literally, and wonder what ideas or feelings the authors were trying to express. They all have varying agendas. It makes a big difference in my personal exegesis.
Sunflower, I liked your God-image of “tutelary spirits,” and I’m looking forward to hearing more about your philosophies in conversations to come.
John, I will be at Sunstone this summer–I’d love to spend some time with you and Jana, but you guys will probably be so mobbed that I won’t get to say much more than Hi.
17 Bored in Vernal // Mar 16, 2007 at 9:07 am
Oh, and John, I still can’t tell from what you said if you believe that “the Other” is made up of all of our yearnings, connections, etc. or if there is Something which exists outside of it all (just pinning you down here!)
18 Elise // Mar 16, 2007 at 11:26 am
BiV - I’m hoping to be at Sunstone this year too and won’t be mobbed by people, so we should try and have lunch or something.
19 John // Mar 16, 2007 at 11:31 am
If you all are interested, I know of the coolest alt-hip tearoom just a couple of blocks away from the Sheraton. Plenty of decaf options, and far away from any potential mobs.
Bored (#17): I think that what’s in us (individually and collectively) is enough of the “other” for us to be concerned with. Is that sufficiently evasive?
20 Bored in Vernal // Mar 16, 2007 at 12:10 pm
The tearoom it is.
#19 That sounds suspiciously like saying that Hymn no. 292 is enough about the Divine Female for us to be concerned with.
21 John // Mar 16, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Bored, I’ll stop being coy. I’m pretty sure that I’ve stated elsewhere that I don’t believe in any higher purpose or power in the universe. I don’t discount the possibility that one might exist, but I don’t see enough evidence for one. Culture, psychology, biology and neurology are sufficient at the moment to explain the source of the euphoric/mystical experiences that I’ve had.
So I build on the common element that many of us share: the mystical yearning and experience. You’ll notice that in spite of my atheism, I don’t go out of my way to disprove the existence of God. It’s not a conversation that I feel would be productive. It would emphasize our differences. There are plenty of venues for that kind of discussion. I’m not saying that I want to ignore the differences, but I don’t want to begin with them, or focus on them to the detriment of what we do share.
Back to your item #1: Why the interest if there’s nothing there? And why seek for a community? What’s the point?
Elaine addressed the first question, but I’ll emphasize that it’s enough to me that I have and seek after sublime experiences of connectedness for their own sake, and I value that others have the same sorts of experiences, even if I don’t share the same interpretation.
22 Miko // Mar 16, 2007 at 1:13 pm
My experience has actually been the opposite: when people claim to be “spiritual” it means that they have a very deep connection to Something and that they don’t have the means to describe it, or that doing so would make it profane, or there just aren’t enough hours in the day to explain it all. It has also been my experience, though, that most people who self-identify as “spiritual” but not “religious” get treated by those who self-identify as “religious” as shallow at best, idiots at worst. This seems to be where a lot of atheists fit in (second-hand in the eyes of religious, I mean).
(I’m not trying to pick on you, Johnny, but you brought up s/t that I think deserves additional discussion.)
The elipsis in the quote above removes “sort-of ‘new age’”. I find this problematic as well because it seems to assume that old religions are better for just that reason. I think the great thing about new ageism is that it’s given a lot of people the authority to explore additional religions, even spirituality, without internal stigma. It’s still something you don’t say in polite company: old agers will assume, as above, that you’re either shallow or an idiot; real new agers will think you don’t know what you’re talking about, since that’s not what they call themselves. I came to the new age in a round about way. I still find the best books on subjects that I’m interested in (spirituality, goddess, nature) in the new age section. Sometimes, I feel guilting being seen perusing those sections, like the thought police will find me and try me. But that’s where the most honest (I’ve found) books and authors reside. And on this journey, one follows what signposts one can find.
23 pilgrimgirl // Mar 16, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I will probably be dropping by the Beehive tearoom each afternoon, as I need my daily ritual to feel peace/calm/right with the world. And there’s nothing better than sharing a cuppa with friends! Oh, and I will undoubtedly be doing some dinners at Sage and at One World Cafe. SLC has such groovy hang-out-able restaurants!!
It also looks like I’ll be in SL for MHA during Memorial Day weekend. Shall we plan a linkup then, too??
24 nee // Mar 16, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I have been thinking about how to respond to the post specifically as my personal spirituality is something that has been under my own microscope over the last year and a half. I’m still formulating my response to that. However, I did want to respond to a comment John made. It’s something I’ve thought about since long before I moved past conventional religion.
John, in comment #16 you said, “Culture, psychology, biology and neurology are sufficient at the moment to explain the source of the euphoric/mystical experiences that I‚Äôve had.”
I agree! This is how I look back on my experiences of feeling what I then called The Spirit. I elaborated on that somewhat when reflecting on the promptings I felt to pursue baptism in one of my journey of faith posts.
The frightening part of attributing those experiences to god/religion is how then, can we explain why others have those same experiences leading them to believe that which contradicts what we believe? I got goosebumps at times at church. I also go the same goosebumps at times watching horror movies.
I believed for a long time that The Spirit testified to me that the lds church was true. What then of the person who had the same physical euphoria and seeming confirmation that Jim Harmston or David Koresh were true prophets? What of the person who receives a confirmation, much as Joseph Smith, that no church is correct? Or those who feel a secure comfort that the Buddhists are right or the Catholics or Muslims or Anglicans?
There have been some terrible acts committed in recent years in the name of religion. Many who condemn those acts (rightfully so) don’t seem to get that they revere scriptures in which God allegedly told people of ancient times to kill others. If someone believes God told them to do something, can they be condemned without examining what we think God has told us?
Indeed, is it highly problematic to attribute experiences we can’t explain to supernatural deity. It all begs the question, who is god really talking to? Who’s killing is god sanctioning? Were we made for god or was god made by us to explain these things we cannot and/or justify our actions?
25 PMK // Mar 19, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hmm… A few thoughts.
Asking people to define their terms can start interesting conversations. But I think definitions are often given too much emphasis. Meaning emerges, does its work, and changes through common usage, and often the vagueness or multiple possibilities of reference are part of the usefulness of a term.
“It doesn’t feel like empty. It feels like unknowing.” Thank you.
I find I often prefer the word religious to the word spritual–maybe for two reasons. First, its Latin etymology. As republic is re-public or “things public,” and by extension a healthily public body-politic, religion is re-ligion. “Ligion” like ligament, hence “things tied together,” “things connected.” Religion is, by extension, the place, understanding, and activities by which I, we, the world, the universe and all its parts, are connected, past, present and future. Is the work of religion to recognize and forge healthy connections?
As a young person, and still now, I am attracted to religion because I feel reverence, thankfulness, and a passion for goodness.
Like just about everyone commenting here, I feel the need for lots of room to question traditional religion and just bring lots of questions to life. I value exploratory conversation. But I also miss something in moving away from traditional religion. I miss what in old-fashioned language is called public worship. Taking it to an extreme, I’ll recall a friend, now not a traditional believer, who told me in her believing days that her favorite part of the Catholic service was the creed. Religion–a particular story, rituals, writings, hymms, history or set of beliefs–gives a common language and aspiration to its members. They are then able join together in celebrating and teaching what they see “ties things together.” They can encourage each other to act in fidelity to those relationships.
And I find the Christian story and the Christian aspiration enormously powerful, even as I find parts of it maddening, or simply outside my world-view.
Like John, I currently bring my questions and my reverence to Quaker meeting. There is lots of room for individual questions and individual answers. But there are common aspirations, too. (In fact, it is these common aspirations that make the space for questioning or not knowing or just wondering.) Ethical or social aspirations center around some configuration of love, truth, integrity, peace, brother/sisterhood, harmony with the earth, simplicity, forgiveness, healing, courage. There is a common devotional practice of group silence, turning inwardly to Light, being willing to speak if a word for others is given or found, being willing to listen to words given by or through others. The most commonly offered articulation of a religious belief these days is, a trust that there is “that of God” in every person.
I think this is a fairly accurate portrait of contemporary unprogrammed Friends (Quakers). Quakers have always been pretty stripped down, as Christians go, but this account, and present reality, is even more stripped down–certainly in terms of religious or spiritual beliefs.
Here comes the question. Even I, an unknower, do not wish any further stripping. I do not wish to do away with, or re-write, “that of God.” I hear some using “Spirit” instead of “God,” but I don’t care for the change. (If we were all trinitarians, it wouldn’t matter much–or would matter differently–but we’re not. The impetus for the alternative, here, is different. I think it is in line with the preference many have for “spiritual” over “religious.”) Why don’t I want the change? In part, because I am an unknower and God might be the right answer to what I don’t know. Very importantly, because I don’t want to be cut off from the rich trove of language and story that ties things together through God, in Quaker tradition or more widely. In part (crucially?), because God is an integral part of what makes the Quaker and Christian tradition powerful to me. In part because I would feel like a thief, taking away from more traditionally orthodox Quakers, and future Quakers, the recognition of a common celebration and a common project of fidelity to God.
I do not have this worked out. There are practical issues at stake. I don’t want to drive anyone like John away from Friends, yet I’m not comfortable changing Friends’ traditional language to omit what he and others (and I, in some ways) cannot in integrity affirm. I hope others will feel that this has an interest beyond the Quaker context. The desire to allow open-ended inquiry, yet to be something more than just open as a community, is a broader problem than just a Quaker one. So is the tension between access to tradition–keeping it all available to us–and revision of the tradition in line with a critique or new direction.
The role of language in these matters is powerful. Insistence on particular definitions (of spirituality, religion, or God) or insistence on either avoiding or employing new usages, are likely to be power moves. May they also be legitimate ways a community seeks to keep itself together working on a common project?
So I am glad to see here a discussion of definitions that has focused on sharing perspectives and on appreciative listening.
26 Miko // Mar 20, 2007 at 7:58 am
PMK: I like your reclamation of the word religion & going forward will endeavor to understand the word by your definition when it comes up. As you said, though, to some extent, it doesn’t matter how we define religion. Your “religion” is synonymous with “yoga”: that which unites or unifies. However, since it’s so far opposed to the way that most use the term, I acknowledge that I will have some difficulty changing my perception of it when it is used.
That’s why I try not to use “god”. Most people have an image of “god” as their own and when the word is used, I find that people assume it is meant the same way by the hearer and by the speaker. I don’t use “spirit” because I think that’s the part of “god” that’s a part of all of us. But I do use The Divine, because I find it breaks people out of their assumptions.
Here’s to better understanding (& much better conversations) throught defining!
27 mel // Mar 21, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Trackback to this post here:
Make Believe Words: spirit, spiritual, spirituality, et al
28 mel // Mar 22, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Thanks for the comment on my post, John.
BTW all, I finally got around to doing Watt’s “Misquoting Jesus” assignment for him:
Theological Darwinism: the origin of scriptures
Take a look and let me know what you think. I’ve enjoyed all your reviews.
29 John // Mar 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm
PMK, thank you for this wisdom:
Meaning emerges, does its work, and changes through common usage, and often the vagueness or multiple possibilities of reference are part of the usefulness of a term.
mel, give me a few days to update the Ehrman stuff.
30 VeryAngel » Blog Archive » Make Believe Words: spirit, spiritual, spirituality, et al « ?sah?ttr // Jul 22, 2007 at 3:45 am
[…] Starting with the word “spirit” and its derivatives such as “spirituality”. This in response to a recent post by John Remy which asks the question: “What is Spirituality“? John is an atheist who often uses the word “spirituality” as a catch-all label for some of the ineffable experiences that many, if not all, humans have in common. The problem identified by John and others in the comments: the word has way too much meaning stemming from its common usage among the religious. […]
Leave a Comment