…and this is a 
"Spirituality"? Another word for lies and empty noise
Category: Religion
Posted on: March 15, 2007 12:42 AM, by PZ Myers
If you go to the main ScienceBlogs page, you'll discover that the Buzz for the day is this little gem, triggered by one of our newbie bloggers:
Spirituality and Science
Over the last few hundred years, science has provided a mind-boggling richness of answers about the workings of the universe. For many people the importance of religion, at least as an explainer of the natural world, has shifted. Is it possible to believe what science teaches us about nature, and also be a person of faith? A Galactic Interactions post about being a Christian and a scientist has ignited an explosive debate.
Appropriately enough, the latest Templeton Prize has just been awarded. $1.5 million for this rubbish:
Professor Taylor has written extensively on the sense of self and how it is defined by morals and what one considers good. People operate in the register of spiritual issues, he said, and to separate those from the humanities and social sciences leads to flawed conclusions.
"The deafness of many philosophers, social scientists and historians to the spiritual dimension can be remarkable," Professor Taylor said in remarks prepared for delivery at the announcement of the prize at the Church Center for the United Nations in New York this morning. This is damaging because it "affects the culture of the media and educated public opinion in general."
There's also much more at the Templeton Prize site. He blathers on and on about "spiritual thinking" and a "spiritual domain" without ever telling us what the heck it is, although it does seem to be all tied up in believing in a religion, any religion. So, someone tell me, how am I supposed to hear this "spiritual dimension"? What is it supposed to mean?
Near as I can tell, it means making up vague nonsense about special values only religious people can have, and getting a cool million five for insisting on it. What a sweet scam, and what a useless lot of hot air.
(via Butterflies and Wheels)
Comments
Somebody should come up with a better word than "spiritual" for the consciousness of being connected with something greater than onesself, but not necessarily having to do with ghosts, angels, or fairies. "Unsolipsistic" doesn't really do it.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 15, 2007 1:09 AM
I am not opposed to this sentiment (http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html):
Conversely, Taylor has also chastised those who use moral certitude or religious beliefs in the name of battling injustice because they believe "our cause is good, so we can inflict righteous violence," as he once wrote. "Because we see ourselves as imperfect, below what God wants, we sacrifice the bad in us, or sacrifice the things we treasure. Or we see destruction as divine...identify with it, and so renounce what is destroyed, purifying while bringing meaning to the destruction."
Posted by: notthedroids | March 15, 2007 1:14 AM
people also blather on about art, morality, metaphysics, and a host of other vague things of a transcedent or metaphysical nature that are "real" but defy science and, for that matter, truth. they are the serious business of mankind, in Popper's words the "ultimate questions," and there is no way to distinguish their serious answers from nonsense, as far as science can say. obviously science isn't enough. it has limits. oh well!
Posted by: nodoze | March 15, 2007 1:20 AM
Oh, that Charles Taylor. The one who wrote Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity.
Got it. Here's a quote from him:
"It is probable that the unremitting struggle to desacralize the world in the name of an undivided devotion to God waged by Calvin and his followers helped to destroy the sense that the creation was a locus of meanings in relation to which man had to define himself."
http://www.vernonpratt.com/conceptualisations/d06bl2_2mindself.htm
That's enough for me. Toodleloo, Charles.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 15, 2007 1:54 AM
PZ, try reading the Introduction portion of Roger Ames translation of "Sun-Tzu: The Art of War" where it deals with the differences between the two-world view of the West and the one-world view of the East or watching "The Last Samurai" or perhaps just learning about Eastern philosophy.
Shorter version of spirituality: treating the living world/universe with respect and humility and learning to live in harmony with it.
The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity. Is there something in this you fail to understand?
Oh, something you might understand is Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" as a place to begin.
Posted by: NeoLotus | March 15, 2007 2:00 AM
There's nothing vague or "transcendent" about art, morality or metaphysics. As far as aesthetics and ethics, science can't tell us the "oughts," but there are certainly reasonable descriptions for why aesthetics and ethics exist from an evolutionary, psychological and sociological standpoint.
As for metaphysics, there are reasonable discussions one can have about epistemology, ontology and other areas of metaphysics while sticking to reason and empiricism and without the need to invoke anything "mysterious," "transcendent," or "ineffable." The latter is the hallmark of bad philosophy anyway, as it just means you've thrown your hands up and given up on attempting to come to an understanding.
Posted by: AL | March 15, 2007 2:13 AM
Also, I had thought spirituality would have something to do with spirits.
Posted by: Baratos | March 15, 2007 2:19 AM
notthedroidswrote:
Somebody should come up with a better word than "spiritual" for the consciousness of being connected with something greater than onesself ...
It might be easy to come up with a better word if you would explain what you're talking about. Perhaps starting with just how you're "connected" and what is it that is "something greater than onesself".
Posted by: tomh | March 15, 2007 2:23 AM
"Shorter version of spirituality: treating the living world/universe with respect and humility and learning to live in harmony with it."
I don't see what's so spiritual about that.
Posted by: Mick | March 15, 2007 2:35 AM
Says you. I mean that in the sense that, y'know, that's what you say. A lot of other people say a lot of other things about spirituality. To a fundamentalist Christian, that isn't spirituality -- they'll talk about living with the fullness of Jesus in their lives, and what that means varies considerably from Christian to Christian.
In short, unless you bother to actually specify what you mean, the use of the word spirit is just a lot of noise. Or, worse, it's an intentional rhetorical trick. You use the word "spirit" without any meaning and know that most of the audience will project their own definitions into it (as you seem to have done) and respond favorably. It's one of the most used rhetorical tricks, nowadays -- use an emotionally charged word or term, don't bother to define it, but know your audience will, largely, do so for you in a way that inclined them to favor what you say. (Other terms that are treated this way are "freedom", "family values", "national security" -- ask any ten people what they mean, you'll probably get 8 different answers.)
Posted by: Chris Bradley | March 15, 2007 2:45 AM
When they start to replace the word "spiritual" with "emotions" and the word "soul" with "mind", then I might consider that they have a chance at making sense.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | March 15, 2007 2:57 AM
"Mind" is definitely a better term than "soul," but even the word "mind" carries some dualistic, Cartesian baggage. But it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Posted by: AL | March 15, 2007 3:03 AM
Chris Bradley,
There's a term for what you describe. It's called a "glittering generality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glittering_generality
Posted by: AL | March 15, 2007 3:05 AM
A comic on the subject of spirituality:
http://www.wondermark.com/d/273.html
And it reflects my understanding that "spirituality" is often just a front for intellectual laziness.
Posted by: Pun the librarian | March 15, 2007 5:11 AM
For a non-native speaker, the terms "spirituality" and "spiritualism" are so overloaded that they seem to be invented by someone dipping into too much of the sauce.
Spirituality:
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=spirituality )
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality )
Spiritualism:
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spiritualism )
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism )
The useful definitions seems to be either about the verities (lasting facts) or personal experience.
The former is question begging. Which facts about humanity can be justified besides what we observe? Folk psychology on the human condition ("mystery" et cetera) doesn't give justified knowledge, but is describing the later (experiences) in an effort to understand them and predict or own and others behavior.
Which gets us right back to spirits. On methods of getting and valuing experience, what says that a religious experience is to be valued higher than, say, a glass of a good wine? After all, a small amount of alcohol do your health good and lift your spirits, but any amount of religion seems to be downright harmful to the sanity of your mind.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 15, 2007 5:24 AM
Too much spirituality can obviously be bad for you.
I think the maximum recommended dose is 3 milligrams per kilo.
Unfortunately its taking rather a long time to invent a spiritual weighing scale. Don't worry though, I'm sure it will turn up soon, just like Demski's 'Specified complexity measurer'.
Posted by: MartinC | March 15, 2007 5:37 AM
"...watching "The Last Samurai" or perhaps just learning about Eastern philosophy."
All I learned from "The Last Samurai" was:
A: Though not a bad film, Ken Watanabe was too good to be in it
B: Tom Cruise's ego knows no earthly bounds (now would be a good time to shout "Zenu!")
C: Western audiences need the presence of a toothsome, if diminutive American leading man to be in any way interested in a story about far away foreign people long ago
D: Romantic attachment to feudal traditions attracts the unwelcome attention of ninja and may, therefore, damage your health
E: Spirituality is apparently trumped by Gatling guns.
Posted by: NC Paul | March 15, 2007 5:50 AM
I would have thought the maximum dose for a human was 21 grams. Overdosing woud be more than a spirit could handle without accidentally evolving. Perhaps I am wrong.
Posted by: Sam | March 15, 2007 5:52 AM
I believe in spirituality and the need of religion and all that nonsense and I know enough vague terms to write a book about it, now where is my million dollars? Then again, almost everyone can do that... Millions of dollars for everyone!
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | March 15, 2007 6:56 AM
Guys, have you ever considered that the consciousness of being connected with something greater than onesself - or, better, the "feeling" or "sensation" thereof, has a genetic substrate and there is individual variation within the human species?
Just because none of you have this consciousness/feeling (and I don't, either), doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist in ohers. Sometimes (often) is gets translated into religion, and sometimes into something more like treating the living world/universe with respect and humility and learning to live in harmony with it.
We would do better in concentrating on reducing the political effects of (organised) religion, and making sure that people who don't have the spiritual consciousness/feeling don't feel they have to pay lip-service to religion, than in wasting our time trying to convince those people who do have it that they are wrong to do so. IMHO the latter is much like trying to convince gay people that they shouldn't be gay. Or, perhaps, to convince heterosexual men that looking at a woman's legs as she walks down the street is ALWAYS wrong and "treating her as a sex object".
Posted by: potentilla | March 15, 2007 7:07 AM
Yeah! Yeah! spirituality is undefined, dumb and hopelessly demeaned by close association with a lot of CRETINS.
But where does spirituality comes from?
Not out of thin air, not out of randomness.
(Hint: stupidity comes AFTER spirituality, not before, not the source, and "gods" too comes AFTER)
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 15, 2007 7:13 AM
I think the idea that spirituality and religion are synonymous could not be farther from the truth, depending on the religion, at least insofar as most religion these days is being used as a form of mass control and power gaming. Spirituality is, for me, at least, very simply, the realization that the self is not in fact the limit of consciousness. That at the core we are all merely facets of an ultimate, central consciousness, which has chosen to manifest in multiplicity in order to increase it's knowledge of itself by experiencing that which it is not. Finite and separate. Any apparent division between the schools of materialist thinking and spiritual thinking are just that, an appearance, for nothing in knowable reality is truly separate. Quantum physics teaches us of the likelihood that material existence is something that is solidified, if you will, by being observed by consciousness, so the real question to be answered is, is mind an emergent property of matter or is matter an emergent property of mind. I think at the end of the day we may all be surprised by the answer to that question.
Posted by: Leigh Mortensen | March 15, 2007 8:04 AM
See, Leigh Martensen has a feeling of spiritulaity, and I literally can't understand his comment at all, especially at the core we are all merely facets of an ultimate, central consciousness, which has chosen to manifest in multiplicity in order to increase it's knowledge of itself by experiencing that which it is not.
I prefer scientific method ie induction, and keep wanting to try to apply it to what he writes. But why do I prefer induction? After all, inductive method it not logically justifiable (the "problem of induction" see here, for example. I am forced to the conclusion that I prefer induction because I have an evolved tendency to do so.
Posted by: potentilla | March 15, 2007 8:18 AM
If we are going to reject one pole of Cartesian dualism-spirit or soul-as something that really exists, then we also have to reject the notion of the 'material world' that goes with it, the idea that what is real is inert 'stuff', matter, things we bump our shins on in the dark etc. What is real then must be process, events, 'things' that are impermanent that are born, grow and die, giving rise to further events/things of the same nature.
Whitehead, who thought a lot about this kind of philosophy said that each event/thing (he called them 'actual entities' or equivalently, 'actual occasions') has a physical pole and a mental/conceptual pole. Unlike Kant though he reversed things--subjective experience arises from the world, not the reverse.
Think of a concept such as 'species'. How does such a 'thing' exist? Is it just a category in biologists imagination? Or is it a real 'thing'. Both, of course, and the mental/conceptual dimension cannot be ignored, it is part of the reality of the actual entity that is a species. It also shades into 'value' (even 'spirits' for say a Maya shaman) and other uncomfortable notions for the classical scientific 'materialist'. I think including the mental/conceptual pole of reality is what Taylor and others refer to as a 'spiritual' dimension as an unavoidable part of the real world.
Posted by: Ron | March 15, 2007 8:41 AM
So is this guy doing any actual research? If not why does he need a prize? If his book's that good, surely it will sell. It's not like pablum about spirituality is a niche market in the US.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 15, 2007 8:47 AM
consciousness of being connected with something greater than onesself
Does earth count?
Posted by: daenku32 | March 15, 2007 8:58 AM
The word spirituality is too tainted to permit me to think it is a good idea to use it for anything. Ditch it altogether and find another word if you must. I find it a useless word anyway, and when I encounter it, I instantly think the user of the word either doesn't really know what the hell they want to say in a clear way, or, worse, is an idiot.
Posted by: SteveC | March 15, 2007 9:18 AM
"at the core we are all merely facets of an ultimate, central consciousness, which has chosen to manifest in multiplicity in order to increase it's knowledge of itself by experiencing that which it is not...Quantum physics teaches us of the likelihood that material existence is something that is solidified, if you will, by being observed by consciousness, so the real question to be answered is, is mind an emergent property of matter or is matter an emergent property of mind."
Ow! ow!! My eye-rolling muscles are cramping up!
Posted by: CCP | March 15, 2007 9:18 AM
"I'm spiritual but not religious" = "I like candles, herbal tea, cats, and those little daily affirmation books."
Spirituality is bullshit, to not put too fine a point on it.
Posted by: Will E. | March 15, 2007 9:22 AM
Posted by: quork | March 15, 2007 9:26 AM
RE Ron, #24
He wrote,
"Think of a concept such as 'species'. How does such a 'thing' exist? Is it just a category in biologists imagination? Or is it a real 'thing'. Both, of course, and the mental/conceptual dimension cannot be ignored, it is part of the reality of the actual entity that is a species."
This is just wrong. 'species' is NOT part of the reality of the actual entity that is a species. It is part of the abstraction that human nervous systems have developed to deal with/organise the 'reality' of the actual entities.
Do I need to remind people that, "The Map is NOT the territory."?
Oli
Posted by: MysticOlly | March 15, 2007 9:27 AM
"Quantum physics teaches us". . . No, it doesn't.
I wish I could be more Saganesque about this, but it's too early in the morning and I've heard this too many times. You sound like a nice person, but really, you've been fed a line. 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."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 15, 2007 9:37 AM
Will E: "I'm spiritual but not religious" = "I like candles, herbal tea, cats, and those little daily affirmation books."
Spirituality is bullshit, to not put too fine a point on it.
May be you mean : "Calling candles, herbal tea, cats, and those little daily affirmation books is bullshit"?
If you have doubts about the definition of Spirituality you can hardly criticize it.
If you don't have doubts could you tell us where you fetched your definition?
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 15, 2007 9:40 AM
Kevembuangga asked:
Actually, Kevembuangga, it does come out of thin air. Look up the etymology of the word.
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 15, 2007 9:40 AM
"Spirituality" is a positive term for anti-atheist/materialist sentiment. It's like "white pride."
Posted by: poke | March 15, 2007 9:45 AM
PZ, I've been reading Pharyngula for over a year now, and posts like this make me want to hit the 'unsubscribe' option on my Google Reader. This wholesale rejection of anything with the label "spiritual" strikes me as subjective, blindly biased, perhaps even bigoted.
I agree that spirituality and religion should be strongly critiqued. But there is nothing sophisticated about your criticism--it's just an outright dismissal of a concept in a manner that would make any creationist or other religious fundamentalist proud. I'm glad that your commenters have added a layer of complexity and nuance to this topic.
I agree that "spirituality" is a problematic word. But it's used by many people who are disenchanted by institutional religion who are trying to overcome existential angst. These are subjective feelings, yes, and difficult to quantify, but the struggles are real. By stomping on 'spirituality' wholesale without any examination of the multiplicity of its meanings, you're communicating that science has nothing to offer some who are taking refuge in the word and that their crisis is trivial.
For all of his unrelenting (but carefully thought out) criticism of supernatural claims, Carl Sagan still found a way to appeal to that human sense of wonder and that equally human but irrational desire that many have to feel connected to the universe.
Posted by: geneticblend | March 15, 2007 9:46 AM
I think a few of the posts on this forum reveal an important aspect of spirituality, and a very human one - social position. Claiming spirituality allows a person to put themself above others because of their "connection" to "something greater" - an unquestionable and unknowable connection. If you don't understand it then, hey, that's your loss we'll look down on you (if less influencial) or crowd you out (if more). This is presumably the source of the indignancy with which a couple of posters have responded - without ever telling us anything about their supposed great spirituality.
Neolotus implies that PZ is defective for not understanding that "the feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity". If we don't understand this cryptic vagueness then, instead of getting a straight explanation, we are told to go to other sources or watch a Hollywood movie. Kevem is outright hostile: "But where does spirituality comes from?
Not out of thin air, not out of randomness.
(Hint: stupidity comes AFTER spirituality, not before, not the source, and "gods" too comes AFTER)". No Kevem, we are not stupid. Please explain to us *exactly* what you mean.
"material existence is something that is solidified, if you will, by being observed by consciousness" - I think this is a slight misunderstanding. While observation causes wavefunction collapse, this observation does not have to have anything to do with consciousness itself. Observation simply by instrument (with no conscious person observing the result) can cause the collapse of a 45 degree polarised photon to horizontal/vertical, for example; no observation leads to no resolution of polarisation. Naturally, this does not rule out consciousness on a philosophical level!
One of my favorite quotes: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." :-)
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 9:50 AM
Norman Doering : Look up the etymology of the word.
Oh! Yeah?
And it is appropriate for atheists to endorse the definitions from the religionists?
FYI I am an atheist and even a "nasty" one (been temporarily banned by Rob Knop who whitheld some of my comments until I told him he was dishonest)
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 15, 2007 9:50 AM
The origin of the word "spiritual" doesn't really have anything to do with "religionists" - more latin. From etymology.com:
"c.1250, "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from O.Fr. espirit, from L. spiritus "soul, courage, vigor, breath," related to spirare "to breathe,"
Hence respire, aspirate and similar words. So we are dealing with thin air.
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 10:02 AM
Oh pleeease somone respond to my two posts above. I don't mind being told I'm stupid or naive, or even flamed. But I would really like to know if anyone thinks I'm right, or indeed wrong, and preferably why.
(Kevembuangga, were you in fact responding to me? I took it that you were, and agreeing that "spirituality might have a genetic base, but maybe it was just a coincidence of timing).
Posted by: potentilla | March 15, 2007 10:04 AM
My favorite movie spirituality (from A Mighty Wind):
"Terry and I worship an unconventional deity. The power of another dimension. Now you are not going to read about this dimension in a book or a magazine because it exists nowhere... but in my own mind. Through our ceremonies and rituals we have witnessed the awesome and vibratory power... of color."
"This is not an occult science. This is not one of those crazy systems of divination and astrology. That stuff's hooey, and you've got to have a screw loose to go in for that sort of thing. Our beliefs are fairly commonplace and simple to understand. Humankind is simply materialized color operating on the 49th vibration. You would make that conclusion walking down the street or going to the store."
"No, ladies and gentlemen, we don't ride around on broomsticks and wear pointy hats. Well, we don't ride on broomsticks. "
Posted by: stogoe | March 15, 2007 10:04 AM
Torbjörn Larsson wrote, "After all, a small amount of alcohol do your health good and lift your spirits, but any amount of religion seems to be downright harmful to the sanity of your mind."
As often as I usually say to myself, 'Torbjörn hit that one right out of the park', I'm afraid that I don't necessarily know what you are talking about with this sentance. (Unless you are working toward a pun on spirits.)
As I see it, the words 'spiritual', 'religion', and even 'sanity' are not particularly clearly defined. At the broadest sense, religion is often considered to mean accepting something without evidence, i.e. faith.
Organized religion includes a lot of 'traditional' knowledge which the worshipers are supposed to accept strictly on faith. That's one of the real problems with a rapidly changing world which has invalidated this 'traditional' knowledge. I would certainly agree with you that any doctrine which claims that 'traditional' knowledge is superior to evidential and testable knowledge is an indication of less than rational thinking. Whether irrational thinking means reduced sanity, I'm not so sure about. Although that would be a great topic of discussion over a few beers.
But to say that the very broad term 'religion', which covers a large spectrum of human conditions and behaviors, is linked to a loss of sanity is a little excessive. We all engage in faith-based thinking to a greater or lesser extent. We should be aware of when we are accepting things on faith, and we should be able to differentiate testable vs. non-testable faith. For example, much of the knowledge in the science articles P.Z. Myers summerizes here I have to accept on faith, but I give this knowledge a higher weight simply because I believe that with the right equipment I could test the knowledge myself.
This is an example of testable faith. I not only have faith that P.Z. is not miss-representing the knowledge, but also faith that I could reproduce the results if I had the desire and means. Non-testable faith is different. If someone says that a deity spoke to them, there is no way I can test that claim. Personally, I would have doubts about that person's sanity, but other people may not.
When P.Z. rails against religion, I take that as a shorthand for disgust at the manipulative nature of religious leaders, the claim that 'traditional' knowledge trumps testable knowledge, the deliberate fostering of uninquisitive followers, and the arrogant presumption that incomprehensible texts (or ineffable spirituality) determine morality. I share that disgust.
Back to spirituality. One definition that you didn't include in your list is found in many unabridged dictionaries, and that is a feeling of being incorporeal. This definition covers a lot of mystical feelings, including that of being inter-connected to all things. I would like to point out, however, that there is nothing in that definition that excludes scientific study of that feeling.
I don't mind admitting that at times I've experianced the pleasure of feeling connected to everything around me, including a feeling of noncoporealness. (And the only mind-altering substance I've ever used is alcohol.) In my case, it's a very intellectual pleasure (I can't get this feeling while drink). I don't gain any knowledge from the feeling, I'm limited to the knowledge I already have.
How do I know this? Simple; as I acquire additional knowledge about physics, chemistry, or biology this knowledge is incorporated into my experiances of interconnectedness. But this additional knowledge wasn't present in my experiances of interconnectedness before I learned it. Thus; the experiance of interconnectedness only incoporates knowledge I've previously gained, it doesn't add anything new.
However, I can easliy see people feeling that they gained some insight into the world though experiances like these. It's a very euphoric experiance.
There is nothing in this noncorporeal experiance relating to morality or ethics, nor is there a 'spiritual dimension' involved. There is nothing that suggests that this noncorporeal experiance cannot be examined by the process of science.
Finally, it's pretty clear to me that any moral or ethical feelings which derive from such noncorporeal experiances are simply reflections of the personality of the experiancer. Which suggests that there are some very scary people out there.
Posted by: Flex | March 15, 2007 10:05 AM
Etymology of spirit:
So, the ancestor of our word "spirit" meant "breath". (Likewise, the similarity between atmosphere and the Hindu atman is not an accident; atman in Sanskrit means "breath", "soul" or "life", and is cognate with the Greek atmos, "vapor".) We now know that breaths are material, composed of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor and various more complicated organic molecules derived from garlic. Does this mean that my spirit smells like a pepperoni and jalapeno stuffed-crust pizza from Cecilia's, imperfectly masked by a sweet peppermint?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 15, 2007 10:09 AM
Tryptamine: Kevem is outright hostile: "But where does spirituality comes from?
Not out of thin air, not out of randomness.
(Hint: stupidity comes AFTER spirituality, not before, not the source, and "gods" too comes AFTER)". No Kevem, we are not stupid. Please explain to us *exactly* what you mean.
I am "outright hostile" to whom?
I do need to explain myself better :-)
Not out of thin air, not out of randomness.
I looks like if "spirituality" has been around for quite a while there must be some reasons for it to emerge, isn't it?
Scott Atran provides at least some partial explanations, there are probably more to be found, so dismissing spirituality as "just nonsense" is idiotic.
stupidity comes AFTER spirituality
Stupidity comes from simpletons when they ask themselves "spiritual questions" and are content with fairy tales which are fed to them.
and "gods" too comes AFTER
The gods are invented as a (lousy) answer to existential anguish.
Spirituality is questionning about our "inner experiences" and trying to relate them to the world at large, usually it doesn't goes too well...
It may turn you insane.
But rejecting spirituality may ALSO turn you insane!
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 15, 2007 10:13 AM
MysticOlly:
"This is just wrong. 'species' is NOT part of the reality of the actual entity that is a species. It is part of the abstraction that human nervous systems have developed to deal with/organise the 'reality' of the actual entities."
It's not wrong. Whitehead would have no truck with a dualism between 'abstraction' and 'reality'. The conceptual pole is a necessary element in the 'concresence of an actual entity', to use his rather obscure language.
A species is a real entity, not ´just' an abstraction. What you are calling abstraction is part of its reality.Ie the 'abstraction' is part of the world, not a creation of the human nervous system. The world created the human nervous system, not the other way around.
Posted by: Ron | March 15, 2007 10:14 AM
A Mighty Wind? The air theme continues...
Beautifully said flex - if only the majority claiming spirituality could be so explicit (and articulate) as yourself! I think your description of spirituality as a fundamentally human emotional response is the important factor - perhaps this is the difference between the sort of spirituality PZ is railing against and the more secular stuff we could agree is useful (and important)?
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 10:15 AM
Hello Kevem -
Thanks for clarifying your position. Maybe you were just being more stident than hostile!
I'm sure spirituality does have a cause, as do most other things. But why does that make it important? Foolishness, I'm sure, also has a cause, but that's no reason to respect it! Homeopathy has a cause - a lack of confidence in the barbaric medical procedures of the time, coupled with wishful thinking and the placebo effect - but that doesn't mean it's not nonsense, even if it's interesting nonsense.
Secondly, the definition of spirituality is so broad that many things that *are* just nonsense and bluster (such as PZ's example above) can be passed off in its name without scrutiny. This makes the study of things spiritual for their own sake a business that becomes fraught with nonsense, and so argues against studying beliefs purely because they are spiritual.
I'm not sure I quite understand your characterisation of stupidity coming after spirituality. Surely one can be stupid without spirituality, and vice versa? Are the two things even that intimately connected for any cause and effect relationship?
As for insanity - "there is a joy to being mad that only madmen know" :-)
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 10:23 AM
Actually, I feel sorry for the Templeton Prize folks (or would, if it weren't for all that money). They're well-meaning people who really are trying to find some evidence that supports their beliefs, they aren't primarily an elaborate PR firm like the Discovery Institute or a big scam like Scientology or the religious right. If some true physical proof of God's existance showed up, the Templeton organization would absolutely be the go-to guys--they'd have the numbers, the measurements, all that.
Which is why they're one of the biggest arguments for atheism I know. These are smart, sincere, well-funded people. If anyone's likely to find the proof they're looking for, it's Templeton. Every year, they stick their hand out to find the best evidence they can. But they always pull back a fist full of air.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | March 15, 2007 10:28 AM
Blake Stacey wrote:
Yep, that's what I was trying to get at. It's from the Latin spiritus, and it meant 'breath' originally. Spiritual and respiratory both derive from the same root. Spirit literally does come "out of" thin air. It's not just latin and Sanskrit, in Hebrew too:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html
Blake Stacey lastly asked:
Yes.
It also means most of the ancients made the same mistake when thinking about the difference between life and death. They looked at a newly dead body, say someone died of a heart attack, and the only visible difference to them is that it's not breating and it's heart is not beating. Then they noted that wind moves things -- maybe it got inside people and moved them when you breathed.
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 15, 2007 10:29 AM
Tryptamine wrote, "more secular stuff we could agree is useful (and important)?"
Just to clarify. I'm not claiming that there is anything necessarily useful or important about noncorporeal spiritual experiances. As far as I can tell, they provide pleasure, but not insight. This doesn't make them bad either, except that we make them so.
Posted by: Flex | March 15, 2007 10:34 AM
You make an interesting point, Molly, and I'm sure you're right about the sincerity and competance of the Templeton people. But here's the thing - if you're looking for physical evidence of a phenomenon, aren't you doing natural science?
Let's think about what sort of evidence would be appropiate to support the existence of God. Certainly showing that natural selection is wrong or evolution had not occured would not be effective, unless we fall back on the old creationist false dichotomy of evolution/creation (there are other possibilities such as the seeding of life on this planet). Finding, say, God's signiture in a glacier (a la Hitch hiker's guide) would hardly be convincing, since such a thing could be readily faked, and even if it couldn't would only demonstrate the existence of phantom glacier writers, not God. So what sort of proof do you envisage?
The only thing I can think of is some sort of summoning of God, followed by demonstration of some miracles (and even this hardly proves omnipresence, for example). But even if you found convincing evidence for God, what happen next. Fine, atheists like myself cease to be atheists and believe in God for the same reason that I belive DNA is double helical or humans descended from apes. But the spiritual aspect is completely removed. Why should I refrain from sin, apart from fear of punishment? Why should I go to worship what would essentially be reduced to a natural phenomenon. I beieve (and have evidence!) the big bang created the universe as a natural process - and I don't worship that!
You also mustn't forget there are some pretty good purely logical arguments against Gods existence, which (personally) I find more convincing than simple lack of evidence (because of the problems described above).
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 10:42 AM
Ron : Ie the 'abstraction' is part of the world, not a creation of the human nervous system. The world created the human nervous system, not the other way around.
You are right on the second point but wrong on the first!
The world created the human nervous system for sure but the human nervous system creates an IMAGE OF THE WORLD to its own use.
This is the ONLY THING we know about, "the map is not the territory", the 'abstraction' is NOT part of the world but part of this "world image".
All bickering about "reality" between atheists, religionists and whatever any other fancy philosophical standings comes from confusing "the world" with our current opinion about the world.
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 15, 2007 10:44 AM
My best definition of spirituality is "the titillation of the unknown".
I have the same issue as PZ with the word, so when people use it I ask them what they mean. So, this is anecdotal, but I have found that the experiences people describe have the same things in common.
Imagine you are walking through a strange woods that you have never walked through before. You will experience feelings -- everyone will -- atheists, christians, buddhists. You will see and hear strange things. You're imagination will be sparked. Exciting. Very human.
Now imagine walking through the woods by your house that you walk through every day. There are no feelings. There is no mystery, no unknown. Therefore no titillating feelings of mystery.
Scientists, by the nature of their work, explore at the edges of the known world. The irony is that this makes scientists the biggest junkies of this titillating feeling of the unknown.
However, "spiritual" people want to think that they are unique somehow -- that it takes some special rituals to get that feeling back.
Posted by: Sonja | March 15, 2007 10:47 AM
To Geneticblend #36: thank you very much for your post.
Posted by: NeoLotus | March 15, 2007 10:51 AM
"-- even an air molecule will suffice."
Air molecule?
Sorry Blake, my inner pedant made me do it...
Otherwise - I agree, quantum physics does not imply that you need consciousness for stuff to materially exist and any suggestion of such is wootastic.
Posted by: NC Paul | March 15, 2007 10:51 AM
Kevembuangga
If the a species did not have its own nature in the world, then how could we make an image of it? Where would our knowledge to make such an abstraction come from? The mind of God? No, the 'abstraction' has to be there before the human nervous system can find it.
Posted by: Ron | March 15, 2007 10:56 AM
Hi Flex -
Oh yes - this gets us into the interesting realm of the function of aesthetics in personal life and society :-) If we accept that, like art, the content of you noncorporeal experience is essential aesthetic in nature then it is the emotional impact, rather than the actual content, that is to be taken seriously. Nobody expects Romeo & Juliet to be a *true* story - we understand it to be a fiction, but the manipulation of our emotions through the play is still pleasurable, and for complex reasons. Part of this is a desire to transcend our own bodies, our understanding, and our lives in order to get over the banal details of everyday life and focus on larger patterns, fears and desires.
I personally think narrative, metaphor and storytelling is a huge part of human life - presumably related to our gift for languages and to cement our culture. Religion plays into this in complex ways. And why not use science as a source of this? When the story being told is *true* - as well as thrilling - then I think the impact is all the greater.
This is all very personal, of course, but I have some idea of the experiences you describe and I find them to be very useful in my life. Knowing that humans have really only existed for a blink in the eye of the universe; that all my atoms were once part of a star; and how amazing (not unlikely, but still amazing) the evolution of life as complex as humans is gives my strength to overcome day to day pain, to forgive others, and enthusiasm in my (scientific) work. I don't like to call this "spirituality" (mostly because of bad associations) - but maybe I should.
Anyway, any thoughts? :-)
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 11:00 AM
potentilla : Kevembuangga, were you in fact responding to me?
No I wasn't but I roughly agree on some of your claims that some inner feelings surely have some genetic basis and may differ from one individual to the other.
Given that inner feelings are our ONLY source of information from the outer world (colors, pitches, tastes, warmth, etc...) if for some they include feelings of a "presence" (like in the controversial Persinger's experiments) it is certainly difficult to convince those people to ignore them.
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 15, 2007 11:00 AM
God damn. I guess a PHD in the sciences gives you universal competence to write pronouncements about anything. You can feel free to dismiss the work of another PHD out of hand, without having to read a book or even a journal article of theirs. Reading two pages on the Internets is plenty good enough.
Evidence schmevidence. PZ Myers observes that attacking a religion PHD makes him feel good, and attracts sycophants to his blog. No effort to examine Taylor's work is even necessary. Great scientific thinking here.
No wonder the sciences and the humanities got a divorce.
Oh, and how about those humanities professors with their bags of money? Of course, people coming out of universities with science degrees don't make anything.
Posted by: JJWFromME | March 15, 2007 11:01 AM
"Oh, and how about those humanities professors with their bags of money?"
Erm ... presumably that's ironic?
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 11:04 AM
DI, AIG, Templeton all are pathetic reactionary, and increasingly impotent signs of the frustration of last generation's non-thinkers .. Don't worry to much Science marches on.
Posted by: Dan H | March 15, 2007 11:04 AM
"Erm ... presumably that's ironic?"
Yes, very. The guy won a 1.5 million dollar prize. But I'm sure he didn't become a humanities professor to get rich.
Posted by: JJWFromME | March 15, 2007 11:07 AM
I suspect one of the points of confusion could be addressed by answers to a specific question: "Are hallucinations real?" And the discord comes from the different meanings of the word "real." So, for example, there can be a definable, reproducible phenomenon that occurs during various types of stress on the brain during hallucination, so it is in this sense real. But the various visions, senses of transcendence and so on do not have corresponding objects external to the hallucinator's own brain, so it is also NOT real.
The various things most commonly associated with "spirituality" are similar to things 'seen' during hallucination experiences.
Posted by: Taxorgian | March 15, 2007 11:07 AM
"Erm ... presumably that's ironic?"
I don't think you get me. At least in my country, humanities graduates find it notoriously difficult to find jobs while scientists are under high demand, especially the biological sciences. The Templeton is extremely unusual as a big prize in the humanities, being set up deliberately (and slightly childishly) to be a bit bigger than the Nobel prize.
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 11:11 AM
Ah, found the link. From BBC:
"Chemistry and physics graduates earn £98,000 more on average during their careers than students who get a degree in history, a study suggests."
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 11:14 AM
"The various things most commonly associated with "spirituality" are similar to things 'seen' during hallucination experiences."
Well I don't think you've 'seen' some of the work on cognitive psychology and religion having to do with metaphor and embodied mind. Not that you'd be interested.
Posted by: JJWFromME | March 15, 2007 11:18 AM
RedMolly's five-second definition of "spirituality," as it applies to me:
Go outside at night. Look up at the sky. Think about how many stars you can see; then think about how many you can't see. Think about how you're made of the same kind of stuff as those stars, and how billions of years ago the atoms in your body were part of the clouds that birthed those same stars.
Think how unimaginably tiny you are in comparison to all that stuff; then think how cool it is that you're around at all, considering the astronomical odds against your conception and birth. Think how cool it is that other people are around, too, considering the astronomical odds against their conception and birth. Go back inside and hug some of those people and take a second to appreciate them. Scratch behind your cat's ears. Have another glass of wine.
Wow... a sense of transcendent connectedness with the universe, with no visions or gods or "universal consciousness" required. And it makes you feel like being nice to people and other critters, too.
Posted by: RedMolly | March 15, 2007 11:19 AM
"Well I don't think you've 'seen' some of the work on cognitive psychology and religion having to do with metaphor and embodied mind"
Ah, and we've gone full circle - somebody claiming that spritituality is ineffable, and if we don't understand we're beneath being told exactly what it is. Try telling us in clear language what great insights cognative psychology and the embodied bind yield!
Posted by: Tryptamine | March 15, 2007 11:22 AM
"I don't think you get me. At least in my country, humanities graduates find it notoriously difficult to find jobs while scientists are under high demand..."
Yes, we agree about that. My point is that people on this site are shedding alligator tears about the unfairness of this guy getting 1.5 million dollars. When was the last time you heard about someone with a humanities career making 1.5 million dollars? Oh, the injustice, say the scientists.
Posted by: JJWFromME | March 15, 2007 11:23 AM