I don't understand people who say they're spiritual but not religious. Isn't that just being superstitious without the benefits of community and ritual?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In case you missed the trail of links that magically appeared on several blogs this morning, here it is:
Almost Diamonds → Skepchick → Greg Laden's Blog → Whitecoat Underground → Traumatized By Truth → My Fair Scientist → Neurotopia → A Blog Around the Clock → Pharyngula
What it all led up to was a…
To say I'm a lapsed Catholic would be an understatement. I haven't set foot in a church in years, other than for a couple of weddings. I've never cared for parts of the official doctrine, and I think they blew it when they made Giblets Pope. In terms of general attitude toward religion, I'm sort of…
PZ Myers is disappointed. There's a massive oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is incapable of stopping it, as is the federal government, and the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida (and soon on to Georgia and the Carolinas) are being coated in a chocolatey rainbow of crude oil. This is bad,…
The EO Wilson interview on Salon is worth watching a commercial for; he's an interesting and smart fellow, even where I disagree with him. I've put a few excerpts below the fold just in case you really detest jumping through those capitalist hoops.
I've talked with some atheists who've suggested…
bwah!
No, one way of looking at "the spiritual" (there are many ways, of course) is as a kind of earlier, phenomenological worldview.
It's in that sense that Husserl stated that science and mathematics came out of the spiritual, and it is also how some continental philosophers complain about the desacralization of the world which came substantially during Xianity.
One really would hope that non-religious folk would actually study out "spirituality" before simply accepting the religious sense of it, as if that were the truth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I'd disagree that there's no community involved in spiritualism. While there may be individual praticioners who do it on their own volition, for the most part spiritualism is a communally-driven enterprise. It's distinction from religion is the break from Dogma.
That pretty much sums up my thoughts. Most of my "spiritual" friends are into auras, chakras, past lives and other such new age BS - and some of them are trained scientists. I bite my tongue a lot.
Come now, haven't you heard christianity is not a religion, its a personal relation with a most likely fictitious Jewish zombie. Of course wyhen making this argument, these people tend to forget that they are (at least in my experience) talking to atheists, not fellow magic beard in the sky types. It's much like the evangalising types who think putting enough bible quotes out there will somehow convert nonbelievers.
some humorist once noted: "The religious person is afraid of Hell. The spiritual has already been there."
Well I am desperate but not serious.
I guess to be religious you have to have some sort of spirituality,but the reverse isnt true.
Just watched an amazing movie btw,"The Man from Earth",it even has Jesus in it ! Fascinating,highly recommended.
One day I hope that someone will give a definition of spiritual that I can understand. Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than navel gazing and saying wow, the universe is so big! like a stoner, and others it seems to be about pixies and shit. I can't fathom it, and yet my life seems no worse for not having spirituality. Apparently I'm not missing what some would claim to be the point of existence. Weird.
The implication when somebody uses the "spiritual but not religious" phrase is that atheists are somehow not spiritual people. Otherwise a person would just say "not religious" or "atheist". So the phrase is used as a way to try to find a "middle ground" between religion and non-religion.
It seems really silly to me.
I mean, aside from the people who are into auras and crystals and all of that jazz. In my experience most of the people who use the phrase are not New Agers.
The Japanese seemed to have managed the trick of using religions
for the ritual, without necessarily having the beliefs that go with
them. They don't use the community parts, though; I wonder if there
is any culture that uses religious forms *just* for the community?
ie with no expectation of belief?
Years ago I started collecting definitions of God, religion, and spirituality. I included quotes from people explaining the difference between religion and spirituality.
It's grown to 58 pages, last I checked.
Suffice to say the answers are ...varied. There's no general agreement. But many distinctions elevate spirituality over religion, in that spirituality is how one connects to God personally, and religion is relegated to institutions and organizations. Sometimes.
"Spirituality" also tends to be defined even more vaguely than religion, so that it will include - and occasionally mean nothing more -- than joy, aesthetics, and caring about the cosmos.
You mean, like, Unitarians?
I'm spiritual, but not religious;
egotistical, not prestigious;
belligerent, but not litigious;
deviant, but not prodigious.
Take the extreme, remove the part
that shows I have a working heart;
Whatever's left is what I am,
Because I do not give a damn.
The benefit, but not the cost
Is mine--if something might be lost,
It's paid by others, not by me--
Three cheers for sociopathy!
You know, considering some of the communities and rituals involved, I can see why being "spiritual" would be the more attractive option.
A more complete Sagan quote:
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
i don't understand people who say that they are religious and then have kids who the give the idea of god to them when the idea is bogus. seems like the could do better at making better humans.
Cuttlefish shoots...and SCORES!
Whenever you hear someone talk about how "spiritual" they are, just substitute the word "credulous" instead. It makes far more sense.
Sanity Jane, #4
Tell me about it. I have a friend with a biology related PhD who is into homoeopathy. HOMOEOPATHY!
It's embarrassing.
Cuttlefish needs a Punk Rock band.
No, no no. I am a very devout atheist, but am still spiritual - in fact, much more spiritual than most religious or "new age" people. To me, the spiritual world means the non-physical aspects of our existence. That doesn't mean ghosts, or fortune tellers, or any of that nonsense. It means emotions, morality, joy, wonder, justice, beauty, empathy, discovery - many of the very things that you clearly believe in very strongly, PZ.
Ask Richard Dawkins next time you see him - I think he is a very spiritual man. Imagine Carl Sagan - one of the most spiritual men who ever lived. For example, he suggested that the Voyager spacecraft should turn its camera around and take a picture of the earth to show how insignificant the earth is within the universe. That was not a rational, logical request - it was a spiritual request - a way to compare the vastness of the universe with the insignificance of mankind.
I see spirituality as a huge part of humanity that the churches have tried to equate with religion. In fact, religion is a tiny and very misguided part of spirituality. The whole "new age" spiritualism is similar - a very tiny and misguided aspect of spirituality.
Church of England?
I try to avoid the term "spiritual", but I can see some validity in it. I've been chided by the scientism crowd that my general belief system does not preclude something outside of the structure of science (not a god, or personal diety, nor most new age claims, since these all fall into the true/false empirical domain of science).
"Spiritualism" is an easier explanation than the pages of philosophical mumbo-jumbo I'm sure I could fill to properly explain my world view.
Different people mean different things when they say "spiritual". I consider myself spiritual and I'm a naturalist, atheist, determinist, and border-line nihilist. When I think of spirituality, I just think of a certain emotional mind state, a sort of calm, uplifting bliss. I know a lot of people who say they're "spiritual, but not religious" believe in bullshit, but a lot of them are just atheists with a romantic (in the true sense of the word) side.
dibs on bass
Yes, the Unitarians do it, and I guess that's a model for what I
had in mind.
"Do" the community thing, I mean. Not as in "birds do it, bees do it",
though I guess they do that too.
Cuttlefish may need a punk band. But he deserves Celtic harps.
Sounds like a perfectly rational, logical thing to me.
If you consider the word 'spirit' has the same root as the word 'inspire' then 'spiritual' can have a non-religious connotation.
I have problems with the word "spirituality" because it has so many possible -- and different -- meanings that it's pretty much useless. If someone says they are spiritual -- or asks if you are spiritual -- you always have to ask them what they mean. And even then, you can't always believe them.
"By 'spiritual,' I mean loving and caring and feeling a connection to other people, to the world, and to what is beautiful." they say.
"Oh, ok. In that case, I'm spiritual."
"Wonderful. We are going to have a crystal-power meditation circle tonight so we can all do some deep past-life regression work. You must come, you'll love it."
People use the word as if everyone understood what it means, and they all mean whatever the speaker means. Not necessarily.
I do appreciate the secular, rational, humanistic versions of "spirituality," but I'm afraid the supernaturalists have ruined the word for me in the same way the fundamentalists have ruined the term "pro-family." It feels icky.
I feel the same way. People who say they are "spiritual, but not religious" often seem to mean that they have a personal relationship with Jesus, but dislike all the evil things that have been done by Religion. But having an organized community is not necessarily a bad thing! Having the mistaken belief that Jesus is your personal savior is necessarily a bad thing. I like that people shift under the pressure on religion, but sometimes they just shift in the wrong direction!
Of course, my objection depends on a specific definition of "spiritual" and "religious". I do not object spirituality in general, nor do I approve of religion in general.
I know what a brain is - a lump of flesh inside my skull - and yours too.
I think I know what a mind is - the activity that lump of flesh gets up to that provides me with the cognitive facility I have with which I interpret the world around me.
I'm NOT very clear on what "spirituality" means, because it just seems to be the emotional aspects of the mind that erupt from, or are fed by any of a number of events in which we are affected by things that happen to people around us or some part of the natural world around us and for which we have some empathy. The way most people express it, it seems like nonsense.
But when they get to "soul", I'm totally lost. I think I know what they think they mean, but in terms of humans, I think the notion of a soul is a concept born of delusion. It's as substantial as the "ether". Apart from its use to describe a genre of music, "soul" has no meaning to me.
I'll agree with Mark #22 above. Spiritual is how I feel in the joyful, wondrous beauty of say, the intact ecosystems of desert or taiga wilderness. It's then that I feel truly one with my maker: Earth.
TEAM SPIRIT: rah rah ree, kick a deist in the knee. rah rah rass, forgive his deluded ass.
The popular definition of "spiritual" seems to be synonymous with "empathetic". Think back to Les Miserables -- the villain, Javert, is depicted as a cold-hearted worshipper of Voltaire and what he takes for logic, whereas the hero is animated by his faith in God and altruistic nature.
Thank you to those of you who posted Sagan quotes. In so many ways, Sagan inspires my sense of "spirituality" far more so than anything else. I'd actually say that you could substitute the word "wonder" for "spirituality" in my case.
I'd say that our language is very poor at describing the different kinds of spirituality that we experience - the comments thread on this post is evidence enough. For anybody who experiences/pursues some deeper connection to their world/their inner life (for lack of a better way to phrase it), we have coined the term "spiritual". Just because some people have "ruined the word" doesn't mean we should make a categorization error towards all applications of the word. And I feel that the above image capitalizes on that type of misconception versus the reality of how people experience it.
i thought Spirit was an american rock band from the '60s that released 'Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus'. No, it's something else? damn, i loved that record.
Mark @22: "It means emotions, morality, joy, wonder, justice, beauty, empathy, discovery - many of the very things that you clearly believe in very strongly, PZ. "
Can you give some examples of people who aren't "spiritual" under your definition? It seems to me that it would include anyone who isn't a cartoonish mustache-twirling villain (and even many of them, too!), which makes for a rather useless term in my opinion.
Isn't the truth the other way around? There are plenty of ways of enjoying community without connecting it with religion.
Sharing music at a concert or a hike in the forest with other people is plenty of community and yet feels special in a non-religious, non-superstitious way.
I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "spiritual"... perhaps I'm confusing it with "numinal".
Religion is spirituality cornered and forced to answer some basic questions about what exactly it's claiming.
People who say they're "spiritual but not religious" are either confused about what they believe, and thus can't answer those basic questions, or are simply being intentionally vague, either to avoid having to explain the embarrassing details of their beliefs or to keep their options open so as not to embarrass themselves if it turns out they picked the wrong god(s)/metaphysical-workings-of-the-universe.
Well, there's also those who call themselves spiritual because "religion" has negative connotations while "spiritual" has positive ones, even though they're happy to admit to, and explain in detail, beliefs that are entirely indistinguishable with some mainstream religion. But those superficial poseurs aren't even worth discussion.
spirituality without religion is more like being happy without the superstition at all...
"Sounds like a perfectly rational, logical thing to me."
It's unfortunate, then, that you were not part of Mission Control at NASA. Because the scientists and controllers thought it was a stupid idea that would contribute nothing. It took quite a lot of persuasion by Carl to get NASA to do it.
Ummmm. I don't use exactly that phrase, but when I express those sentiments, I mean the exact converse - I mean that I am not superstitious at all, I just have a devotional attitude toward community, and I can deal with a certain amount of ritual to go along with it.
@39
While I think anyone, if asked, would certainly like to say that they are spiritual in this sense, I think that many people tend to get caught up in their jobs, making money, consumerism and other such things. For many people things such as beauty/justice/morality tend not to be at the forefront of their thinking and central to their daily lives. A spiritual person could then be said to be, not merely one who thinks these things are important, but who actively values them in their day to day lives; the sort of people who constantly aware of the beauty of the world around them.
I don't know how well that works, but it is the only way have 'spirituality' as a term which actually denotes something meaningful.
I am religious but not spiritual.
I have a strong sense of my connection to the past & to others, the actual meaning of "religion" (Re=backwards/past, Lig=binding (ligature), -ion=act of).
The only "spirits" of any sort that I believe in are alcoholic spirits: even though I rarely consume them I know they exist.
To PM at 39: "Can you give some examples of people who aren't "spiritual" under your definition? It seems to me that it would include anyone who isn't a cartoonish mustache-twirling villain (and even many of them, too!), which makes for a rather useless term in my opinion."
No, I can't. I think we are all spiritual beings, which is why I object to the initial post. I guess it's equivalent to being "alive", which is presumably a useless term in your opinion.
Mark #22: I see spirituality as a huge part of humanity that the churches have tried to equate with religion. In fact, religion is a tiny and very misguided part of spirituality. The whole "new age" spiritualism is similar - a very tiny and misguided aspect of spirituality.
That sounds close to what I've been thinking, but I saw it more in terms of spirituality being part of the commons, that is, something that every (normally functioning) human being possesses, with both organized religion and New Age gurus trying to fence off that part of the commons and claim it as their own exclusive domain.
In other words, if you don't believe in X, then whatever thoughts, feelings or experiences you have that you might think are spiritual -- aren't. According to the believers of X, those thoughts, feelings and experiences you're having are pseudo-spiritual, not the real deal. And the only way to get the real deal is to believe in X, which you demonstrate by joining the church, or buying the guru's book, or taking a feng shui class with like-minded believers, or getting your energy balanced by the local Reiki master.
Rudy @ 11,
I'm not aware of any cultures like that, but I think that that's pretty much what you see in some of the Unitarian Churches.
Quoth Mark @ 22: "I am a very devout atheist, but am still spiritual - in fact, much more spiritual than most religious or "new age" people."
Wow, not pretentious or anything! How the hell do you measure "spirituality" for the purposes of comparison? You then list qualities that religion most certainly does not preclude, including joy, wonder, and justice.
I happen to be a fervent feminist, but am still beautiful - in fact, much more beautiful than most models and actresses...as long as I get to define "beauty."
To cpsmith at 45: "For many people things such as beauty/justice/morality tend not to be at the forefront of their thinking and central to their daily lives. A spiritual person could then be said to be, not merely one who thinks these things are important, but who actively values them in their day to day lives; "
I think you're right there, and as you follow that thought you find the people who may be extremely religious, but not very spiritual - some of those people are the most dangerous. They claim to speak for God, but they don't have true visions of justice and morality. (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson come to mind.)
Could it be referring to some kind of Geist instead, when people say they are "spiritual"? You know, the "spirit" as in "spirited" i. e. enthusiasm.
I have trouble with using "spiritual" for what I am, too. I don't know how else to encompass the qualities of introspection and an intense interest in ethics in a single word. It's disappointing to think that by calling myself spiritual, I'm lumping myself in with New Ageists.
CatBallou at 50: How the hell do you measure "spirituality" for the purposes of comparison?
see # 51 for an example.
Mark@47 "No, I can't. I think we are all spiritual beings, which is why I object to the initial post. I guess it's equivalent to being "alive", which is presumably a useless term in your opinion."
Thanks for answering.
That would depend on the context. Certainly saying "I am alive" doesn't convey any additional information, so in that context, it is useless. Saying, "my great-grandmother is alive" does at least say something. But if all humans are spiritual, then describing anyone as "spiritual" is redundant.
cpsmith @ 45: "For many people things such as beauty/justice/morality tend not to be at the forefront of their thinking and central to their daily lives. A spiritual person could then be said to be, not merely one who thinks these things are important, but who actively values them in their day to day lives; the sort of people who constantly aware of the beauty of the world around them."
I think that's the definition many people use. But then doesn't it sound terribly pretension for someone to describe himself as spiritual? It's like saying "I'm deeper and less superficial than you." If you have to say it....
I wonder if there is any culture that uses religious forms *just* for the community?
ie with no expectation of belief?
I am an atheist and a Unitarian so I would agree with those who said the Unitarians might fit the bill. Of course, I don't ever go to church despite my identification as a Unitarian. The Unitarians kind of have trouble getting the asses in the seats.
So why not just say we are alive? And isn't calling yourself spiritual redundant? Asking someone "are you spiritual" would be redundant, since anyone who can answer must automatically be spiritual. The term loses all usefulness if it is merely a synonym for "alive"
I mentally roll my eyes at people who tell me they are "spiritual but not religious." In my experience, such people usually can't explain what that means and I suspect they are just trying to avoid the stigma of atheism. It sounds kind of vague and meaningles and hippie-dippie. But now that I have read so many good explanations on this thread of what it means to be spiritual, I will be a little more charitable in the future.
When I am asked, I usually say that I am an atheist but am definitely religious, which I suppose is another way of saying what others on this thread have been saying except without the New Age connotations of the word "spiritual." I consider myself religious in that I am constantly pre-occupied with the big picture (or perhaps what Paul Tillich called matters of "ultimate concern") such as how do I want to spend my life, what meaning do I want my life to have, am I living in an ethical way, how do I achieve emotional/psychological peace, how do I come to terms with my own mortality, etc. etc.
Rudy #11 wrote:
I immediately thought of Humanistic Jews. They do most of the rituals and ceremonies, but only as an expression of their culture and heritage, and they readily admit that. They're nontheists.
Hey be nice PZ, this is a step in the right direction!
Spiritual people are just as incredulous, yes, but they lack the fanatic loyalty and automaton nature of the religious purebred.
Perhaps atheists should appropriate 'philosophy' and claim it as their special turf.
"Hey man, are you a spiritual person?"
"No. But I'm deeply philosophical."
Sounds kinda scary. Maybe they won't ask anything else.
I"m going to use that one!
I have been having an 'argument' on Facebook with a Catholic 'lawyer' about ID/Evolution. (I am only a musician who visits pharyngula everyday. Very interested in evolutionary theory/science in general)
Would any of you like to befriend me on facebook and respond to this twit? He left a screed called 'Verbal and Intellectual Rapeage(sic) on (me)'. He was the drummer in my high school band and now he's a douchebag. The screed is maybe too LONG to post here, and full of shit. I did my best debunking (same old creationist nonsense). would love if any of you REAL BIOLOGISTS would like to weigh in for me(and evolution). Please help . Thanks!
Perhaps a (the only?) valid reason for a non-superstitious person to use the word "spiritual" is to make an informal connection with non-theistic person who is unsure what to make of his or her numinal experiences. Of course this could lead to misunderstandings...
Hey Mark... what the heck is a "devout atheist"?
This discussion has clarified a bit for me my own sense of the subject. "Spiritual" and "spirit" to me are related to "esprit," as in "esprit de corps." It's the overall condition of one's unconscious activity (which is the vast majority of brain activity, incidentally) and its relation to our conscious assessment of ourselves and our connection to others and our surroundings.
Because the unconscious (Freud's term) is such a large part of even our decisions to move parts of our bodies, this relationship would seem quite important. There are those whose spirits are just fine without having to monitor them or feed them or even think consciously about them. Unfortunately, most of us are neurotic to the point where our unconscious often subverts what we desire consciously to achieve.
People who feel no need to address their "spiritual" aspect are, simply put, spiritually healthy. But by my definition, PTS, libido, pangs of conscience, inexplicable likes and dislikes, self-destructive behavior, as well as passion, creativity, social bonding - these are all attributes of the spirit.
So a perfectly healthy, happy atheist might suddenly find herself in need of spiritual aid in the event of a traumatic experience, let's say. The reason I wouldn't call this simply an emotional or mental problem is that those terms localize the issue within the confines of the subject. Spirit is a social phenomenon. The way one person's interior emotional problem affects the ecology of her social behavior and self-image, both on the conscious and unconscious levels, is the spiritual cast of the problem.
It's not hard to see where God or another non-empirical agent comes into this. When people have trouble in spirit, often the crutch of imagining a higher power is necessary to bring the spirit to a state of better repair.
This is what I believe the word has come to mean, even when spoken by those who don't understand it as such. When they say, "God helps me," they are also saying, "The concept of God fixes my spiritual damage."
There is nothing wrong or stupid about having a spiritual relationship with a non-empirical entity. It's a survival strategy developed by the mind to maintain itself in the face of the fact that most of its own activities occur outside its direct conscious control. The fact that some don't need such a strategy makes them no better or worse vis-a-vis someone who does than having two legs makes someone better than someone with only one.
This may seem kind of paternalistic, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Or at the very least, insightful.
To my understanding, Pagan cultures often exhibit no expectation of belief, but they demand the proper execution of ritual. The Romans, to my understanding, couldn't care less what you believed, but you had better perform your sacrifices, or else.
Count me with the people who have always understood "not religious but spiritual" as an evasion. I would tend to interpret it to mean "I believe in something, but damned if I could tell you what", at least to the extent it means anything at all; it could also mean "I know you're religious and you'd probably think less of me if I said I wasn't, so I'm going to blow holy smoke up your ass and hope you don't care."
If I really had to define myself, I'd say I'm spiritual, but not religious. Oh, and atheist. It's a real barebones spirituality, though. Soul, spirits, afterlife... just no god(s). Although I feel admitting that is inviting myself to get eaten alive by the commentors. I've got some BBQ sauce handy, in case anyone wants it.
And in regards to the image, I don't see the benefits in the community or rituals to begin with. (The former tends to unnerve me.)
It seems to me that if you have to provide a definition of the word every single time you use it, maybe it's time you found a better word.
"Spiritual" is such a fuzzy term. I think some non-religious, rational people such as Carl Sagan use it to indicate that they are not mere objectivists; that they appreciate the value in experience. I prefer the term "moral," because it indicates that one "cares," and is not coldly objective.
Dig this, people.
A 'lawyer' and a douchebag.
I am fighting for science. help
Just say something.
PZ I know your busy, but pleeeez...
On Facebook- Jeff Nowmos, South Jersey network.
TO ALL WHO CARE - MY ASS-KICKING OF JEFF NOWMOS
Jeff Nowmos decided to respond to my Note about my religious beliefs by bringing me into a debate with him in which he says that basically, anyone who believes in God and Intelligent Design (I.D.) is an uneducated and ignorant doofus. Well, anyone who knows me, knows that I love an intellectual challenge and an opportunity to shove someone’s words up their ass. So, feel free to review our prior exchanges on my other note under “Religous Stuff” to better understand why I felt it necessary to humble this ignorant bastard.
But first, just a brief background so you understand what this debate is actually about. I have asserted (and established) that there are a long list of scientists who actually believe in God and believe that the process of evolution falls short of explaining many of the most fundamental questions pertaining to the beginning of life and the beginning of the Universe. In fact, many scientists are investigating a growing theory called “Intelligent Design” (I.D.) Intelligent Design is NOT what the skeptics what you to believe it is (the old ideas of creationism, which based itself upon two tenets: a supernatural agent created all things, and the Bible gives us an accurate account of what happened). Unfortunately, this concept of I.D. is so offensive to most of mainstream academia, for various reasons, that they are being deprived of the funding and opportunity to explore this scientific theory. They are labeled as scientific “heretics”, religious lunatics and they are blackballed from continuing this line of scientific investigation. (Ironically, this is the exact same intellectual dishonesty caused by the Catholic Church many centuries ago, when it attempted to punish anyone who challenged their current religious doctrines, such as the earth being the center of the universe. In that case, Science and Truth eventually won the day and defeated the attempts of those who wished to stifle truth because they were afraid to hear it). This type of intellectual dishonesty, is exactly what “science” is perpetuating by its refusal to consider I.D. as being scientific.
Now, the stuff below, pertains to Jeff’s most recent factually ignorant and retarded opinion that “there are no “real” scientists who support the idea of Intelligent Design and there are no peer reviewed journals of any such theories”. I explained to him that despite academia’s attempt to stifle such research, it is ongoing and there are real scientists who support it. Jeff claims this is not true and he called me a religious cukoo, a “fucktard” and a bunch of other things as I explained to him how wrong he was. He has insisted that I show him ONE REAL scientist who holds an I.D. opinion and who has offered it for peer review. So, I have done it and established once again that Jeff, you are an ignorant fool and a stupid asshole. To the rest of you, Behold my continued ass-kicking of Jeff Nowmos’ stupid, retarded, ignorant, uninformed opinions, and incorrect assertions of “facts”. Let the ass kicking begin....
Mathematician and Scientist, William Dembski, has twin Ph.D.’s in mathematics and philosophy and did postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, physics at the University of Chicago, and computer science at Princeton University. He is one of the leading scientists on Intelligent Design and he is a Professor at Baylor University in Texas, where he created the Michael Polanyi Center, leading academic institute for pursuing the science of ID ID depends upon a concept known as Specified Complexity and is built upon three tenets:
1. Specified complexity is well defined and empirically detectable.
2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.
Dembski puts it this way: “Specified complexity powerfully extends the usual mathematical theory of information, known as Shannon information. Shannon’s theory dealt only with complexity, which can be due to random processes as well as to intelligent design. The addition of specification to complexity, however, is like a vise that grabs only things due to intelligence. Indeed, all the empirical evidence confirms that the only known cause of specified complexity is intelligence.”
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS MEAN?
Say you’re out raking leaves in the backyard. If you were to find little piles of leaves, equally spaced apart in a long line, the arrangement would be an example of specificity, but it could be explained by what fell out of a rolling barrel. Each time the barrel made a revolution, another clump fell out, each spaced apart by about the same distance. The pattern is specified, but not complex.
When you come across thousands of piles of leaves in no particular pattern, that’s complex, and it may take billions of overturned barrels to produce another pattern just like it. But it’s not specified. No intelligent design is required to explain it.
But let’s say you come across a thousand leaves arranged as letters spelling meaningful words, sentences, paragraphs, even a whole story--that’s specified complexity. Specified complexity creates information and meaning, and that requires intelligent design.
Eugenie Scott (like dopey Jeff Nowmos, another loud-mouth opponent of I.D.) argues that intelligent design proponents don’t have a scholarly position because they never submit their work for peer review or hold academic conferences on the subject. But each time she brings up this complaint - she stops short when she comes to the work of William Dembski. This is because.....ARE YOU READY FOR THIS JEFF NOWMOS?.....Dembski’s book, The Design Inference, was written as part of a Cambridge University philosophy of science series. Published as Dembski’s doctoral dissertation in philosophy, it became Cambridge’s best-selling philosophical monograph in recent years. After surviving a review of 70 scholars, and then the standard dissertation defense at the University of Illinois, The Design Inference finally underwent corrections and refereed scrutiny for two years at Cambridge University Press. Scott remembers Dembski’s “The Nature of Nature” conference (April 12-15 at Baylor) and grudgingly admits: “They actually did invite some scientists there.” In fact, the slate of speakers was weighted toward prominent biologists, physicists, and philosophers who were critical of intelligent design included two Nobel Prize-winning scientists and several members from the National Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, as admitted by Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer, whose editorial board is overwhelmingly composed of intelligent design critics such as Stephen Jay Gould and Eugenie Scott, when referring to Dembski’s conference, stated “They have real degrees and tenure,”They’re real academics, not cranks” IF SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT TRUTH, WHY WOULD THEY NOT CONSIDER I.D.?
Because Science no longer follows the true Scientific Method and most academics and scientists are afraid to even consider the idea that a Creator - God - may actually exist! There is a method used in science today that is based on a philosophy called naturalism, defined by Funk & Wagnalls as “the doctrine that all phenomena are derived from natural causes and can be explained by scientific laws without reference to a plan or purpose.” It’s the “without plan or purpose” part that nixes Intelligent Design. When this philosophy is applied to science, it’s called methodological naturalism, and for many scientists today it is an unquestioned assumption.
Methodological naturalism proposes that scientists be provisional ATHEISTS in their work, no matter what contrary evidence they find. Intelligent design proponents are asking simply that science be purified of all philosophical biases.
Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson stated the issue succinctly at a recent congressional briefing: Americans, he said, must choose between two definitions of science in our culture: 1. science is unbiased, empirical testing that follows the evidence wherever it leads, or 2. science is applied materialist philosophy which, like Marxism or Freudianism, is willing to impose its authority. Unfortunately, #2 is what we have today.
OK, but are there any other Scientists who support the idea of a Creator and I.D.?
Yes. More than I feel like posting (and you feel like reading about) but I will name one more, because many people have at least heard his name and what he is famous for - Francis Crick -winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA’s structure,. Crick wrote that “the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd...The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence...is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”
What makes Crick’s statement funny, is, that he, like Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion - a book that says anyone who believes in God and believes in I.D. is a moron) believes that life may have started on earth by alien civilizations that planted seeds of life here on earth. Dawkins, is one of those funny pseudo-intellectuals who likes to make statements that Life can start without God, but when you ask him how it started, he will tell you it was started by other more advanced civilizations. This stupid theory actually has a name and it is called the “panspermia” hypothesis. Unfortunately, like all other intellectually dishonest and stupid ideas, it fails to answer the ultimate question....WHO STARTED THE FIRST LIFE? DUH!
Jeff, I accepted your challenge and I proved you are a fucking uneducated, ignorant asshole. You can continue to pretend none of this is true, you can continue to stick your head in the sand. But you won’t win an argument with me based on facts and intelligence, when you have neither facts on your side, or any brains in your empty head. Peace!
AJB has spoken!
When I see a hummingbird the size of my thumb plucking fluff off a cattail reed down by the marsh in early spring to begin her nest building, and realize she probably just got here from Belize, or, perhaps, Brazil, flying across several thousand miles, and that she is the result of a successful 3 billion year old RNA hyper-cycle that outcompeted some other 3 billion year old RNA hyper-cycle, and that the DNA in her, me, and the cattail is all the same, I find that spiritual.
What benefits? Community may have benefits, but you can get those without religion. Ritual has no benefits.
@#73--
I couldn't disagree more; I find that real, and real is so much bigger than spiritual!
"Spiritual" comes out of the vocabulary that thought "40 days and 40 nights" was a long time; a vocabulary that can't fathom the billions of years this rock has been here, or the extraordinary history of life that tells you that the hummingbird and the cattail reed actually share a common ancestor with you! "Spiritual" is a remnant of a time when too many things were considered to be beyond our grasp; our reach has grown, and we have taken "spiritual" by the throat and pulled it aside to find it had hidden the much more amazing reality from our view.
Jeff--TL, DR, mostly because I can't tell which are your words and which are your opponent's.
I don't know. It depends on whether they mean, like, water droplets freeze in patterns conforming to your feelings or some vague, pantheistic/deistic whatever that they're not going to be in any rush to say anything too particular about. Some amount of befuddlement over "something rather than nothing" seems ok to me if that's what one means by being spiritual but not religious. But if the first thing that one jumps to say in such a discussion is that particular one-liner, then... I don't know, maybe not so much, or maybe so if you press enough. It depends.
Wiktionary sums up my understanding of spiritual nicely:
1. Of or pertaining to the spirit or the soul
2. Of or pertaining to the God or a Church; sacred
3. Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural
In short, for me spirituality refers to a form of dualism - a belief that there's something more to reality than space-time and mass-energy. Therefore, I don't consider myself spiritual at all.
BTW, procyon @73, if that's spiritual, then so is pretty much everything else that's ordinary.
Procyon--thanks for the lovely mental image! Let's not allow non-scientists to continue to co-opt words that are important to us, too, such as spirituality.
All is him except first six lines. He even misqouted ME in his screed. I didn't say the words he attributes to me. I never swore or resorted to attacks save for a few jokes...
He really misrepresented Dawkins on the question of the origin of life. Here's betting he's seen Expelled
I make a very clear distinction between the Divine and Religion. Like so many other things (I think of solstices and pagan rituatls), religion has essentially stolen what "divine" means and made it dirty.
A different word that describes the Divine very well is Numinous.
I could extoll the virtues of "divinity" and "numinous", but I will say that it's a state of mind that simply exists (just like fear and happieness), and that it is even starting to become understood through fMRI (recent studies revealing that it correlates to a quieting down of the Parietal lobe).
My understanding of spirituality is being able to achieve this state of mind more easily than not. Many people will only get there through drugs or strokes.
Spirituality is simply (in my definition of the word) a focus on your spiritual health which involves affinity to all things "Divine"... i.e. things that help us attain this state of mind. It is the recognition that the state you leave your "spirit" in, (i.e. fear, anger, hatred, resentment) has big impact on who you simply are.
This is in essence what Zen Buddhism is about, mind you. It's gymnastics for your brain.
Spirituality is not about ghosts and demons.
Jeff, ask him to answer two questions: what did/does the designer do and how can we test for that? If ID is not falsifiable, it's not science.
Memet @82,
Not so. Numinous refers to the experience of the "Divine", not to the Divine per se.
Really. You think it has nothing to do with ghosts (spirits)?
I think you'd be in a tiny minority of the population regarding that belief.
Sastra @#61:
Heh, I like it. But if they do ask, I think it would be best to be ready for them.
I've mentioned Jennifer Michael Hecht before, and how her book Doubt gives a long-term historical perspective to the topic under discussion: Is there anything "real" outside of physical, material, natural, reality, and how does the answer to the first question relate to how we should live our lives?
I recommend this book for anyone interested in the question. I don't agree with everything she wrote exactly as she phrases it, especially in the quiz in the introduction, but if it bothers you, grit your teeth and try to keep reading — I think the final payoff of a sense of philosophical historical perspective is well worth the effort.
There are some interesting radio and podcast interviews with her, which I am sure can easily be found via Google.
I would tend to consider the "spiritual" to be aspects of religion that don't fall into the category of outdated cosmology or morality. These aren't necessarily the aspects most emphasized by most religions (or even present in most religions) but they can involve learning a reverence for sentient beings and the cosmos, and acting in a way that is informed by such a mindset. Personally I find that my atheism doesn't clash with this kind of spirituality.
Continuing my comment @#85...
Jennifer Michael Hecht has also written The Happiness Myth (which I have not yet read), which, as I understand it, expands on the ancient ideas of philosophy as originally proposed (which were described in Doubt) as being timeless ways of thinking about one's life and one's self.
The key phrase she likes is "graceful-life philosophy", as she explains in the first chapter of The Happiness Myth as follows:
False dichotomy
Anon @ 75
I do see your point, and perhaps spiritual is not the right word. But to me the total interconnectedness of the Universe, Sagans' "star stuff"...we are all the result of combinations of elements cooked up in stellar furnaces...and the resultant processes and intricacies of life... has all ways given me a sense of awe,not (in my opinion)in any way ordinary (@ 78) ...That connection of us to everything else has a spiritual overtone. And not in any silly religious sense.
Jeff:
(I'll have to break this up so that it doesn't become too long. Feel free to use it however you wish)
Modern Evolutionary Theory (M.E.T) neither attempts, nor pretends to explain any questions, whether fundamental or not, "pertaining to the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe". That your opponent even mentions this is a sign that he doesn't even understand the basics. It's a classic misrepresentation.
There is no "theory" of Intelligent Design.
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable."
-- Phillip E. Johnson Spring 2006
Discovery Institute, Co-founder
"The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else."
-- Michael Medved 8/06/2006
Discovery Institute, Senior Fellow
Again, we'll use their own words against them:
"To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is "slow creation." When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a Creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning."
– Phillip Johnson, The Evolution Debate Can Be Won
From wiki:
"Johnson emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." only then can "biblical issues" be discussed. In the foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000) Johnson writes "The intelligent design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word." and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message.""
"...In a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone, Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." [In his book he writes] "God speaks the divine Logos to create the world.""
The "Wedge" strategies stated goals are to, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", and to "affirm the reality of God."
Absolute nonsense. Scientists have looked at ID and decided that it isn't scientific. Remember that even the main players are willing to admit that there isn't even a theory. And even more damning, at the Dover trial Michael Behe was asked:
Q: "But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?"
His answer?
A: "Yes, that's correct."
-- Michael Behe 10/18/2005
Discovery Institute Senior Fellow
So, if ID constitutes science, so does astrology, according to one of the most senior ID proponents, and one of the only scientists with any knowledge of biology (not much, considering how bad his books were), as well!
(More shortly!)
Ooh, provocative! Well, well! Still, if you aren't being provoked, you aren't really alive. :-)
Try online dating sometime, 4/10 gals are spiritual/not religious, 5/10 are Christian of some type and 1/10 are agnostic/atheist/buddhist.
It's a way of saying well I respect woo-woo stuff because I don't want to offend anyone, but I don't go to church.
Posted by: Mark | February 25, 2009 8:03 PM
"No, no no. I am a very devout atheist, but am still spiritual - in fact, much more spiritual than most religious or "new age" people. To me, the spiritual world means the non-physical aspects of our existence. That doesn't mean ghosts, or fortune tellers, or any of that nonsense. It means emotions, morality, joy, wonder, justice, beauty, empathy, discovery - many of the very things that you clearly believe in very strongly, PZ."
Some of you seem to be suspicious of anyone who identifies with a spiritual side. Don't be. Watch Jill Bolte Taylor, neuroanatomist, on TED Talks. She describes her stroke which affected her left brain, and this vivid description of what happened to her cognitive processes sounds like she was feeling rather spiritual as she nearly died.
Maybe spirituality is a right brain sensation that some left brain dominated linear thinkers have trouble allowing for themselves.
Furthermore, most eastern religions strive to quiet the chattering mind in order to achieve enlightenment. This is more than likely just quieting the left brain activity which allows right brain expression.
No need to fear religion in all this. It's just the bicameral brain. Some people favor one half over the other maybe like being handed.
I like #61's idea! I tried earlier to work out a meaningful definition for 'spiritual', but the term 'philosophical' seems to denote pretty much the same thing whilst avoiding the annoying conotations that come with 'spiritual'.
Rick @93,
1. Maybe you're just redefining the word.
2. Other religions don't? Meditation is a common technique.
3. There is no fear in the sense that it might infect us, rather of what religious people might do. Actually, it's more like concern than like fear.
So he isn't a biologist, then (and remember what Dembski said about ID being "Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory")? But even so, you are incorrect, Jeff, at least in one respect. There are scientists that accept ID, just none that are particularly relevant.
Two of many critiques of specified complexity:
A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"
How to Evolve Specified Complexity by Natural Means
Either point to them, or use them to show how specified complexity is fatally flawed.
Er, what does this have to do with scientific peer-review? This guy is an imbecile if he believes that Dembski's book was peer-reviewed, and nothing that he says even suggests that. Evidently he doesn't even know what scientific peer-review is! Notice that it was published as part of a "philosophy of science series", as well. In other words, ID is philosophy, not science. That's what we have been saying all along? Thank your opponent for that, will you?
We haven't found a reliable way to detect "planning or purpose" in nature, and particularly with respect to non-natural entities, of which there is no serious evidence. And we have no way to test non-natural entities, even if there were. Everything that we have looked at concerning the methods of detecting ID has lead to an abundance of "false-positives" (i.e. using the methods proposed by ID would, in all likely hood, suggest that a rock was designed).
And contrary to what your opponent suggests, there isn't one "scientific method". There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific methods. If scientists genuinely thought that they could detect design, they would flock to that area of research in their thousands! That they haven't is indicative of the success of ID.
Some more relevant links:
On the Origins of Methodological Naturalism
Rebuttal to William A. Dembski's Posting and to His Book "No Free Lunch"
I consider myself to be spiritual, but I don't believe in god(s) or the supernatural.
For me spirituality is probably best described as a way of meditating.
While gardening or even simply sitting outside, the best part for me is getting the sensation that you are one with the Earth. It sounds lame when you put it into words, but I don't know how else to describe it.
Personally, it's way to get perspective on life. While dying isn't something I look forward to, I know that when it happens I will become nourishment for the next generations of life. My organs will also live on in other people. In that sense, I will have eternal life.
No amount of ritual or following "divine" rules will help a person avoid death. Everyone dies.
But we all build upon (hopefully) what our ancestors gave us.
That... actually sounds very philosophical.
I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that by the time I die my organs aren't going to be much use to anyone else. But hey, I'm fairly sure I'm not going to mind either way...
I've been known to use the "spiritual, not religious" line before, mainly because of my serious disdain for religion. Rather than see it as a community, I see religion as shackles on the mind, voices from thousands of years in the past trying to tell me how to live my life. No thank you.
But I can't in good conscience call myself an atheist. There's still this irrational bit in me that says, "This is not all there is." I don't know if it's right, and I don't believe I will ever know. And I can either lie to myself and be one of the Cool Kids in the Atheist community, or I can be true to my feelings and sort out the universe on my terms.
Easy choice.
Also, as long as we're tossing out Sagan quotes:
I'm an atheist, but I think of spirituality as a secular idea. It has nothing to do with believing in invisible people in the sky, but learning to think on a higher level and trying to free oneself from the petty worries of being human.
Brian English wrote:
I know exactly what you mean. I've often had conversations like the following:
Some Guy: Humankind has three facets which need to be in balance before a person can be fulfilled.
Me: Oh, like what?
Some Guy: The mind.
Me: Right, right. Feed your head and all that.
Some Guy: The body.
Me: Oh, right! Body, certainly. Couldn't get far without one of those.
Some Guy: And the soul.
Me: I'm sorry, come again? I'm afraid I just don't follow you.
I think what many people consider the "soul" component or our spiritual side is just better termed emotional needs, but these same people tend to become insulted if I suggest such a thing. Emotions are petty, trivial things, apparently, like getting mad when you spill your coffee. They mean spiritual things, like the feeling you get when you hold your own child, or the sense of awe and humility that overcomes you when you contemplate the size of the Universe. I tell them right, those are emotions. Nothing at all to do with some immortal whiff of ectoplasm infused in my tissue or a vitalistic life force coursing through my veins. Souls and spirits just don't come into it.
It's usually at this point that they assume a pitiful expression and shake their head at my unfortunate state. My mind just isn't open, they explain to me. I'm limiting myself. Failing to see the big picture. I need to get in touch with my spiritual side.
It can be hard to get them to understand that spirituality really holds no interest to me, and furthermore that my life is not diminished for it.
Now that I've read some more of the other comments, I see that a lot of people seem to be using "spiritual" to describes feelings and longings that I would call poetic. Humanity certainly has always had a need to express a deep connection to things through art. But I think terming this activity "spirituality" is extremely misleading and open to abuse.
This is a question I'm uncertain of - Bob Mahler summed it up for me in a TV interview I think was linked to on this site - 'spirituality is on my "to-do" list'!
One person who I respect who gives me food for thought in this field is Susan Blackmore - a well known UK sceptic nowadays but who was also a paranormal investigator in her younger days. In this link she reviews her change of mind but in the second paragraph from the end she reveals that she still considers herself a 'spiritual person';
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm
Certainly her publications on conciousness show what a poorly understood research field that is. It's enough to make you feel very humble about our cognative abilities.
My own 'spirituality' is probably more general - the glow of feeling very much part of this material, and quite un-metaphysical, universe. But the argument is whether that is a real spirituality.
I can't recall ever calling myself spiritual, but I suppose I am that in the way Carl Sagan was.
I also think that way too many people underestimate reality, thinking it's only what's in front of their nose and thus view religion as more than that, rather like a cheap and pathetic replacement for the deep awe and wonder reality would inspire in them if they actually knew and thought properly about life, the universe, and everything. Life is freakishly amazing and awe-some, why can't more people realize that? -_-;;
Why do so many view science as "high tech mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with my life"? How can one get more people to realize that's highly false?
The only bit I can think of so far is showing them http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_univers… but that doesn't always work... I wish I could hammer some sense into some people, make them realize that religious fiction will never be as amazing, fascinating, nor respect-inducing as reality itself.
I have a strong sense of my connection to the past & to others, the actual meaning of "religion" (Re=backwards/past, Lig=binding (ligature), -ion=act of). - Jaycubed
No, that's not the actual meaning of "religion". The meaning of a word is what people actually intend to convey when they use that word, and understand when they hear or read it - not its etymological derivation.
In these terms, "spirituality" is a pretty useless word, except for the purposes of obfuscation, because different people intend to convey very different things by using it, and you can't tell what a particular person means, so using it leads to misunderstanding, not mutual comprehension.
Once again, Myers shows his complete disregard for anything with an iota of similarity to religion. Perhaps Dawkins can bring you up to speed on the spiritual practice of pantheism. Keep in mind that it is possible to insult an atheist by insulting spirituality.
I used to call myself spiritual but not religious, because I wanted to challenge the idea that conventional religions had a monopoly on feelings of awe and wonder, on personal growth and all the other uplifting things that people have mentioned upthread. I don't believe in a non-material spirit, but I do believe that people have needs that can neatly be grouped together as spiritual - the need for quiet time, and beauty, self-examination, and self-expression.
I stopped using the phrase rather rapidly when I realised that most people using it were new-agers... I certainly didn't want to lump myself in with crystal-worshippers!
In an ideal world I'd like to see spiritual redefined in natural terms and reclaimed for atheists to be able to use. That's not going to happen, so I don't use the word "spiritual" at all unless I know I will have the time to explain what I mean.
I sometimes describe myself as a "spiritual atheist" as it tends to make people think about what they mean by both words, which can lead to interesting discussions!
I'm prepared to except that there are meanings of "spirituality", such as Glen Davidson mentioned, that aren't just meaningless cant. On the other hand IME, anyone that tells you that they are "a spiritual person" is almost certainly credulous, self-important and tiresome. Possibly there is an exception if they are saying everyone is (in some specific sense) spiritual, but if they believe that they are particularly spiritual, it's bad news.
btw: Knockgoats smackdown on the argument for etymology FTMFW
Right now, for me, being "spiritual" means balancing respect for those who have come before us and those who are in front of us, compassion for those not as fortunate, and a discerning appreciation of beauty in others and within myself based on my faith in the possibility of humanity.
I have called myself a 'spiritual atheist' until I realized the Dutch word 'spiritueel' can have different connotations from the English word 'spiritual'. I agree spiritual is a vague concept and likely to cause confusion.
okay, there is actually a word for being spiritual-like without needing fairies and kitchen gods:
Eupraxsophy (previously "eupraxophy" but updated) [1] is a nonreligious life stance or worldview emphasizing the importance of living an ethical and exuberant life, and relying on rational methods such as logic, observation and science (rather than faith, mysticism or revelation) toward that end. The word "eupraxsophy" was coined by Paul Kurtz, and comes from the Greek words for "good practice and wisdom." Eupraxsophies, like religions, are cosmic in their outlook, but eschew the supernatural component of religion, avoiding the "transcendental temptation," as Kurtz puts it.
So if someone asks "are you spiritual?" you can respond "I am a eupraxophist"
I think i was first introduced to the concept by Humanist In Canada columnist Pat Duffy Hutcheon.
"Isn't that just being superstitious without the benefits of community and ritual?"
At NTCOF, we take the opposite tack: We have the community and ritual without the superstition. The ritual part we pretty much make up as we go, and change it whenever it doesn't suit us anymore.
Interestingly, the "mega-churches" in this area have begun to emphasize the community and ritual parts, and de-emphasize the superstition. "Fort God" in Carrollton, Tx, for instance, has removed the word "Baptist" from all of its signage. One of our members recently spied on them, and reported his findings of their new modus operandi, which was quite interesting.
--
www.chl-tx.com
Concerning "spirituality", Sastra has cut to the heart of the argument once again. I gather that ambiguity and vagueness are "spirituality's" best friend.
I keep a text edit document titled Sastra-y Goodness to which I cut and paste her best posts. (I'm really not a stalker, Sastra, really); ) (Cuttlefish has his own document as well and there is a misc. file for flashes of brilliance from several of the people who haunt Pharyngula.)
Kudos to PZ for providing a forum for so many diverse PsOV. Now, will someone please kill Titanoboa (hint, hint)?
Honestly, I just find 'spiritual' a kind of weaselly term, for reasons previously well-described, esp. Sastra's at #31.
And I really, really don't like being described as 'spiritual', for related reasons. The aesthetic pleasure I take from the intellectual process by which we move from a spectrograph of a distant star to its surface temperature and appoximate mass, the delight I find in playing or hearing Bach's unaccompanied cello suites, the beauty I find in a space-filling model of the DNA molecule--wrapped as it is in the contemplation of what that shape means, what it allows, the dramas that have played out along its coils--you're frankly just going to piss me off royally if you compare those in any way to the gushing, credulous, ill-considered vapidity some crystal worshipper spouts if you're so foolish as to get 'em on the topic of their favourite superstition. Call me a snob if you like--fuck, yes, sure, if that makes me a snob, I sure as hell am one--but do not tarnish me by even distant association with such empty, numbing ugliness. It's beyond insulting.
PZ closed it last night. Praise FSM.
I think spirituality is how Sagan feels about the implications of science. "Wow look at the Cosmos, its amazing". So based on this definition, its based on something real.
It's clearly a silly semantics argument. We've taken an abstract concept and tried to pin it down in some exacting, scientific manner, and this is what you get. Time to go back and re-read Plato's Republic.
E.V. @116- "Concerning "spirituality", Sastra has cut to the heart of the argument once again. I gather that ambiguity and vagueness are "spirituality's" best friend.
I keep a text edit document titled Sastra-y Goodness to which I cut and paste her best posts. (I'm really not a stalker, Sastra, really); )"
I hear you. Sastra's awesomeness makes me doubt my own (homo)sexuality.
All of it? Really? Just skip to the Cave Allegory and be done with it.
Plato: everything we observe is just the distorted image of a higher reality, like shadows on a cave wall.
2500 years later, scientists: Using a detailed topographical map of the cave wall, time-series high-resolution video recording, and maximum-entropy reconstructive algorithms, we can reconstruct with 99% confidence the exact shape of the object casting shadows on this wall.
(It's your momma).
I believe in family and community and learning and joy and hope and cool invertebrates. To some, that makes me spiritual. I call it "I believe there is more to life than doing what the Corporatocracy wants you to do."
It's dead.
It's been dead for a while.
Both the ginormous snake and its eponymous Pharyngula thread.
Dead.
Currently, my Google-fu is failing me...
I can't decide whether you stole that from the XKCD guy or if I should tell you to donate it to him.
It's mine, but if xkcd stole it my joy would be unconfined. Email it to him if you want.
Brian English writes:
One day I hope that someone will give a definition of spiritual that I can understand
It's a religion of the gaps kind of thing. It's basically "I want to believe I'm important but I can't wrap my brain around the more established religious nonsense, so I just kind of have a general woo-woo feeling that makes me comfortable."
I think it's undefinable. Every time I try to get deeper with someone who claims to be "spiritual" all they can say is - well, I don't believe in the dumb stuff.
Wow, not pretentious or anything! How the hell do you measure "spirituality" for the purposes of comparison?
Use a spirit level, of course.
Keep in mind that it is possible to insult an atheist by insulting spirituality.
Oh, good. Well, let me try then.
Pantheism is a cheesy hack that lets wanna-be atheists claim that they still are "spiritual" without accepting the stigma of atheism, or confronting the reality of nihilism. It's chickenshit, in other words. Pantheism amounts to worshipping reality and being in awe of the unknown. It's just a transparent attempt to feel important by saying "WOW REALITY IS REALLY COOL!" and "I am part of reality; therefore I am really cool." It's bullshit. In fact, you're very (to the 100th power) insignificant. In terms of significance and how much the universe cares about you - or your caring about the universe matters, you're somewhere on the scale of importance between a fart in a galaxy or a bacterium in a universe-sized petri dish. If you want to believe the universe is "god equivalent" it's just because your brain is still struggling with outmoded religious metaphors and you can't let go of trying to contextualize some kind of "god" to make you feel like you're not utterly insignificant. You are. Deal with it.
I've always used spiritual in the same sense that Dawkins uses it.
Things don't have to be discrete. You can't measure happiness, but you see that it's possible to be very happy or unhappy. It's the same with spirituality.
Really? Not even on a scale?
Every time I try to get deeper with someone who claims to be "spiritual" all they can say is - anything left in that bowl?
Eh, no. They are, like the catlickers, there for the pedophilia, which they really believe in.
I have almost the same experience as Lirone @ 110. I used to use that term because I am an aesthetic but skeptical person with a philosophical bent. I'm sensitive to feelings of awe, but I don't attribute them to the supernatural.
I stopped saying "spiritual" because of the judgement of people againt me, or the assumptions that I was into past life regression or something.
Using philosophical would probably be worse than spiritual since most peole would probably see that as "smarter than you" or "full of myself." However it's sad to think that this is an aspect of living that I am forbidden to discuss because it offends both the religious, non-religious, and the crystalheads. What can I say?
"I have a strong sense of my connection to the past & to others, the actual meaning of "religion" (Re=backwards/past, Lig=binding (ligature), -ion=act of)."
Jaycubed
"No, that's not the actual meaning of "religion". The meaning of a word is what people actually intend to convey when they use that word, and understand when they hear or read it - not its etymological derivation.
Knockgoats
Yes, it is the "actual" meaning of the word. This base meaning includes/contains the limited meanings commonly used within itself. All religions are attempts to relate oneself to the past & to the universe. Not all religions are based on "Faith".
Words regularly have various shades of meaning. Some have contradictory meanings. You imply that the most ignorant/illiterate among society are the ones who define & limit the meaning of words.
....I'm not the one who that post is responding to, but I have no idea how on earth "reality's really cool" would automatically imply that oneself is cool. I've been thinking that for ages, and I'm extremely well aware of how freakishly insignificant one is on the scale of even just this universe. And I don't know about the specifics of pantheism and can't nor won't speak for it, but marvelling at the unknown seems pretty pointless to me. As PZ has mentioned himself, we're all contain marvels and beauty in our function (biological systems, physics, etc), but I don't see how that wouldn't make one very humble, rather than uppity, as you seem to imply. (apologies if you're not)
I recommend having a look at that TED link I posted before, of one of Dawkins' talks, or reading Douglas N. Adams lovely story of a puddle. ( pick a link at http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=douglas+adams+puddle ) I especially like the ending.
(I probably should read up about what nihlism really is about one of these days. I must unfortunately confess that I'm unfortunately far too used to it being used by emo gothy types as an excuse to go "omg nothing matters *sob sob cut cut*" or "nothing matters, go kill yourself you retard *cut cut hate hate*", and not as a seriously thought through/intelligent way of thinking. This obviously in no way means nihlism itself must be that bad, but it's just has made me less interested in it and thus prioritizing it lower on my reading list.)
"Sometimes it seems to be nothing more than navel gazing and saying wow, the universe is so big! like a stoner,"
That's...basically my definition. But seriously, I think there is something synergistic about nature that is not supernatural, but is 'spiritual' to me and kind of irrelevant to logic.
Dawkins talks about spirituality in the God delusion doesn't he?
I don't know. Are you talkins of owe or new age crap?
mig-- I'm currently reading The God Delusion, and here's a lovely quote from it:
"A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural belief."
mig-- I'm currently reading The God Delusion, and here's a lovely quote from it:
"A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural belief."
" In fact, you're very (to the 100th power) insignificant. In terms of significance and how much the universe cares about you - or your caring about the universe matters, you're somewhere on the scale of importance between a fart in a galaxy or a bacterium in a universe-sized petri dish."
So what? If the "universe doesn't care", pretending for a second that it's capable of caring or not caring, then It doesn't matter if I find being an insignificant part of it impressive? "Being", however insigificant, is less likely that not "being" and I'm happy that I have a life to experience whether anyone or thing cares about it or not.
Personally I don't think that the universe should be anthropomorphised to that extent, but if holding onto outmoded metaphor makes it easier for you to try and be insulting... go on ahead.
*sigh* HughesNet double post again--sorry all...
Marc Abian @131 says "You can't measure happiness, but you see that it's possible to be very happy or unhappy. It's the same with spirituality."
Possibly, but I still contend that anyone who says "I am ... much more spiritual than most religious or "new age" people," as Mark @22 did, is a pretentious ass. However you define "spiritual," if you're claiming superiority for it, you ain't got it.
I like what Matt Heath @111 says: "anyone that tells you that they are "a spiritual person" is almost certainly credulous, self-important and tiresome."
And that goes double for people who claim to be "much more" spiritual than the vast majority of the population.
These are three human constructs here and each completely different.
1) Religion
2) Belief
3) Spirituality
It is very common, especially with Christians/Jews/Muslim/etc to assume that all three are same or that you need all three if you claim one of them to be true.
While I think it is true, that if you believe in Jebus, ie religion, you also automatically accept Belief and Spirituality, but I think it is possible that you can have Belief and/or Spirituality without the other two and it is not illogical to do so,... although belief does require one to throw the logical out the window.
One could say "It is my belief that the world is flat and the Sun rotates around the flat plate of the Earth" Now I require no Religion or Spirituality for this belief (just an astounding lack of logic and science education to hold this belief,... see how quick logic goes out the window ~grin~). It requires no Gods and no inner insight, moral or ethical.
One could also say I believe and have faith that Science will find the answers to current world problems (clean energy, find the cure to cancer, etc) I don't need to point to higher being for this faith or belief (aka Jebus or the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster), nor do I need "Spirituality" for this belief. Who knows, maybe there is no cure for cancer, it might be a sad fact of life that once we get cancer the damage is done and there is no way undo the damage or fix it,... maybe the best we can hope for is to manage it after the fact,... But I, speaking for myself, want to believe that we will find cure, it is an irrational believe based on the historical progress that we have made in the past through science. As we all know, past success does not mean we will have continued future success,... but I do know for certain, that if we do not try we will never have a "hope" at finding a cure, if it exists.
Spirituality,... well this one is a very nebulous construct, and it truly depends what you mean by "Spirituality". Since I can only speak for myself, spirituality means seeking "Inner Peace",... you might say "Mental Good Health". I might find my spirituality/inner peace via meditation, maybe I might find it through communing with nature (hiking and enjoying nature walks are good exercises, SO THERE! ;-P), or maybe through gardening and growing things (sounds too much like work to me though). One of my spiritual centers is found by doing the things I truly enjoy, scuba diving and underwater photography are good examples,... when you are 80 below the waves and the only sound that fills you ears is the sound of open circuit scuba and you are concentrating on getting that perfect shot of the Common Caribbean Reef Squid,... there is nothing else in the world,... the world ceases to exist. Why? Because the world is reduced to my scuba, my breathing, my camera, the picture and the squid. Ok, I admit it, it is very strange sort of spirituality, and I never claimed it would make sense you or that it would even be logical, but it works for me, and that is all that counts,... oh and it is completely real and it doesn't require belief or any sky pixies to make it true or happen,... although cash and a few weeks in Cozumel help ~grin~. You guys also benefit from it to, since PZ has been kind enough to post some my photos here with his Friday Cephalopod Posts,... Which reminds me, I have some new Ceohalopods pictures I could send to PZ for his consideration,...
Anyhoo, that's just my two cents on the subject.
So in conclusion, if you want to believe in Jebus, hey knock yourself out, just keep it out of schools and government. If you want to believe in "Intelligent Design", hey go nutz, just keep it of the Classroom. As for your own "Spirituality", whatever works, I will not force to come Scuba Diving with me, but you are more than welcome to join me if you want, but I am certainly not going to force you to strap on 60 lbs of gear and dress in a rubber suit if you don't want to.
Peace!
#137
As I understand it, Marcus is mainly just going out his way to insult Pantheists (the previous poster implied this was somehow an intrinsically negative act). I'm not too familiar with Pantheism, but based on the etymology (it sounds like Greek for "all god") I'd guess it's a belief that Everything is God (e.g. defining God as the universe...Wikipedia seems to agree). I've heard similar expressions of belief previously. As far as I'm concerned, the assumption that "the Universe is God", just adds complexity and offers no explanation over the simpler "the Universe exists".
As for Nihilism, I'm not sure about Marcus's philosophical position. However, a simple definition would be that it is the belief that existence is "...without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value." I assure you, it's not all face painting and cutting.
Heh, forgot the on topic contribution I had intended to make.
The vast majority of people I have encountered that described themselves as "Spiritual, but not religious" were evangelicals who were emphasizing their personal relationship with Jesus Christ (contrast with the Catholics and their religious trappings). Second place, crystal healers.
As for myself, I see no need for the term "spiritual". And based on what others have contributed in this thread, they have no need either. It's rare that two people mean the same thing when they say it, so it obfuscates more than it illuminates.
Look, nature is pitilessly indifferent.
The cosmos is pitilessly indifferent.
Feeling 'spiritual' is probably a cognitive artefact arising from the metaphorical conceptulisation of 'inside/outside myself'
Now I like feeling spiritual, just as I like reading a good story, or seeing a good film, or seeing a beautiful sunset. But they are all 'stories I tell myself'.
Religion parasitises on the purely human feeling of spirituality.
"It's rare that two people mean the same thing when they say it, so it obfuscates more than it illuminates."
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. The more I think about it anyone who describes themselves as a certain "kind" of person is going to come off as pretentious. It's almost like self-branding, and at that point the person is going to be subject to other people's interpretation of that word.
@#146
Ah, now that makes a lot more sense than the garbled versions, thank you! Should I assume nihlism is to "emos"/goths e.g. what the "Darwin was wrong" cover was for the ID lot?
As for pantheism and pandeism, it indeed means something like it, if I recall correctly from wikipedia. Though I don't recall what the exact differences between the two are, not that it matters much.
I'm with comment 78.
(And 123 and 127.)
No, dogma is an Epicurean invention...
That's not comparable, because the Romans simply took it for granted that every deity anyone had ever worshipped really exists. They included all deities they encountered into their own pantheon (usually the cheap way, though -- by identifying it with one of their own). Out of fear to have overlooked any, they even took virtues that no known deity was responsible for and started worshipping them as deities!
It logically follows that the concept of a deity that required being believed in was completely foreign to them. They thought all deities knew full well that all humans knew about their existence. Sacrifices were regarded as deals: do ut des -- "I give so that you give".
Erm... nope. Divinus/-a/-um is just Latin for "godly", and I've never seen it used in another way.
That's not a right, that's two wrongs. Try eupraxisophy sometime -- the stem of praxis isn't prax-, it's praxi-.
Hm, I don't think you even have to claim to be a "kind" of person, just mentioning anything about yourself will make people assume more things about you than what is actually revealed.
A: "I like sailing, among many other things" or "I have a pet, a golden retriever" or "I don't eat meat"
B: "Oh, you're one of those people..."
This is especially common if mentioning something the person considers themselves far removed from or so.
E.g. someone disliking nature hearing someone else talk about past camping trips, or an anti-religious person seeing very specific religious symbols worn on somebody, a "religoon" overhearing a volunteer in a soup kitchen reply that they'll never join a religion etc.
(I fear this post is muddled, redundant and pointless... Sleep-deprived from last night and thus not too able to think straight, so apologies if this truly is an
as bad post as a part of me fears.)
Heh. I wondered if anyone else had pointed that out, and found but a single hit on "eupraxisophy" saying exactly that:
http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/844899.html
If you mean do overly emotional teenagers looking for a group to belong to tend to adopt a belief structure without research or even in-depth thought, sure I can agree with that. What that says about Dembski et. all based on your comparison, though, I'm too polite to say.
I always thought the stigma regarding nihilism was pretty silly, though. I believe that existence has no objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. So what? It doesn't really have bearing on my day to day life.
It's kind of like the strawman creationists build, in the form of "If you really believed Darwin's writings, you'd be killing those less 'fit' than you". Some people just can't deal with the difference between 'is' and 'ought'. Acknowledgment of what one observes and believes regarding the nature of the world doesn't tell anything about how one thinks humans as conscious, thinking beings should act.
"This is especially common if person A is mentioning something person B considers themselves far removed from or so."
Clarified.
orz
#151:
That is certainly intriguing, and makes me wish my school's Latin and/or History syllabi had covered these aspects of Roman society and religion in greater depth. All I can remember on the subject from those classes were some derogatory remarks on the foolishness of trying to see the future in some luckless animals viscera. This coming from a devout Roman Catholic who nevertheless read her horoscope in every discarded daily newspaper she could find with (dare I say) religious fervour. *sigh*
#151:
That is certainly intriguing, and makes me wish my school's Latin and/or History syllabi had covered these aspects of Roman society and religion in greater depth. All I can remember on the subject from those classes were some derogatory remarks on the foolishness of trying to see the future in some luckless animal's viscera. This coming from a devout Roman Catholic who nevertheless read her horoscope in every discarded daily newspaper she could find with (dare I say) religious fervour. *sigh*
Bah, apologies for double-posting. A mobile phone is apparently ill-suited to commenting on a blog this size, even if it is 3G.
Regarding nihilism, it certainly sounds like a much deeper philosophy than it is popularly given credit for. In fact, I vaguely remember forming the hypothesis that one of the reasons why so many people still cling to ridiculously unrealistic dogmatic ideas had to be inability to cope with the reality of a vast and uncaring cosmos. I was a rather introverted 14 year-old.
I have to agree with #154, though. While I still hold the belief that the universe and existence in general has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or objective, I have found that the impact of this belief on how I live my day-to-day life has been infinitesimal if not zero.
Paul #146 wrote:
The devil's in that word "objective." Meaning, purpose, and value are subjective evaluations. They require a valuer, or a perceiver. "Objective" is used to signify different things. It can mean that something is the same from all perspectives. Or it can mean that something is true regardless of any perspective. It depends on no opinion.
That can get real tricky.
Consider something that is "objectively delicious." It is delicious in itself, and does not depend on anything liking the way it tastes. Every living thing in the universe which eats and has taste buds could despise the taste of the thing -- spit it out and wash out their mouth in disgust -- and that makes no difference. It is delicious anyway, because its deliciousness doesn't depend on any subjective opinion.
Makes no sense.
I suppose I am a 'nihilist' in the very technical sense, regarding the impossibility of "objective subjective evaluations," but I never identify myself as such, since it's too open to misunderstanding.
Spiritualism is about taking advantage of one of our human senses. It's a lot like listening to music. There is a sense of completeness, connection and mystery that many people find pleasant. It is probably an artifact of our neocortex and our ability to understand what other people and animals are doing. Are you actually complete, connected or mystified when enjoying this class of experience? No, not really, but it feels that way, just as some people will experience a certain musical tone as blue.
Sensible people don't condemn people for listening to or producing music, though engagement with music can lead to all sorts of lurid problems including drug addiction and poverty. The problem isn't music, but what people make of it. I don't think we should condemn people who enjoy a sense of magic and mystery or of connection and completeness.
I've never been able to "get" music, but I have had my share of mystical experiences. Does that make me superstitious? Did I stop walking under ladders, start avoiding the number 13, stop enjoying in the grandeur of that view of life or come out against gay marriage? Hell, I don't even do a restore permissions before doing an upgrade on my MacBook. That's how un-superstitious I am. (Go to any Macintosh discussion site for an explanation. I'm sure there is a Windows analog, but I am unfamiliar with it.)
I am sure that there are plenty of good religious people who would condemn my spiritual side. After all, being spiritual can be fun. If there were a surgical or chemical way of removing this sense, I imagine many major religions would be pushing for its forced application, most likely violently. It's rather sad to see more sensible folks getting so upset at spiritualism while giving all those music lovers a pass.
Looking over the precipice into the void,
as my soul recoils from the dark, silent space,
‘Tis here that the bright hope of souls is destroy’d,
and I shall be cast out, not be seen, not a trace.
In the cold, silent dark, with no hope, with no care,
with no life, no Redeemer to hear my plea;
Drifting deep in the void, as my life is laid bare,
and my soul cast adrift ‘cross the wide, sunless sea.
And I hear the echoes of past loves now gone,
the faint voices, the traces of warmth passed away;
A mem’ry of sweet embrace, kindness and song;
in endless night, whispers of my long-lost day.
Where now my Saviour, protector and friend?
Where now His arm to pluck me from cold death?
Where now my last hope in cold, bitter end?
Where now His smile, the warmth of His breath?
And where now the faces that I loved in life?
Where now sweet bonds in ‘eternity’ forged?
Where now joy of laughter, or passion of strife?
Where now final justice, and love’s just reward?
And slowly, but slowly, I find truth in pain,
turning away from illusions of joy;
As I drift in the darkness, my soul bound by no chain,
for all last vestige of love to destroy.
No gods and no demons, no angels of light;
no one to defend and no one to obey,
No end to the void of eternity’s night;
and nothing to long for as life ebbs away.
Spiritualism is about taking advantage of one of our human senses.
Posted by: Kaleberg
Which one are you talking about:
Our sense of gullibility?
or
Our sense of self-importance?
Spiritualism is the belief in spirits, whether you personify them (give them names like "god") or not.
.
These are three human constructs here and each completely different.
1) Religion
2) Belief
3) Spirituality
Posted by: Zorpheous
Actually, there are five constructs that are relevant here, they are:
(1) religion, how one views one's own connection to reality.
(2) Religion, how Believers view their connection to reality.
(3) belief, statistical predictions based on experience.
(4) Belief, certainty based on Religious dogma.
(5) Spirituality, the Belief in the existence of spirits.
No. Being "spiritual" usually just means that you like the altered states of mind involved in a "spiritual" outlook. The druglike high, if you will.
Just like many other atheists, I find a sense of overwhelming wonder at the vastness of the universe; the fact that I am insignificant, and I would never claim otherwise. I refer to that experience of euphoria as a "spiritual" experience. I am also aware that it is caused by endorphins. That does not make the experience any less important to me, and I find the semantics argument about spirituality a bit tiring and unnecessary.
Dawkins jokingly called pantheism "sexed-up atheism" and was very careful to differentiate it from deism: "To some people, the difference between pantheism and deism is trivial. Not to me." Some like to claim Dawkins is not open-minded. I would suggest the opposite, especially compared to some unimaginative and contemptible people.
Marcus J. Ranum: Thank you for making completely unfounded assumptions about my views and my character. I will return the favour: you are an arrogant prick.