I can't tell you how may times I've heard people say, "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual," and I have to admit, I have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. None. What does being "spiritual" mean, exactly?
Does it mean that you feel a connection with other living things who share this world, this solar system, this galaxy? From my perspective, any person who has even a rudimentary understanding of science would feel that way. We are, after all, made of "star stuff," as is everything in our known universe, and we have a fundamental molecular connection to everything else. "...for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." A stunning example of poetry imitating the scientific reality of our existence.
Does it mean that you feel there are entities that are larger than us, better equipped than us, to manipulate their environment? As Arthur C. Clarke says, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Just so. If humanity was the peak of sentient existence in our universe, I think that would be sufficient to push me over the edge. So, yes, I think there are those entities that far exceed our capabilities (or even our understanding). But I don't think they're supernatural.
Does it mean that some unexplainable spiritual experience engenders some ecstatic emotional experience within the context of your own existence? Because I really don't get that.
I'm not spiritual. I think there are naturalistic explanations for everything, and there's no need to engender supernatural explanations.
That does not mean, however, that I'm not utterly filled with awe when I contemplate the wonders of our universe, our galaxy, our world. I myself, my very own body, has molecules in it that were once part of stars. If that's not awe-inspiring, I don't know what would be. But I don't consider my connection to that long-dead star "spiritual." Just incredibly, mind-blowingly COOL.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
From north of the border:
When Canadians say they're "spiritual", they usually mean they don't want to admit they're atheists. They don't want to get into an argument with someone who thinks atheists' lives have no meaning.
We're still Canadians, after all.
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to Hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there.
I think it means various things.
Some people using that phrase mean it the way Megan describes. Some people using the phrase actually mean they're religious but not formally religious--i.e. they believe in God and may even believe in the tenets of a major world religion (e.g. they might believe Jesus was messiah), but they don't go to church and/or self-identify as belonging to a specific denomination; many of these people could actually describe themselves accurately as Unitarians. Others using the phrase are trying to describe holding a deistic, pantheistic or New Age belief system, often one that is vaguely or informally defined: they may believe, for instance, that God is Nature or that "there must be something else beyond what we can observe", but their approach is more intuitive than theological.
Along the lines of that last sentence, Janiece, what you say in the second paragraph about feeling "a connection with other living things," etc., being convergent with an understanding of science is actually a little broad. There are several ways of perceiving a connection with the universe. A materialistically-framed viewpoint would proceed much along the lines you set out: all things in the universe are composed of atoms created during ancient stellar processes and therefore share some common source, all life on this planet ultimately descended (so far as we know) from one organism, all primates are removed-cousins and all humans are (in a sense) direct cousins from a particular branch of primate. But many people take a non-materialistic approach: when they express a belief that all life or all matter/energy is connected, they are referring to a spiritual connection (i.e. a connection of "spirit"--perhaps related or connected to an emotional, intuitive or aesthetic response; or a response believed to be psychic or via some sort of unmeasurable "force" or "energy"). Science, practically by definition, is a materialistic approach to knowing (although not all scientists are materialists), and so the spiritual connection shouldn't be conflated with a scientific understanding--whether or not an intuitively-"perceived" or psychic force really exists that links you to a tree, it isn't something that can be scientifically tested (science cannot say the connection doesn't exist, only that there is no testable reason to think it does).
Such a belief in unseen forces is certainly akin to religiosity, but the holder of the belief may not identify it thus because it may lack any of the paraphernalia associated with religion, such as doctrine or ritual.
From what you go on to say, Janiece, it sounds like you're a materialist (I am, too). I've been accused in the past of spirituality, though I think any vaguely spiritual notions I may have had (e.g. I once believed in the existence of a sort of "mortal soul") were shed by the end of my 20s (I've been an atheist since my teens).
Hope that was enlightening. If not, feel free to ignore.
Some people using the phrase actually mean they're religious but not formally religious--i.e. they believe in God and may even believe in the tenets of a major world religion (e.g. they might believe Jesus was messiah), but they don't go to church and/or self-identify as belonging to a specific denomination
When I use the phrase, this is generally what I mean (thanks, Eric!).
I find that these days the word "religious" has been co-opted by a certain political faction and carries with it baggage that I choose not to associate with. I also find that my (more or less Christian) views on the subject don't tally well with most of the sects I've run across.
It's a way of allowing for the belief in transcendence without putting myself in a position where I am foisting my beliefs on others or inviting such foisting upon myself.
Which brings me back to Megan's point, I suppose.
It would have been faster just to write, "Me too!"
Eric, I think that does help. I just have trouble wrapping my brain around such non-materialistic worldviews, because not only have I never had such a feelings, I literally can't imagine having such experiences.
My brain is evidently broken. Either that, or I have a profound failure to empathize in this arena.
David, in my experience, I find it much easier to understand someone's point of view if they self-describe as a "person of faith" rather than "spiritual." "Spiritual" can mean anything from what you describe to animism to the New Age beliefs Eric describes, to closet Atheist.
To me, being a person of faith has a more easily defined context in our Western culture.
Megan and Erica are right on one count, but there is another way people mean it, and that is a connection to something non-tangible that most people don't feel. The woo-woo that most people dismiss.
Me? I don't feel it, but I don't dismiss it either. I think in my case it's like being color blind. Someone can tell you all they want what green is, but if your eyes lack the receptors, you're never, truly, going to get it.
I think a spiritual world exists, but I like the receptors for it.
Let me wander briefly into something that happened in high school.
First football game of my senior year. I was a student athletic trainer. One of the other girls was scanning the sidelines for Dennis, who had been the trainer previous years but had left for another job, but had promised to come to the first game.
Sometime into the first quarter, Sharon says, "There he is!" and waves to someone. We don't see him, and he never comes over to the bench, so we just think Sharon was mistaken.
Monday when we get to school, we learn Dennis had been killed in a car accident at approximately the same time Sharon saw him.
Yes, it could have been a coincidence, however, she had, on other occasions, dreams about family members coming to day goodbye, after which her parents woke her to tell her of the death. (And she'd greet them with, "so-and-so is dead.")
Then there's the fact that everyone else in my family is religious and spiritual. Grandmom took tremendous comfort from prayer.
Then there are the MRI studies of Buddhist monks at prayer.
Whom am I to deny that what they see and hear and feel is not real?
Gah. I LACK the receptors for it.
Michelle, I take comfort from the fact that your brain is apparently broken, too. I'm in good company!
Firstly, *great* response, Eric. Thorough and thoughtful, as usual.
Secondly, I think the description of yourself as "broken" (while probably meant in jest) is a negative way to describe something that is neither positive nor negative. It just is. Michelle's analogy to color-blindness and "lacking receptors" is much more judgment-neutral. Your use of it may be an intentional jab at those who would judge your materialism as "wrong" or "broken" but why reinforce it? You are as you are and others (judgmental and non-jugmental alike) are as they are.
Lest you interpret my general response as disapproving, I will point out what is most significant about this post to me:
Questioning others' language almost always leads to greater understanding, and understanding (not agreeing or disagreeing, just understanding) something outside yourself is an admirable task. Bravo, you, for asking the questions!
Anne,
I actually self-refer as broken as well. Because this is something that is important to so many people I love and respect, and it adds much to their lives, I feel broken in comparison--I am missing some important part that is integral to their lives.
I don't see it as having negative implications for myself--it doesn't make me less of a person--but I sometimes keenly feel the absence.
Michelle explained my own point of view, as well. Because people of faith are such a large majority within our species, I sometimes wonder if my apparent lack isn't indicative being "broken."
On a more provocative note, it's possible such an inability to relate to such matters may be an evolutionary inevitability.
These are the things that make my mind wander when I'm on boring-ass conference calls with people who are TALKING AND CAN'T SHUT UP.
Janiece, Michelle, I can't say anyone is "broken" on this topic. I also wouldn't rule out the probability that you both have the "receptors" and simply interpret them in different ways.
For instance: human beings appear to be hard-wired for pattern recognition, which has some obvious benefits from a survival or biological point of view. Now, consider for the moment a piece of toast with an unusual and unique placement of burns and lighter bits: an agnostic/atheist materialist might look at this piece of toast and say, "What an interesting illustration of the phenomena of paredolia--the pattern on my toast coincidentally looks like a human face, sort of." Meanwhile, a fundamentalist Christian might look at the same piece of toast and say, "Oh my sweet Jesus: our Lord and Savior has manifested an image of His face upon my piece of toast as a demonstration of His existence!"
Now, many of us (regardless of our religious views) might laugh at this. After all, it seems hard to imagine a reason Jesus would send a message via slightly-charred baked goods, or to figure out what kind of message he might send that way. But let's consider this objectively: if one postulates the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being who sometimes acts in mysterious ways beyond human ken, is there any reason such an entity couldn't manifest via toast? And so what if such a thing seems absurd and the act of a ridiculous, rather than sublime creature? Are we so pretentious as to pretend to know the mind of an infinite and in some respects unknowable being? And so what if the marks can be "explained" by physics--if God created the universe, He invented physics, literally.
The point being that whether you see Jesus-in-toast as being an optical illusion or a sign from God really says as much or more about one's beliefs, prejudices, education, etc. than anything else. I certainly have my own opinions about phenomena like this: I have no evidence satisfactory to myself that God exists, therefore I reject the notion that God appeared in toast as being so improbable as being unworthy of consideration (since an entity that doesn't exist can't cause a phenomenon to occur), though I acknowledge that I technically can't disprove God's existence and therefore cannot say with 100% certainty that he didn't cause a face to appear upon a slice of lightly-burned bread. But this doesn't say anything about receptors: the receptors are the same, they're just being used differently. (You say "tunnel of light full of angels saying it wasn't my time" I say "oxygen deprivation and rush of endorphins triggered by nearly-fatal trauma"; poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe, toe-may-toe, toh-mah-toe.)
I'm responding this way because Anne mentioned a vital point that I agree with, which is that questioning what others say (or believe) leads to greater understanding. In the context of our piece of Jesus-toast, consider that part of what is happening is that the materialist skeptic and the Christian are proceeding from different a priori assumptions, the one believing (simplification alert) that only what can be measured is real and the other believing that there is a higher power. Those of us on the skeptical side of things should probably exercise a little humility more often by reminding ourselves of this point, frankly. Our worldview may have its advantages and seem to be on sounder logical and philosophical turf, but in fact much of what we believe can be traced back to primary assumptions about how the universe works that are based essentially on what we take to be true or prefer to believe: e.g. that what is true can be measured (and vice-versa), that the universe obeys rules that are consistent and logical over time and space, etc. Some of these beliefs are also convenient: e.g. one can postulate an arbitrary and random universe that follows no consistent logical rules, but that turns out to be a fairly useless postulate because you can't actually know anything about such a universe or do anything with it other than endure it. But, all-in-all, these a priori assumptions are just that--things we can't prove and can only take to be true.
(Sorry for the split post--no time to edit and I hope this made sense.)
Y'know.... Eric's point leads me to wondering.
Perhaps fundamentalists fall into the 'methinks thou dost protest too much' category. Maybe they ALSO are broken, but for fear of admitting they feel nothing, they must instead make as if they get SPECIAL messages in toast. You know, compensation.
Maybe fundamentalism is the religious equivalent of driving a Hummer.
Michelle is my favorite commenter.
Maybe fundamentalism is the religious equivalent of driving a Hummer.
HA!
Although it might be nice to ACTUALLY get secret messages in toast...
After reading this post, I immediately thought of this:
http://chalkboardmanifesto.com/index.php?comicNum=431
Welcome, Ian.
Hee! That maketh me to giggle. Thanks.
I kept wanting to respond to this and then I didn't because I thought my responses were too glib. But you know what? My reaction to "spiritual" is pretty glib and kneejerk. So, with the slightest of apologies...
Every time I hear someone claim they're "spiritual", I hear "I'm too lazy to be constrained by any religion's rituals and beliefs". Yeah, to me, "spiritual" is "Woo-woo" with even less need to act or rationalize.
I'm not anti-religious, per se, but I just can't be bothered with something that fills me with so much doubt. OTOH, if someone claims to be "religious", I expect them act on their beliefs, not just be warm and fuzzy because they claim to have faith. Someone who is "spiritual" is just laying claim to a belief system that doesn't require any particular action on their part.
Nathan,
I agree with what you're saying in the context of the sentence, "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual"
However, I do think that someone could be spiritual without feeling the need to tie religion into it.
But they probably wouldn't be the type to go around making statements about their spiritual life.
Essentially, I think your statement, "Someone who is "spiritual" is just laying claim to a belief system that doesn't require any particular action on their part," isn't necessarily true.
In other words, I don't think recognition or awareness of a spiritual words requires a religions belief. In fact, I can see cases in how it might one to believe there are spirits but no single controlling deity.
Make sense?
I've been thinking about this question quite a bit, as I tend to describe myself as spiritual, but not religious.
Eric's explanation in his first comment probably comes closest to my viewpoint, i.e.:
Others using the phrase are trying to describe holding a deistic, pantheistic or New Age belief system, often one that is vaguely or informally defined: they may believe, for instance, that God is Nature or that "there must be something else beyond what we can observe", but their approach is more intuitive than theological.
and
But many people take a non-materialistic approach: when they express a belief that all life or all matter/energy is connected, they are referring to a spiritual connection (i.e. a connection of "spirit"--perhaps related or connected to an emotional, intuitive or aesthetic response; or a response believed to be psychic or via some sort of unmeasurable "force" or "energy"). Science, practically by definition, is a materialistic approach to knowing (although not all scientists are materialists), and so the spiritual connection shouldn't be conflated with a scientific understanding--whether or not an intuitively-"perceived" or psychic force really exists that links you to a tree, it isn't something that can be scientifically tested (science cannot say the connection doesn't exist, only that there is no testable reason to think it does).
Yes, I do feel a connection to something greater, and I feel that the connection is between me and the universe. I don't think of G-d as a single creator that watches and influences our every move. It is the greater energy of all that surrounds us. I suppose this is why I don't consider myself an atheist. The closest label might be agnostic, because I can't say with certainty that there isn't a guiding being, no matter how unlikely that might be.
I agree with Janiece that, as Sagan said, we are all made of star stuff. And I do embrace the possible scientific reasoning behind such a connection. But for me that connection includes the spiritual world (i.e. a world/universe/level that is not based on observable scientific evidence) as well as the scientific one. Sure, it's not logical or backed by reason. I can accept that.
For me, not being religious just means that I don't see the point of embracing organized religion to follow whatever my beliefs may be. I'm not one for dogma and, while I do see the appeal of ritual, I'd rather create my own rituals that are meaningful to me. Maybe that's just my loner side speaking.
The truth is, I find comfort in my rather illogical and borderline woo-woo beliefs. I don't consider them as The Truth, which is why I don't proselytize them (also, I really, really can't stand proselytizing). But I do consider my beliefs - such as they are - as part of my journey to being a better person. This is the road that I've chosen to travel. It works for me. This doesn't mean that I will reject scientific reasoning - that would be foolish. But I can embrace the scientific and my need for spirituality at the same time (and it is a need - I seem to hardwired for that). It's all intertwined for me. And I'm good with that.
(I'm sure I was terribly unclear. For that, I apologize. I just can't think of any other way to explain myself.)
Janiece, I don't think your brain is "broken". As Anne says, broken suggests a negativity that, frankly, isn't there. Michelle's comparison to color-blindness is much more appropriate. The question is, are you the person that's color blind or am I? I don't have the answer to that. I don't need the answer to that. All I need to know is that you're an awesome person. Since I have both empirical evidence and my own woo-woo feelings that support your awesomeness, that's good enough for me.
Post a Comment