…and this is a 
A 'spirituality' query
Category: Personal
Posted on: January 27, 2007 11:20 AM, by PZ Myers
I recently got a short email interview on the subject of science and spirituality. Now I should warn you: "spirituality" is one of those words that sets my teeth on edge and triggers a reflexive reach for my kukri. It's an empty buzzword that some people use as a placeholder for "deep feelings of connectedness to the universe", but that I read as "mindless blithering; brains on the fritz", so I respond to questions like that with an immediate rejection of the premise. The writer seemed like a nice person, though, and the questions are well-intentioned, so after barking out my answers I thought maybe the gang here would like to take a stab (or a slash, or a poke, or a bludgeon) at them, too. Go ahead, answer them yourselves in the comments, or on your own blog.
1.) Would you consider yourself a spiritual person?
2.) We hear time and time again of the disputes between the scientific and religious communities, what is your response to the phenomenon of scientists exploring their own spirituality?
3.) Dr. Charles T. Tart established an online journal dedicated to scientists who wish to share their own personal transcendent experiences in confidence, known as TASTE. Many feel that they would be shunned by the scientific community if they shared their experiences with their colleagues, are you surprised by this?
4.) Do you feel that a scientist can be spiritual? Why is this?
5.) What do you say to some scientists who claim that a strong sense of spirituality and morality are essential in your line of work?
6.) Do you think that this phenomenon could pose a threat to the scientific community, when one considers the current religious climate in the U.S?
7.) Finally, have you ever had an experience that you could not scientifically explain? If so, what was it?
I've put my answers below the fold. Warning: there is a little profanity (I told you that 'spirituality' irritates me.)
1.) Would you consider yourself a spiritual person?
No, definitely not.
2.) We hear time and time again of the disputes between the scientific and religious communities, what is your response to the phenomenon of scientists exploring their own spirituality?
There is an assumption here, that there is something to explore. I do not believe in the existence of spirits, of any kind of essence beyond the natural world, in the supernatural. Scientists can try to explore anything they want, but it's something of a waste of time to explore something that isn't there.
People have been poking around in this subject as long as there have been people. There has been no support of the spirituality hypothesis: it is the very definition of a failed, fruitless research program.
3.) Dr. Charles T. Tart established an online journal dedicated to scientists who wish to share their own personal transcendent experiences in confidence, known as TASTE. Many feel that they would be shunned by the scientific community if they shared their experiences with their colleagues, are you surprised by this?
No. I don't think the manifest Scientific Community would actually go so far as to shun, but I imagine They might roll Their collective eyes and sigh despairingly at such a silly pursuit.
There are some, of course, who would think it was kind of cool. The Scientific Community is not a monolith.
4.) Do you feel that a scientist can be spiritual? Why is this?
No, because spirituality is bunk. I think that some scientists can have an emotional attachment to ideas and objects, a sensation that they can call 'spiritual' — it does not interfere with their work unless they go off the deep end and start believing that their internal mental states necessarily reflect an external reality beyond the physical.
5.) What do you say to some scientists who claim that a strong sense of spirituality and morality are essential in your line of work?
"Fuck that noise."
Seriously, though, I disagree strongly. Science is not a spiritual or moral enterprise, so it's absurd to suggest that they are requirements. Spirituality is fluff and nonsense, so I'll pass on that. Morality is different — it is a required and good thing for human life and interactions in society. It does not, however, require spirituality. More often than not, spirituality seems to be used as an excuse to circumvent moral behavior.
6.) Do you think that this phenomenon could pose a threat to the scientific community, when one considers the current religious climate in the U.S?
Yes, even without considering the religious climate. Religion and its fuzzier sister spirituality represent the antithesis of good scientific thinking; they rely on dogma, superstition, and the uncritical acceptance of unevidenced phenomena. When we are training future scientists, we should not be endorsing bad, unscientific thinking.
7.) Finally, have you ever had an experience that you could not scientifically explain? If so, what was it?
Yes, many. The first mitotic division I made as a zygote is incompletely defined scientifically — scientists wouldn't be interested in cytological processes if they could all be scientifically explained. It's why we're in this business, because we love the interesting questions and the pursuit of the answer.
That something is incompletely explained by science does not imply, however, that fairies did it.
Comments
Gee PZ,
And all along I thought you were this nice, mellow guy. You know, like a ... college professor.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | January 27, 2007 11:29 AM
You have a kukri!? Seriously, I only know what that is because of playing D&D. And from that standpoint I have to say that outside of serious roleplaying considerations you could have chosen a much more effective weapon. It does I suppose give some uniqueness (not a real word... I know, but I'm using it anyway) to your choice of weapons, but if you want to work on your "scary" persona I suggest you go for the spiked chain, or the double axe.
Better intimidation factor. People are less scared when you have to explain to them what a kukri is first.
Posted by: Robert | January 27, 2007 11:33 AM
Intimidate? Explain? Clearly, you don't know what that knife is for.
Read up on the history of the British Empire, and especially the Ghurka tribes of Nepal. You want scary fierce, there's where you'll find it.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 27, 2007 11:40 AM
"More often than not, spirituality seems to be used as an excuse to circumvent moral behavior."
BINGO
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 27, 2007 11:41 AM
I have had many experiences which I could not explain scientifically. This is only to be expected, since both the state of science and my knowledge of it are limited. However, I have never had an experience which I could explain "spiritually", in the sense that a nebulous collection of words — the essence of "spiritual explanations" — has ever risen to the standards of rigor and usefulness satisfied by scientific explanations.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 27, 2007 11:53 AM
I would modify the answer to number five to this extent. In one way morality is necessary for science to progress. Scientists have a moral - ethical would probably be a better word - responsibility to report their results truthfully and accurately even when, hell, especially when those results conflict with their own and societies deepest held beliefs. However, that moral obligation has no connection to mouldering manuscripts of the toilet regulations of ancient desert dwellers.
Posted by: justawriter | January 27, 2007 11:54 AM
I'd have to second that idea that "spirituality" is used as an excuse to circumvent morality. I was talking about morality and religion with my sweetie last night, and I had a revelation (pun intended). I'm sure it's not original, but it was to me, anyway. It was a realization that the more socially abhorrent an idea is, the more likely it is to be propped up by religion. Is it personally, morally acceptable to shun, abuse, and discriminate against someone just because they choose to sleep with someone of the same sex? No, there is no general moral argument that anyone can make to support this. But the bible says it's so!! So therefore I can support my immoral behavior by saying "it's what god wants." Should women be granted equal rights and privileges in all societies? Sure!! But many religions refuse to recognize women as equal (catholic church and female priests? islam and codes of dress/behavior?). I'm not saying all religious people do this, but if you see a morally reprehensible, indefensible position that has taken hold in any society, you can bet that the rationale for it is that "god (or allah, or vishnu, or odin) wants it that way."
Posted by: rjb | January 27, 2007 11:54 AM
If I recall, the kukri was used by the leader of a Gurkha war party to sever the head of a buffalo with a single strike. This was supposed to sanctify their militaristic outings.
Of course, I don't think I read that in a reputable history book or anything, so take it as you will. But I think you see a similar buffalo sacrifice in "Apocalypse Now".
Posted by: False Prophet | January 27, 2007 12:03 PM
1.) Would you consider yourself a spiritual person?
No, definitely not.
You apparently have a very narrow view of spirituality.
One can be an atheist (or agnostic) and still consider oneself "spiritual".
In fact, I would go so far as to say that "spirituality" is hard-wired into the brain at birth (mainly on the right side). You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that human beings have a sense of unity or connection with all other living creatures. This unity of life is the very essence of biology without which nothing else makes sense. It is not evolution that gives meaning to biology, it is this sense that we're all cut from the same cloth, that there is a profound underlying unity and a desire to make sense of our self and our place in the universe.
Sprituality manifests itself in two phases. The first phase involves the growth of self and the understanding of our place in the greater universe. The second phase is using this understanding to manifest changes in the physical environment that we live in that are consistent with this new understanding.
This process is manifested in humans as growth, experience and maturity, a process that every human being undergoes as one proceeds from birth to death. Spirituality is an essential component of one's holistic health and mental well-being. To deny spirituality is to deny one's humanity. It does not require a belief in any supernatural beings or "fairies" it only requires an understanding and acceptance of the complexity and organization of the human brain.
Posted by: Sugarbear | January 27, 2007 12:09 PM
rjb said: "It was a realization that the more socially abhorrent an idea is, the more likely it is to be propped up by religion."
I tend to agree, but I'd make it "by religion or tradition." Not all abhorrent "traditional" behaviors are based on religion, although most are. Of course, tradition is no better a justification than religion is.
Posted by: chezjake | January 27, 2007 12:18 PM
Sugarbear:
I don't agree with much of what you say ("sprituality is hard-wired into the brain at birth--on the right side??). But that's a different issue. I think that scientists need to avoid the "s" word, because even though it can be used to explain the completely natural connectedness we all feel to our environment, that is not the way it is interpreted by others, perhaps most people. If you say you are "spiritual", most people will assume that that means you believe in some sort of supernatural power or energy that cannot be explained by scientific, naturalistic phenomena. That is not denying that the personal spiritual experience exists. But we cannot use a word, or other language, that will cause misunderstandings.
I used to say that I was a "spiritual, but not religous" person years ago because I always felt an amazing sense of place when being out in nature. But I realized that what I meant by that term was not what others meant by that term, so I have stopped using it. If people ask me if I'm spiritual, I pretty much echo PZ's comments of "No, definitely not" as quickly and clearly as possible.
Posted by: rjb | January 27, 2007 12:18 PM
I'd say the operative word is "wonderment," as opposed to "spirituality." By which I mean I think scientists -- like most people -- are capable of (in fact motivated by) a sense of wonder at how marvelous and complex the world is. How exciting each new discovery is. That's a real and conceivably definable sensation/condition/trait. To morph the concept into "spirituality" is to attribute all to make-believe stuff. The one needn't imply the other.
Posted by: Sid Schwab | January 27, 2007 12:19 PM
Your evidence for this remarkable claim that 'spirituality' is hard-wired into the brain is...?
I notice that the rest of your comment is the same meaningless noise I always get from the fans of 'spirituality': "growth" (what is growing?), "process" (what is the process?), "holistic" (another term used incorrectly -- it assumes spirituality is a part of a whole).
I assure you I am well aware of the complexity and organization of the human brain -- probably more so than most of the proponents of 'spirituality'. I do not see any virtue in labeling any aspect of it with an over-used, vague to the point of uselessness term that also implies a whole lot of nonsensical interpretations.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 27, 2007 12:20 PM
Let's take a stab. My replies interspersed in bold:
1.) Would you consider yourself a spiritual person?
No.
2.) We hear time and time again of the disputes between the scientific and religious communities, what is your response to the phenomenon of scientists exploring their own spirituality?
What would that exploration entail? If they feel a deep oneness with the cosmos on saturday afternoons I couldn't care less, if they base research decisions on conversations with "spirits" I have a problem.
3.) Dr. Charles T. Tart established an online journal dedicated to scientists who wish to share their own personal transcendent experiences in confidence, known as TASTE. Many feel that they would be shunned by the scientific community if they shared their experiences with their colleagues, are you surprised by this?
No.
4.) Do you feel that a scientist can be spiritual? Why is this?
I feel? Undeniably, there are scientists who claim to be spiritual people - what more is there to say?
5.) What do you say to some scientists who claim that a strong sense of spirituality and morality are essential in your line of work?
I'd tell them to mind their own business.
6.) Do you think that this phenomenon could pose a threat to the scientific community, when one considers the current religious climate in the U.S?
A threat to the scientific community? In social terms, spiritual-minded scientists are probably an asset - they make science more palatable to religious laypeople. It could pose a threat to scientific progress, since spirituality tends to go hand in hand with fuzzy thinking.
7.) Finally, have you ever had an experience that you could not scientifically explain? If so, what was it?
Strictly speaking, I suppose that, given my lacking understanding of neuropsychology, I've never had an experience that I could scientifically explain. This would seem utterly unconnected to "spirituality", however, unless we're to equate spirituallity=ignorance.
Posted by: Nescio | January 27, 2007 12:21 PM
I wouldn't say that I was 'spiritual' in any sense that implied dualism. To me, 'spirituality' is an attitude that emphasizes unity, connection, relationship, communion with the natural world and (of course) each other.
I think this sense of 'spirituality' is entirely consonant with the pursuit of science...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 27, 2007 12:23 PM
Doggerel #9.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 27, 2007 12:26 PM
Spirituality is a word that has been pre-empted by religion and is therefore useless for reality-based living. Your word "connectedness" is much better, yet still misses the mark if it implies that some kind of rope connects humanity on one side to the universe on the other.
We are embedded in and part of the universe and we can choose to explore how our thoughts and emotions relate to it -- if we can find time in our cellphone-email-television lives.
Posted by: June | January 27, 2007 12:26 PM
I suppose the problem in a nutshell is that "spirituality" gets conflated with "awe and wonder at the mysteries of the universe". There's plenty of real things to be awed by without having to make more of them up.
Posted by: dzd | January 27, 2007 12:34 PM
sugarbear wrote:
You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that human beings have a sense of unity or connection with all other living creatures.
If I have a sense of unity or connectedness with nematodes and ginkgos I must be really good at denying it.
Be that as it may, what I really want to know is how you have established this fact. Maybe it's true, but how do you know it?
Posted by: Nescio | January 27, 2007 12:35 PM
There seems to be an awful lot of discussion over a word no one has yet bothered to define. It's like arguing about God. Nobody ever sets a working definition to be debated and just assumes that their understanding of what the word spiritual means is the same as everyone else's.
To me, being spiritual is the same as having an orgasm. Your brain shuts down and you get a wonderful sense of euphoria. And then you moan really loudly. Think I'm joking? Watch a pentecostal service sometime. Those people are having orgasms.
Posted by: Todd Adamson | January 27, 2007 12:36 PM
I don't think this is a good way to phrase metaphysical questions. "Are you [insert word of indefinite meaning]?" doesn't tell you a whole lot about someone. It would be more informative to ask expansive questions. For instance, how do you view your place in the universe? Instead of asking for a label, you are asking for an opinion.
Posted by: Matt Ray | January 27, 2007 12:41 PM
I'm with Todd. Idon't think it is possible to answer these questions without knowing what how questioner defines "spirituality". I am surprised PZ answered them. What did the questioner mean by spirituality that led PZ to answer definitely not? How do you know?
Posted by: homer | January 27, 2007 12:45 PM
Hmm... I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and say that I am a spiritual person, as long as 'spirituality' is defined as 'acknowledging or experiencing something greater than yourself.'
This sounds a little flakey to most of y'all, I'm sure, but it's only meant to capture the feeling of wonder I get when standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon (to find the perfect cliche), looking at the detail of things too small to see, or things to big to comprehend. Even thinking about science gives me this reaction a lot of times. I think of it as the same thing Einstein would have called the work of God and Feynman talked about so many times.
I have an emotional response to a lot of wonderful things in nature (and science) that I would label 'spiritual,' but I agree that the word has been taken over by a lot of very loopy people and probably means something far different to most.
Maybe we should coin a new word for that feeling that a lot of scientists have when faced with natural wonders.
Posted by: Lindsay | January 27, 2007 12:46 PM
"Religion and its fuzzier sister spirituality represent the antithesis of good scientific thinking; they rely on dogma, superstition, and the uncritical acceptance of unevidenced phenomena" PZ
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it - even if I have said it - unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~Buddha
Posted by: Mary Jones | January 27, 2007 12:46 PM
The most cogent usage of the term spirituality I ever come across is people explaining the ability to vary your sense of individuality, with lowering/removing it the pinnacle of spirituality.
It's not spirituality, though, it's just altering your state of consciousness. From what I've heard, it's a fulfilling emotional experience, but why pollute the matter by turning to loaded terms like 'spirituality'?
It seems like the whole "knowing why the sky is blue makes it uglier" meme peeople drudge up to try and make willful ignorance seem defensible...
Posted by: Gordon Stephens | January 27, 2007 12:53 PM
I think that scientists need to avoid the "s" word, because even though it can be used to explain the completely natural connectedness we all feel to our environment, that is not the way it is interpreted by others, perhaps most people. If you say you are "spiritual", most people will assume that that means you believe in some sort of supernatural power or energy that cannot be explained by scientific, naturalistic phenomena. rjb
Oh, so we've allowed religious creationists to hijack the concept of intelligent design, andd now we're going to allow them to hijack the concept of spirituality?
Where does it end?
Posted by: Sugarbear | January 27, 2007 12:57 PM
(troll on)
"Morality is different -- it is a required and good thing for human life and interactions in society."
Wow. Spirituality isn't real (no argument there, by definition) but there exists some magical thing called "Morality"? Which magical pixies bestowed this wondrous property on you/humankind? What are your (note "your", not "the", I assume this morality isn't some universal truth as such a thing would be dangerously close to invoking you know what) central tenets of this "Morality"? Was your personal "morality" the result to nature or nurture? Are flowers moral? Ants? My morals say that all humans should drive lexus cars and eat caviar from endangered whales, prove I'm wrong.
"Fuck that noise." Case in point, there is no such thing as morality, you can tell from knee-jerk responses from jackasses (and I say that in the kindest way) like yourself.
Nature red in tooth and claw for teh win.
(troll off)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | January 27, 2007 1:01 PM
My stepmother used to say to me, "But you're spiritual..." because of my love of nature, writing about it and just appreciating it, I suppose. She has some idea similar to yours, but the words, spirituality, spiritualism and spiritual have very much to do with spirits, otherworldliness, and religion - there's no getting around that. I think Sid Schwab's comment above is spot on.
I prefer to be "earthy" - ultimately. The best description is a sensuous approach to life. I'm certainly not much influenced by the spiritual, but the physical inspires. Fun to ponder and discuss, but at the end of the day I want my rock.
Posted by: Observer | January 27, 2007 1:04 PM
So, PZ. What do you think of auras, seances, and the healing power of crystals?
(Ducking beneath the swipe of the kukri.)
;-)
Posted by: Russell | January 27, 2007 1:04 PM
Russell,
Be careful! We all know PZ's really fucking fast with that kukri!
MikeG
Posted by: MikeG | January 27, 2007 1:20 PM
Coward: morality can clearly be seen in action. It is a generally agreed apon code of conduct, a set of often-unwritten rules, and a willingness from individuals to follow those rules.
You think this isn't real? Have you ever interacted with humans before?
Where humans exist, morality exists.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | January 27, 2007 1:25 PM
Oh, so we've allowed religious creationists to hijack the concept of intelligent design, andd now we're going to allow them to hijack the concept of spirituality?
Where does it end?
Well, ID isn't scientific, so they can have it. Since spirituality isn't scientific, it doesn't apply either. Are some scientists "spiritual?" Yes. But if they let their spiritual beliefs bias their research in any way, they aren't good scientists. Hence the complete and utter failing of ID.
Posted by: Robster | January 27, 2007 1:33 PM
"Spirituality" is for those who are too chicken shit to call themselves atheists or who find reality too salty and bad for their blood pressure.
Posted by: Retired Catholic | January 27, 2007 1:35 PM
sugarbear:
I am confused. Please provide a solid, non-circular definition of spirituality.
Posted by: John Marley | January 27, 2007 1:38 PM
Georges Bataille, the French philosopher, novelist, and pornographer, used to talk about the "job" of a word, not what it means or what it refers to but what it is used for. Like many other theological words, spirituality doesn't have very much to offer on a conceptual level--nobody is very interested in specifying what it denotes--but many people obviously find it useful.
Sometimes people appeal to spirituality as a way of complaining about the narrowness of the scientific outlook. Even the most souless secularist can certainly sympathize with that. To listen to the rhetoric of pan-scientism, you'd have to conclude that its supporters are unaware that science is a vanishingly tiny fraction of human experience. The question was asked "have you ever had an experience that you could not scientifically explain?" as if it weren't obvious that almost every experience is not reducable to some sort of scientific explanation--"spiritual" experience, which always seems to be exemplified by sighing at a beautiful vista, is nothing extraordinary in this regard. Most of what we do--hoping, enjoying, hurting, arguing, sympathizing, cursing, laughing, trying, playing--isn't captured by the sciences and can't be, not because of some defect of science but because science is about knowing about things in a particular way while living is comprised of all the ways we do and suffer. One can imagine an explanation of a joke that accurately and adequately described it in terms of atoms and void, but the explanation wouldn't be funny. Category mistake. The best screwdriver in the world is a lousy adverb.
Another job of "spirituality" is less complicated. One insists on possessing spirituality as a no-fuss, short-hand way of asserting "I am not a philistine." If most of these folks really weren't philistines, however, you'd think their spirituality would amount to more than a verbal gesture about oneness with the all. Except for the odd mystic, however, who spends appreciable time communing the cosmos anyhow? Well, experiencing the unity of all things has this much going for it: it requires no complicated or expensive equipment or time-consuming training, you can do it anywhere, and nobody can prove you're faking it.
One small cavil: it's cheating to think that the absence of spirits is an objection to spirituality since the whole point of claiming that you're a spiritual person, as opposed, for example, to a Methodist, is that vaguing things out gets around the necessity of making unlikely empirical claims about the reality of ghosts or angels. That's part of the job of "spirituality."
Posted by: Jim Harrison | January 27, 2007 1:40 PM
Charles Tart? Shouldn't some kind of buzzer go off whenever his name is mentioned, thereby informing people that a free-association semi-science zone has just been entered?
Posted by: Zeno | January 27, 2007 1:41 PM
Oh, so we've allowed religious creationists to hijack the concept of intelligent design, andd now we're going to allow them to hijack the concept of spirituality?
Where does it end?
Sugarbear, you're assuming that "spirituality" is conceptually valid and worthy of attention in the first place. Seriously, if "a feeling of connectedness with the world and all its creatures" and such like is the best and most succinct operational definition proponents of "spirituality" can give, then it sounds to me like there's just no "there" there. The word really sounds like nothing more than a label to slap on warm fuzzy feelings. Why not just say "I'm happy" or "I feel good"? Every time I hear "spirituality", it comes from a person who is simply using it as a synonym for "religious," when they're worried that "religious" is a word with too many negative associations that they don't wish to turn people off by using. Is there any concrete reason why the conventionally religious shouldn't be using it? Is there any reason scientists and rationalists should give it a moment's thought?
Posted by: Martin Wagner | January 27, 2007 1:46 PM
Whenever I use the word "spirituality" (which I do rarely) I usually have to make it clear that I only mean it to reference my feeling of awe regarding the natural universe. There's nothing else. But that's plenty enough for sure.
Posted by: shrimplate | January 27, 2007 1:47 PM
1.) Would you consider yourself a spiritual person?
Yes, in the sense of "connection to something greater than oneself". Intellectually, since science methods are antithesis to solipsism. Emotionally, due to the awe of nature, the feeling of being a natural part of nature, and the ability to understand to understand nature.
But there is no spirit soul here, and the merely sensual part is not formally part of spirituality. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality ) It is just that some of this is indistinguishable.
6.) Do you think that this phenomenon could pose a threat to the scientific community, when one considers the current religious climate in the U.S?
Yes, the spirit mindset and its perpetuation are antithesis to science methods.
7.) Finally, have you ever had an experience that you could not scientifically explain? If so, what was it?
Yes, in the sense that I have made many failed experiments - it's how we learn how to make them work. Also, I don't have verified explanations for all the detail in everyday experiences.
No, in the sense that in a more coarse-grained view I can explain both these failures of detailed explanation.
I would go so far as to say that you have no evidence.
Btw, one nice explanation for left-right asymmetry, mostly but not unequivocally supported by the fine- and coarsegrained anatomical differences, is that the denser, more widely connected and more myelinated left hemisphere is simply specialized on the parts of events that contains high frequency spatial information, while the right hemisphere is specialized on the low frequency information. (DFF theory.)
Interestingly, the computationally based DFF theory seems to be the only theory that makes predictions instead of being descriptive - and they are confirmed! ( http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/01/post_7.php ; http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/01/asymmetric_architecture_in_the.php ; http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/01/hemispheric_asymmetry_in_longr.php .)
But no one has observed a spirit setting up house there.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | January 27, 2007 1:52 PM
There's a difference between "currently explainable by scientific knowledge" and "explainable by science".
Lots of things do not have adequate explanations in current scientific knowledge. There's nothing that isn't explainable by science that's explainable in any other way.
1) No.
2) They're not very good scientists.
3) No.
4) No. The concept of 'spiritual' is incoherent.
5) They're not very good scientists.
6) YES!
7) Yes. I just ate an orange.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 27, 2007 1:53 PM
Spirituality is an essential component of one's holistic health and mental well-being.
*****************************
Not so much, methinks. We as humans have created this whole "holistic" view and it is a canard. It ends up that this is used in places of science and medicine to blame people for stuff that they have no control over. If everything is "balanced" then a person is expected to have optimum health. This includes the spirituality component.
I see this as a lie, because there are far too many people who are seemingly "balanced" that get completely hooped by medical problems, and there are some completely and unabashedly un-spiritual folks who manage to live to a ripe old age without a toenail fungus. Faith in the unseen does NOT help with medical problem onsets or outcomes (remember the prayer/heart study last year, I believe) and it really does not "cure" the ailment.
PZ says ********
No, because spirituality is bunk. I think that some scientists can have an emotional attachment to ideas and objects, a sensation that they can call 'spiritual' -- it does not interfere with their work unless they go off the deep end and start believing that their internal mental states necessarily reflect an external reality beyond the physical.
*********************************************************
Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening in many areas of medicine these days. You have major hospitals selling woo on the side in order to "comprehensively" treat patients. Reiki, religion and right thinking are all prescribed with a straight face. (And that is not a comprehensive list.) In places like England, homeopathy is coming back into vogue, and is being supported, or at least not vigorously opposed, by those charged with the responsibility of using science and medicine to heal. We have a plethora of news articles that report on the benefits of woo, almost daily, and most people just don't think or investigate claims, but just "do" when an authority figure tells them that this is good for them- so try it.
There are a lot of things wrong here. One is the level of science education- the ability to solve problems think critically, ask intelligent questions, and the like. One is the nature of teaching. From the time we are little we are taught that it is impolite to question those who are supposed to be smarter than us. We are pretty comfortable and so we really are not affected by this dearth of inquisitiveness and knowledge until it is too late, usually. And by then our ability to think cogently has effectively been shut off by years of disuse, making us prime targets for the charlatans that purvey lies.
Posted by: impatientpatient | January 27, 2007 1:57 PM
Your evidence for this remarkable claim that 'spirituality' is hard-wired into the brain is...?
Dean H. Hamer says so.
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/RESEARCH/basic/biochem/hamer.htm
Posted by: Sugarbear | January 27, 2007 1:59 PM
Powers forfend that we should be impolite.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 27, 2007 1:59 PM
"Your evidence for this remarkable claim that 'spirituality' is hard-wired into the brain is...?"
-
I cannot answer for Sugabear, but I did watch a video once about a neurosurgeon who was working with epileptics and found some part of the brain that seemed crucial in a feeling of completness and oness with the universe, that lead him to question whether there was something in the brain that makes us liable to think in religious terms.
Sorry cannot remember all the details at this point - maybe someone else saw it?
Posted by: oldhippy | January 27, 2007 2:00 PM
1] No.
2] Pretentious wankers.
3] No.
4] No. Spiritual means nothing.
5] Wrong.
6] Yes.
7] Yes, many. So what?
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | January 27, 2007 2:02 PM
...
...
I have deep, strong feelings about a lot of things. One of these things is "spirituality." "Spirituality" is usually a buzzword for some sort of fuzzy-minded bullshit that nobody can really describe - least of all the "deeply spiritual" people.
I hate buzzwords. I especially hate words that seem to mean something, but don't. But worst of all are those trick-words that PREVENT communication because you can't use them AT ALL without giving someone else a mistaken idea about what you're trying to communicate. You project the idea A at them, but it lands in their heads as idea B, and the head-nodding agreement makes you both think you've communicated. But it turns out later they've totally missed what you were trying to say. You say it again, and you use the same trick-word, and again they misunderstand. And over, and over, and over.
I would never, ever use the word "spiritual" to describe myself in any way. Not because I'm empty and cold and closed off. But because the deep, broad passions I do have are way too important to be left to the cheesy graces of a word which will ALWAYS be misunderstood by the listener.
"Spiritual" is the refined white sugar of communicating deep meaning, or deep feelings. It's empty of everything except the peppy zap.
Okay ... so. This question implies that "spiritual" equals "religious." Right, I get it.
If that's all it is to the guy who wrote this question, we're done here.
Should scientists be religious?
Duh. Should Superbowl athletes drink a case of Budweiser every weekend, and sit around watching TV for six hours a night?
Only if they want to fail to ever reach their stated goal. Only if they want to be stuck playing Shirts and Skins at the local high school field for the rest of their lives.
Should scientists have a sense of connectedness with the real world? Should they feel deep passions about their work, about the quest for understanding? Well, shit yeah.
On the other hand, should they also feel anger at the constant Greek chorus of Stupidity, the lolly-heads telling them "Luke, let go! Use the Force!"? Telling them all they have to do is FEEL? And maybe love the Sweet Baby Jesus a little bit more?
I'd say so.
If spirituality means something like "connectedness," and not just "religion," scientists are POTENTIALLY equipped to feel it in even greater measure than your average air-headed yokel sitting in a church pew, or buying yeast flakes down at the Vegan Mart.
If I know about the deep, intimate connections between me and all this other stuff around me, if I can not only hold the idea of a connected continuum between me and the rest, but actually know something of the REASONS for that connectedness, the EVIDENCE supporting the understanding, that's some serious heartfelt appreciation of the concept.
On the other hand, if I know next to nothing at all, but simply walk around saying "Oh, I just feel Jesus in my soul! I'm a sweet little lamb of the Lord! I'm just, like, totally EVERYTHING! I feel so SPIRITUAL!" ... well, props for the feeling, but the head of the person who says that is really just full of shit. He/she is an empty vessel - and a damned shallow one - just waiting for some parasite to come along and tell him/her to "Let go! Use the Force! And by the way, make sure you use the RIGHT force, which you can only get at my church."
Wha-?
Okay, we've moved on to "transcendent" experiences. How do I know this has nothing to do with one's first experience of intercourse? Or the time you experienced that blinding flash of insight in calculus class? How do I know it's nothing more than still more JesusJesusJesus, dressed up in a pretty buzzword?
Should they fear being "shunned"? (More telling religious-community terminology, by the way)
Speaking as a non-scientist, if a doctor listening to my chest starts sharing his thoughts about imbalances of black bile and yellow bile, or telling me health is really all about conserving my "vital fluids," and masturbation is therefore a bad idea, or that I should pray more and ask the Lord for forgiveness in order to be healed, I'm might still think he's a fine human being, but I'm gonna suddenly doubt his competence AS A DOCTOR.
Should they be "shunned"? No. But betchur ass I think they should be respected less AS SCIENTISTS.
Not in any sense you mean, chuckles. Probably not in any sense you're even capable of understanding.
But IN the sense you mean, absolutely not. Because it's mixing "goal of playing the Superbowl" with "six hours a night in the TV room with Cheez Whiz and Budweiser."
Okay, so now we get to it: Morality equals religion.
And everybody who doesn't have religion - probably YOUR religion - is immoral and sucky and can't do anything good, much less good science.
You know what? SCREW YOU.
And screw your religious brain-farts. Here you go with the simpering "Oh, you can't be a good moral person without having a strong sense of Jesus (religion)," which is a lie so many light years away from anything real it makes fairy stories look like rock-solid evidence in comparison.
What? What phenomenon are we talking about? Scientists getting goddy? Well, sure, that can damage science. Seeing as how godders in the US are already trying to destroy science, I think scientists should stay the hell away from allowing their private faith to adulterate the public image - or practice - of science.
Further, I think scientists should all avidly and openly OPPOSE every scrap of religion-creep into the important fields they represent.
(Just by the by: Science is no threat to religion, not a deliberate one, anyway. Catholic priests molesting altar boys is a thousand times greater threat to faith than knowing the significance of the speed of light.)
Yeah, one time the hearing in my right ear just STOPPED. I couldn't scientifically explain it. It came back after a few minutes, but it was weird.
If you're asking me personally, I can't SCIENTIFICALLY explain the aurora. Or why most of my hair fell out by the time I was 40. Or why a spot on my arm sometimes itches when I can see there's nothing there to cause it. Or why mockingbirds mimic sounds they hear in their environment. Or why a wintergreen Life Saver emits sparks of light when you bite into it in a darkened room.
I have a feeling NONE of those things is Jesus though. In fact, I'm pretty sure that no amount of "spirituality" would turn up useful answers to any of those things.
We humans were "spiritual" for twenty thousand years or so, and we were barely able to figure out sewers.
By contrast, we got "scientual" a few hundred years ago and today I'm a cancer survivor who watched the moon landings, sitting here with a computer on my desk and projecting my somewhat-lengthy thoughts out to thousands of people I've never even met.
Screw "spiritual." Give me science, performed by smart, energetic, passionate, curious men and women from every culture and every continent.
Give me people who are so MORAL they're not willing to let the least little lie into the mix, no matter how personally attached to it they or their neighbors might be.
Give me science. Not spirits.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | January 27, 2007 2:07 PM
Because "spirituality" has always, for whatever reason(s), meant something fairly mundane to me, I've never had a much of a problem with using the term.
On that note, I'd like to thank you, PZ, and Doc Dawkins as well, for reminding me that words do have specific and agreed upon definitions. According to the most commonly agreed upon def of Spirituality, the one you've given above, I've got to admit that I don't subscribe to that shit. LOL!
For the record; I've always used it as a synonym for persona. The intangible qualities of a person's personality and approach to their life. It's encompassed their morality, style, lifestyle and whatever they may consider their raison d'etre.
But you're right. Unless someone discovers some kind o' "spiritons", there's really no reason, other than appeasement of folks who are afraid to admit their own intellectual affinity to the concepts of atheism and agnosticism, to continue using the term.
Thanks again.
L8
Posted by: Michael Bains | January 27, 2007 2:10 PM
The entire survey is drivel. The definition of spirtuality is the state of being spiritual. The definition of spiritual is that pertaining to the noncorporeal and supernatural. Since science deals with the corporeal and natural, it is axiomatic that scientists can be spirtual but it has nothing to do with science. My physician can be spiritual but his medical treatment better be based on science.
Posted by: bones | January 27, 2007 2:10 PM
I once found $52.00 in the road, just when I needed it real bad. Explain that, Mr. Einstein! You too, Mr. Eisenstein.
Posted by: Mooser | January 27, 2007 2:12 PM
Mike G writes, "Be careful! We all know PZ's really fucking fast with that kukri!"
No worry, mon. PZ is a middle-aged academic. Oh.. wait. (Looks at driver's license, observes birthdate.) My bad. PZ is in the prime of life. Still, he's a professor at a midwestern university. All the really badass academics are on one of the coasts. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | January 27, 2007 2:12 PM
Exactly!
You Rock, Hank.
:)
Posted by: Michael Bains | January 27, 2007 2:14 PM
I should note on my comment on DFF theory that it doesn't mean parts of the hemispheres has other specializations - apparently we have differences in gene expression down to small clusters, neurons, and parts of neurons. But it may guide the placement of the some of these.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | January 27, 2007 2:14 PM
Thanks Jim Harrison for a really good comment. I also see people using the term as a way of withdrawing from debate and from difficult choices. People will often use the term in a phrase like this: "I don't like organized religion, but I'm still a very spiritual person." Say what you like about "organized religion," it's usually pretty clear about what it believes and the choices entailed in belief.
"Spiritual," by contrast, connotes mystery, things we cannot know but can only feel or sense, the idea that that there is *necessarily* a realm of the unexplainable that must be called spiritual (this is the woo-woo part that pisses off scientists). Of course it also pisses of the properly religious because it makes the *same* implicit denial of religious truth. Maybe it's a sort of 2nd-degree agnosticism, a way to be agnostic without even committing to being agnostic if you see what I mean. I think also for some folks, being a deep spiritual thinker is a matter of being "open" to a whole range of low-rent hooey, from astrology to UFOs to mysterious energies, and when challenged they talk smugly about the limits of out current Physics -- these are people who wouldn't know that force equals mass times acceleration and they're talking about the limits of physics. You want to smack them. But I digress.
So yeah, "spirituality" is a way for someone to say "I have access to a plane of existence that you don't," and to dismiss any kind of logical or empirical challenge as just not getting it. There are, I hasten to add, smart mystics, and smart religious thinkers, and I'm much more sympathetic to disciplined, careful religious inquiry than 90% of the folks who post here.
But cripes, "a sense of unity or connection with all other living creatures" is contemptible, weak-minded hooey. I don't have such a sense. I could *cultivate* a sense of that kind, I suppose, but my own limited science reading just as often convinces me that the natural world is strange. Read Carl Zimmer's _Parasite Rex_ and the "unity of living creatures" takes on a very different complexion! So no, this cheap "unity" and personal growth and "holistic" stuff is an ideology, and a boring one at that.
Posted by: Colin | January 27, 2007 2:32 PM
For Torbjörn Larsson:
You should make friends with http://tinyurl.com.
Really.
Posted by: Zeno | January 27, 2007 2:36 PM
Nony Cow:
Read a book (review), amigo. Personally, I look forward to reading the whole book.
Posted by: Michael Bains | January 27, 2007 2:37 PM
The first half of my blog entry is my response. The other half is just anime junk, so you intellectual types can ignore it.
I have to say though, a lot of this "being connected with the universe" stuff I'm hearing sounds a lot like Scientific Pantheism. Just thought I'd throw that bone out there for you gnaw on.
Posted by: JD Kolassa | January 27, 2007 2:43 PM
Preach it, Hank.
Posted by: Rey Fox | January 27, 2007 2:44 PM
Oh, posh! That's nothing. Try giving this interview to people who go to church:
1.) Would you consider yourself a person who knows science, as a reasonable person?
2.) We hear time and time again of the disputes between the scientific and religious communities, what is your response to the phenomenon of faith believers exploring their own knowledge of science and ability to determine things through reason?
3.) Dr. Charles T. Tart established an online journal dedicated to scientists who wish to share their own personal transcendent experiences in confidence, known as TASTE. Many Christians, Moslems and others feel that they would be shunned by the religious community if they shared their experiences with using reason with their colleagues, are you surprised by this?
4.) Do you feel that a religion follower can be reasonable and scientific? Why is this?
5.) What do you say to some preachers who claim that a strong sense of skepticism and reason are essential in your line of work, in order to act morally?
6.) Do you think that this phenomenon could pose a threat to the religious community, when one considers the current climate for science and reason in the U.S?
7.) Finally, have you ever had an experience with scripture or an article or tenet of faith that you could scientifically explain completely? If so, what was it? Did it shake your faith?
See how far you can get with that one.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 27, 2007 4:42 PM
You mean like the University of Chicago? The Santa Fe Institute? Fermi Lab? Ohio State? University of Colorado? Cornell? Penn State? Northwestern? University of Michigan?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 27, 2007 4:46 PM
"7.) Finally, have you ever had an experience that you could not scientifically explain? If so, what was it?
Yes, many. The first mitotic division I made as a zygote ..."
Wow! Your memory is better than Phillipe Gaston's!
Posted by: Scott Simmons | January 27, 2007 4:52 PM
No, what is truly unfortunate is that these people recognize that *state of mind* can have a major effect on recover and even survival, but, like all *religious* programs, they take the leap from the realization that "some" people are helped by their brand of Woo, to the "assumption" that *all* people would be equally helped by it. In reality, its a complex psychological problem with no clear answers, and you might end up killing someone with the same Woo you used to cure someone else, because the psychological interpretation of the first one is that, "Oh hell, I am in much bigger trouble than I thought", while the later's interpretation may be, "Wow! I am glad they are willing to help me even more by waving the magic Woo Stick in my face!", or what ever. They honestly think that its a one size fits all solution, which its not. And more to the point, people that are "not" helped are not likely to mention that it didn't help them, and its damn hard for someone the Woo helps to kill to tell anyone how badly if fucked up their recovery. Thus, only the "apparent" positives get reported in the annecdotal studies. The scientific ones though... Tend to show no or a negative result, because only the *actually* results are being examined, not the opinions of those people that bother to, or just can, report on the experience.
Posted by: Kagehi | January 27, 2007 5:14 PM
How is "uniqueness" not a word? I've often seen it used, e. g. in scientific articles. Google finds it seventeen and a half million times.
Now Sugarbear:
I don't understand. Please explain.
I have that sense of being connected to the nematodes and ginkgos. But it's evolutionary biology that has given it to me: I'm more closely related to the nematodes than to the ginkgos -- literally: sharing ancestors, real living beings that lived a guesstimated billion years ago, with the nematodes but not the ginkgos --, and more closely to the ginkgos than to the quadrillion bacteria in my gut (that's a thousand times as many cells as my own, BTW). Nothing remotely supernatural is involved; to the contrary. If I were standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, I'd be just as impressed as everyone else, but I'd marvel at time, water, sedimentation, erosion, and the like, not at anything supernatural. Truth is after all stranger than fiction!
Now please explain "meaning", "sense", and "place". I don't get what you mean by these words and don't want to attack a strawman.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 27, 2007 5:28 PM
PZ, I sometimes find it helpful in dealing with nutters like these to point out that there are two categories of Things-We-Do-Not-Know. These are UNKNOWNS and MYSTERIES. (Apologies for the capitalisation; I'll be trying to work these into acronyms at some point!)
I define the former as things that are in principle knowable, and hence they are not-yet-knowns. Even when they can't in *practice* be known, they are nonetheless non-mysterious.
MYSTERIES, OTOH, are things that we can never know *in principle*. They are beyond mere human ken. They are the realm of the pixies.
The problem for pixie-huggers is that there aren't any situations that fit into the latter category. They *claim* that there are, but there aren't. They will, furthermore, claim that certain UNKNOWNS are in fact MYSTERIES, but that is a leap that imposes upon them a burden of proof, and they are unwilling to be so gracious as to provide that.
So even your first mitotic division sits comfortably in UNKNOWN territory, but it sure ain't no MYSTERY. The vast tree of science is peppered with UNKNOWNS, but these are generally treatable as "black boxes", where we can establish the inputs and outputs of the system, even if we don't know the full details of the inner workings. But pixies cannot live in such black boxes, because these nasty old scientists have a habit of opening the lids and exposing the insides.
Posted by: