While I am laying down the law regarding the proper usage of controversial words, allow me to express a few thoughts about spirituality.
P.Z. Myers gave this post, in which he comments on the awarding of the Templeton Prize, the following title: “Spirituality?” Another Word for Lies and Empty Noise.
Mark Chu-Carroll took a different view, in this post:
So what do I mean when I say spirituality? There's something more to my life than just a bunch of chemical reactions. I love my wife. I care about other people. I core about the way the world is, and work for things that I think will make it a better place. These things - these emotions, desires, concerns - they may well be nothing more than emergent phenomena resulting from the basic physical and chemical processes that I am a part of. But for my own experience of my life, even if they are nothing more than an illusion, they seem real - as real as other abstractions like free will, morality, and other such things.
Mike Dunford expresses similar thoughts in this post:
For me, the word “spirituality” includes that special sense of wonder and awe that arrives at unpredictable moments. I can't come within a country mile of an adequate description of the feeling, but I suspect that I'm not the only one who has experienced something like it.
Awe and wonder are not really things I feel very much, so I don't have much of an opinion on Mike's view of the matter. I recognize myself in Mark's description (well, I'm not married, but you get the idea). On the other hand, I would not describe an awareness of such feelings as “spirituality.”
I tend to agree with several of Mark's commenters that this is really a definitional issue. If Mike and Mark want to define spirituality the way they do, they are welcome to do so. Personally I tend to see things pretty much the way P.Z. does. There are uses of the word that are measured and sensible, but most of the time when the word comes up you should be on your guard.
For example, my local bookstore has a Spirituality section. The books shelved there are wall-to-wall nonsense. For me what comes to mind when I hear the word is some sort of vague, watered-down pseudoreligion along the lines of Deepak Chopra. It probably involves a lot of praise for quantum mechanics and a lot of criticism for ignorant materialist atheist types.
Allow me to close with an anecdote. A few years ago I was sitting in Palmer Square in Princeton, NJ. In one hand I had a sub from Hoagie Haven, which for my non-Princeton based readers means it was a very good sub indeed. In the other hand was a copy of the new issue of Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. There was an icy cold bottle of Stewart's Root Beer on the table in front of me. The Sun was shining, the birds were chirping. Life was good.
Then I noticed two gentlemen approaching the group of tables where I was sitting. One was carrying a large camera, the other looked like a reporter of some kind. They were going from table to table, talking to the people sitting there for a few minutes and then moving on to the next one. From the way the tables were laid out it was clear I would be the last one they would come to.
Finally they worked there way over to me. Reporter guy sat down and gave me a brethtakingly serious look. He explained that he was working on a special for an obscure cable channel called Odyssey. Then he said, “I'd like to talk to you about a subject that many people find difficult to discuss.” I was intrigued, but said nothing. “I want to talk about spirituality.”
“Okay,” I replied, scarfing another bite of that most excellent sandwich. His look growing, if possible, even more serious, he said, “Do you consider yourself a spiritual person.”
“No,” I replied.
He seemed a bit taken back of the bluntness of, and lack of hesitation in, my answer.
“Really,” he said, sounding surprised. “Why not?”
I said, “Well, I've never seen any evidence that would lead me to believe that there is anything beyond the material world we see around us. I don't see any particular reason to think that God exists or that any particular relgion has much to offer in terms of understanding the world.”
Then he pounced. “Ah! I didn't say religion. I asked about spirituality.”
“Then you'll have to explain to me what you have in mind,” I said. “To me spirituality and religion are very similar.”
“I mean things like feeling one with nature, or having a mystical experience.”
“Well,” I said. “I think those are really just nonsense phrases people use but that don't really mean anything.”
He laughed at that and we chatted for a few more moments. Then he moved on. My views on the matter haven't changed since that interview was done.
And I never found it if my remarks made it into the final cut.
Comments
I always fall back on the Salman Rushdie view of that word. I find it works quite well for me.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | March 16, 2007 12:20 AM
Jason: "Awe and wonder are not really things I feel very much"
I'm puzzled, then, about what you FEEL from doing mathematics. Can't math be beautiful? Does a really deep mathematical truth make you feel a sense of wonder? I use "sense of wonder" in the way it is also used to describe the feeling from reading good science fiction.
I know that most mathematical discourse is on very precise denotaion, but I am asking you for the atmospherics, the emotion, the connotation.
Some Mathematicians feel that they are engaged in a spiritual act when they do Mathematics.
In extreme cases, they claim to have gotten the Math from Goddess (Ramanujan) or God ("Proofs from the Book" -- Erdos). Setting aside the religiosity, which provkes more heat than light in the Science Blogs lately, what drives you to do Math? Surely not the money?
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | March 16, 2007 12:59 AM
This is actually something I've been wrestling with a lot.
I do sometimes experience something that sure sounds like what religious people call a mystical or religious experience -- a feeling of transcendence and epiphany, an experience of being intimately connected with the vastness of space and time, a sense (to paraphrase something I once wrote in a porn novel) of being "filled with the immensity of the moment, the clear understanding that infinity and eternity are present in this minuscule sliver that is my life." A fleeting moment when the chatterer in my brain shuts up for a few seconds, and I'm really and truly present in my life.
In fact, one of the few things that bugs me about being an atheist is that there's no place to share that experience with other like-minded people and where we can help one another experience it. (I keep threatening to start an atheist church one of these days... but I suspect I'd probably just be re-inventing Unitarianism...)
And if someone wants to call that experience "spirituality," then as long as they don't act like jerks, I ultimately don't care very much.
But it does bug me somewhat. Because I think calling that experience "spiritual" implies that it has something to do with spirit -- i.e., the ghost in the machine, a metaphysical substance inhabiting the body, rather than an aspect of consciousness as it's created by the brain and the rest of the body.
And I think identifying the experience of transcendence and epiphany with metaphysics does make it subject to a whole host of goofy bullshit nonsense -- the stuff Jason talks about when he talks about the Spirituality section of the bookstore. Crystals and past lives and all the rest of it. And while I think that stuff's not as harmful as, say, the Christian Right or the Taliban, it can be somewhat harmful, and it does still bug me.
Posted by: Greta Christina | March 16, 2007 2:57 AM
Greta: Then you might be interested in Susan Blackmore's career and writings. Also, there's nothing wrong with wanting to experience such feelings as an atheist (sorta like taking drugs).
However, I do object to phrases like "being connected with the universe and eternity, infinity, etc." as they don't mean anything to me except in porn novels.
Posted by: Koray | March 16, 2007 3:46 AM
Happy James Madison's birthday!
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 16, 2007 8:34 AM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 16, 2007 8:39 AM
The most "spiritual" food in my diet is probably the suan la chow show at Mary Chung's. Like Purgatory, it'll burn your sins away. Follow it up with the Yu Hsiang eggplant. . . ooh. . . .
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 16, 2007 8:59 AM
I think it's all about the interpretation of the feelings that are being described. I've had moments in my life where I've had perfect clearity, or I've felt what I could only describe as nirvana, or I've seen something just incredibly amazing... but I've never felt the need to connect those things to something external. Some sort of higher power or put them in some sort of spiritual context. They were just wonderful moments in my life.
Event during moments when I've had some passing fancy about the interconnectedness of life... or felt really connected to other people. I've never felt the need to evoke some higher power. Life is amazing and astounding, that's the end of story.
I think once you get an appriciation for how absolutely incredibly the Universe and life really is... you really don't need to ascribe these moments and emotions to something as nebulous and as fleeting as spirituality.
Posted by: Ben | March 16, 2007 10:13 AM
Greta Christina:
This sums up my feelings pretty well. It also inspires (innuminates?) me to break out the Alan Sokal:
References for the percentages can be found in the original paper (from 2004).
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 16, 2007 11:59 AM
Seems Rushdie has his act together as usual.
Though epiphanies are feelings that can pop up when I grasp new things and sense of wonder when methods work, I don't consider these personal experiences as different from other similar.
There is another word, quite beautiful, that captures a different and important quality though. That word is "freethought".
Now I wonder why Rob Knop didn't want to use that word?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 16, 2007 1:01 PM
I do agree that the word "spirituality" is overused. I'm not sure, however, if there needs to be a different word for tarot and crystals or if there needs to be different word for that hint a person gets from time to time that there may be something beyond what we can see.
The poster says, "I've never seen any evidence..." When I was an undergrad, to fulfill my "Arts and Letters" requirement, I took one philosophy class - on the philosophy of religion. One of the essays assigned essentially asked the question, "Can my spiritual experience convince you to believe?" Of course the class (nor the essay) answered the question, but my personal response was "No." I'm a devout agnostic and every description I've ever gotten of "being saved" or communing with spirits has made me screw up my mouth and say, "Ok..."
But every once in awhile when I'm in the forest by myself, I wonder if I can hear the trees or hear words in the wind in the trees. It's of course absurd and I expect the same reaction from you that I give to others. It's at the edge of my hearing - like hearing a siren from far away and not knowing whether or not it's a siren or a ringing in your ears. If you haven't experienced it, you will not ever be convinced. It may only be a trick of cognition - like seeing Jesus' face in smoke - but it being a trick of cognition doesn't necessarily say it's without meaning. It's from within that question - does it or does it not have meaning - that spirituality comes.
Posted by: allison | March 16, 2007 1:18 PM
It strikes me as peculiarly intriguing that those who practice Scientism as if it were a religion are loath to acknowledge that there are objective and subjective experiences and that Science is unlikely ever to explain or understand subjectivity. By its very nature, Scientism must cleave to the objectively provable in the world and in experience. And that is as it should be.
If it is true that one must account for the influence of the observer on the observed -- as I think is for the moment at least settled science -- then the very nature of that influence must become a subject of scientific interest. Absent a demonstration that this influence is due entirely to a measurable physical force that is connected to chemical or other physical functions in the body, it seems to me that one must consider the issue of consciousness. Many scientists today are investigating that very subject...and finding it to lie outside the realm of the objective which is subject to measurement and detection, and to the "rational" explanations to which such tangible forces are subject.
For me, the real fascination lies in the points of convergence where modern science, particularly quantum physics, meets ancient mystical teaching and tradition in ways that increase the experiential and explanatory value of both.
This need not be an "either-or" situation. It can be "both-and." Scientism is no more entitled to absolutism than is spirituality.
Posted by: dan | March 16, 2007 1:41 PM
"Distinctly middle-brow. "
At least it wasn't Barq's.
Posted by: KeithB | March 16, 2007 2:56 PM
Whatever your personal feelings toward "spirituality", its clear that people have unique experiences that they call spiritual, and its well-documented that these experiences correlate with a specific type of brain state. Zen and the Brain, a serious scientific book published by MIT Press, considers these mystical experiences. Some of the more interesting findings are that "oneness" experiences are caused because the sensation of "I"-ness, that there is a "me" that sits somewhere behind my eyes is a kind of illusion that can be shut off by using one's attention in certain ways. Using one's attention in this way through meditation results in permanent, usually beneficial changes to the brains of long-term meditators. All of this is discussed free from any spiritual speculations, which is in keeping with the Zen tradition, which discourages metaphysical speculation of any sort.
Posted by: mike-2 | March 16, 2007 3:31 PM
I'm with you, Jason. Awe and wonder are not things I experience much either. Magnificent sunsets, snow-capped mountains, warm breezes off the Pacific, all leave me cold. I wish I was a good spiritual person so I could enjoy life and appreciate the oneness of the universe. But no, I'm condemned to the tedious, unfeeling life of a skeptic. I'm going to go to my windowless room now. I'm wearing black.
Posted by: Richard | March 16, 2007 6:06 PM
Awe and wonder are not really things I feel very much.
Magnificent sunsets, snow-capped mountains, warm breezes off the Pacific, all leave me cold.
Sounds a bit like being color-blind.
Posted by: Michael Glenn | March 16, 2007 7:36 PM
Richard:
Actually, I just bought (from Cambridge's Garment District, the "alternative department store") a pair of black pants, a black belt and a black trenchcoat to go with my black shirt, so I can attend my friends' cyberpunk party.
I also picked up a pair of mirrorshades at the pharmacy.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 16, 2007 7:56 PM
This is actually one of the reasons I suspect, though am not completely convinced, that one's propensity toward atheism or religionism has some sort of neuro-genetic basis. I remember Razib referring to himself as a "cold atheist", which pretty much means that one is impervious to the emotive instrumentations of religion. When people talk about the awe and wonder or epiphanies they feel at certain moments, it's hard for me to empathize. JVP asked Jason about feeling "awe and wonder" at mathematics. As someone going down that particular road myself, I can say that I wouldn't describe my feelings as "awe and wonder". I have a certain aesthetic enthusiasm for it, but in general I'm averse to romanticism. I actually find it kind of discomforting at times.
An example of how "cold" I am the things like "spirituality": When Jason started talking about the sandwitch, I got distracted. I just happen to be eating a ginni-grinder from Amato's right now, and getting vegetable oil all over my keyboard. ;)
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 16, 2007 9:40 PM
Here is MY definition: What would be left of religion if the dogma were removed.
That may not be the best definition, but I think it is better than yours.
Posted by: gary | March 17, 2007 2:24 AM
I think those are really just nonsense phrases people use but that don't really mean anything
As are "scientism" and "quantum physics", as used by proponents of spirituality.
I too was distracted by the sandwich as I recall fondly my last great one from that part of the world. My leftover chinese I'm eating right now just isn't the same. And my answers to the reporters questions would have been the same as Jason's.
Although I love the mountains and am fascinated by music, I wouldn't call my experience with them one of awe and wonder.
My take on the term "spirituality" is that its a term used by people who like the warm fuzzy feeling traditional religion can give, and they are attracted to the notion of "something greater than ourselves", but they are not interested in being ignorant and dogmatic about it.
Posted by: MarkP | March 17, 2007 3:41 PM
Dan: "If it is true that one must account for the influence of the observer on the observed -- as I think is for the moment at least settled science -- then the very nature of that influence must become a subject of scientific interest."
AAAAAAAARGH!
This has been bugging me ever since I read it. This is only true on the quantam level. It is NOT true on the human, macro level -- except in the very broad psychological sense that people sometimes act differently when they know they're being watched.
Sorry for the scream. But New Agers going ga-ga over quantam mechanics when they don't understand the first thing about it just drives me up a tree. (I'll freely admit that I don't really understand quantam mechanics either -- but I don't pretend to.)
"Science is unlikely ever to explain or understand subjectivity."
First: On what basis do you make that claim? Science has advanced -- and radically altered -- our understanding in an immense variety of fields once considered to be permanently mysterious. I don't see why subjectivity and consciousness shouldn't eventually be one of them. The fact that science can't currently explain a phenomenon doesn't mean it never will.
Second: When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands and thousands of supernatural/ spiritual/ religious explanations being replaced -- successfully and incontrovertibly -- with naturalistic ones.
And how many times have supernatural/ spiritual/ religious explanations of a phenomenon successfully and incontrovertibly replaced a naturalistic one? Exactly zero.
Given that track record, it seems more likely, by several orders of magnitude, that any given unexplained phenomenon -- such as consciousness -- has a naturalistic explanation rather than a spiritual one, even if we don't currently know what it is.
There's a wonderful quote on this subject in a recent New Yorker article ("Two Heads," by Larissa MacFarquhar, 2/12/2007) by philosopher Patricia Churchland, talking about our current understanding of consciousness.
"'Suppose you're a medieval physicist wondering about the burning of wood,' Pat likes to say in her classes. 'You're Albertus Magnus, let's say. One night, a Martian comes down and whispers, "Hey, Albertus, the burning of wood is really rapid oxidation!" What could he do? He knows no structural chemistry, he doesn't know what oxygen is, he doesn't know what an element is -- he couldn't make any sense of it. And if some fine night that same omniscient Martian came down and said, "Hey, Pat, consciousness is really blesjeakahgjfdl!" I would be similarly confused, because
neuroscience is just not far enough along.'"
Posted by: Greta Christina | March 18, 2007 6:15 PM
Greta Christina:
Finally, some company in my tree!
One of the main triumphs of quantum physics in the last half-century — really, since Dieter Zeh's work in 1970 — has been to reduce the glory which must be accorded to "conscious observers". Once upon a time, one could have claimed that it took consciousness to turn quantum strangeness into a solid, classical world, but now we know that jittering molecules can do the job without the need for an emergent mind. As Tegmark and Wheeler say, "Loosely speaking, decoherence calculations show that you don't need a human observer to get this effect — even an air molecule will suffice."
Quantum physics indicates that at the sub-atomic, atomic and sometimes molecular levels, Nature is fundamentally probabilistic. When we deal with things that small — and we're talking about things less than one ten-billionth of a meter across, here — we can only make statements about likelihoods. Complete knowledge seems forever out of our grasp, through no fault of our own, and yet was that kind of total information ever necessary? Incomplete understanding is a staple of life. Somehow, more or less, we deal with it. At least here in Massachusetts, for example, neither men nor women understand their wives, yet the institution of marriage goes trundling on. Likewise, the discovery of the quantum laws did not make physics implode in upon itself (quite the contrary), nor has it had to make room for mystical notions of some sacred subjectivity.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 18, 2007 7:33 PM
Scienceblogs seems to hate leaving cookies with me...
The current Skeptic, vol 13 #1, has
" The Origin of Superstition, Magical Thinking & Paranormal Beliefs: An Integrative Model by Marjaana Lindeman and Kia Aarnio"
It takes the ideas bouncing around about folk physics, psychology, and biology in human brains, and suggests that superstitious beliefs come from confusing the domains: mentalizing the physical, physicalizing or biologizing the mental. I.e. attributing mental states to non-animals, thinking of souls or emotions like love as persistent substances, applying contamination ideas to mental states (such as modern Westerners becoming reluctant to wear a sweater if told it was worn by a serial killer, or conversely getting excited if told a pen was used by Einstein.) They also talk about the attribution of purpose to random events, and very briefly about the whole "everything's connected"/"everything shares an essence" thing.
Posted by: Damien | March 28, 2007 4:50 PM
All this awe and wonder talk... I don't know.
I have a feeling that if I could "get inside the mind" of some of the commenters here, I would figure out that what they are talking about is omething I experience every now and then, and consider nice but no big deal.
Nonetheless, those phrases like "I've had moments in my life where I've had perfect clearity" or "an experience of being intimately connected with the vastness of space and time"; I have absolutely no idea what those could possibly mean, and they seem to hint at thoughts or emotions that are alien to me.
There are people I love, and things I like, and ideas that fascinate me, but beyond that... is there even a "beyond that"?
Posted by: valhar2000 | March 29, 2007 8:53 AM