Unas

Spirituality is NOT inherently related to theistic zombiism. I want so fiercely to sever its association from the world's slavish junk-religions... I want to say "I am a spritually motivated person" and not be perceived as a member of some wacky cult... I want to restamp the word "spiritual" with a new meaning, one that connotes fearless acceptance of truth and the ruthless privileging of healthiness and natural pride over self-flagellating neuroticism... Fear-encrused morality is history!!

Am I alone?

ju'iblex

actually, my sister wrote a thesis on Atheist Spirituality in a Christian Environment, i dont know if i can coax her to lend me a copy to sprout from, but there are a few people on here who were a part of the interview process.

so no, you arent alone.

dunadan

Unas, I agree 100%. I feel that I am a very spiritual person, but for a long time did not like to use the word because of the common spin put on it by xtians. However, in the last few years I have become much more free in both my comfort and use of the word. Spirituality is a vital part of what makes me sentient. It is my quest for knowledge, my desire to learn and understand. It gives me courage to live, and brings me joy as well as hope for our future.

Spirituality, 'Of or relating to sacred matters,' entails holding something sacred. Sacred can imply deification, but can also mean 'entitled to reverence and respect.' The root, spirit, 'an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person,' means that its essence is of an ethereal nature.

To me, spirituality is even more than this. It is, in total, the sense of wonderment at this intricate and stunning universe, a sense of awe that we can even begin to comprehend the natural forces that have shaped it, and the knowledge that we as humans can achieve no higher purpose than to expand our understanding of it.

In our hearts we sing a song to the Cosmos, our faith being only that evidence and experiment will shed light in the darkness of our understanding, that we, together, control our own desitinies, and that the knowledge we gain today will be the foundation of our understanding of tomorrow, a structure of logic which will know no keystone. Our sacred structure is knowledge, and even if what we now understand becomes disproved or clarified, still those foundations will remain. Without the works of Newton or the courage of Galileo, there would have been no Einstein, without Einstein no Hawking, and the list will continue, unless we are foolish enough to destroy ourselves, or let dogma and superstition drive us down. The same question that drives every parent to distraction - 'WHY?' - is the beacon that draws us ever onward, ever forward, a quest to last our entire existance. Our spirituality is what drives us to leave no stone unturned, no question unasked.

Am I spiritual? You bet!

The Other Michael

If you feel a sense of wonder, why not just call it that? Why take non-religious concepts and cloak them in religious terms?

cheers,
Michael

joedad

No, you're not alone.

Cult(?) devotees typically believe in "afterlife," something very personal. Maybe that's a good first step. Personally, I think its healthy for the concept of "afterlife" to go from being something personal to being something mutual, something real, an actual futurelife. I think that's when life becomes personally meaningful, maybe because it becomes less selfish. You have to develop some kind of vision of the human future, something beyond a personal lifetime and a personal immortality, and needn't annihilate everything to get there.

DRFseven

Which also means, can't be questioned as to worth. Although I admire and respect many things, and think many things have worth, to me nothing is sacred; everything can be questioned.

philechat

For the Chinese, the term "spirituality" was seldom cloaked in theistic terms, and I would not hesitate to use it to describe myself. It seems that the religions would monopolize and distort a rather humanistic notion (aside from spirituality, there are "truth" and "virtue", both of which I also value) to support their ideology, such that people would become emotionally encroached by their little manipulations.

BTW, the Chinese define "spirituality" as "pertaining to subjects intrinsically unrelated to material gains, such as the pursuit of knowledge and excellence." In this sense it is quite similar to Greek Arete and entirely humanistic.

Annabel Lee

You're not alone.

Fun with Latin..

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


(I'm not interested in your dopey religious cult.)

dunadan

DRFseven, I have not seen that definition of sacred. Holding something sacred does not mean that you cannot question it (at least according to Merriam-Webster), merely that you have respect for a concept or person. In fact, if you read the rest of my post, I clearly state that no principle is unquestionable, but that does not mean that we lose our respect for those who contributed to our understanding of the universe. Is Isaac Newton to be held in less regard because his model was disproved? I did not use the word 'sacred' in a religious sense, and even drew a clear distinction between my use of the word in context and the meaning that is often applied by religion. No concept is to be held dogmatically. It is the responsibility of experiment and evidence to separate the wheat from the chaff. I would certainly not call 'Principia' unquestionable. I would argue, however, that it is a work that is worthy of our respect and admiration even nearly 300 years after its publication.

DRFseven

Hi, dunadan,

I'm not trying to accuse you of having theistic feelings, and I'm not trying to say spirituality is necessarily a religious concept; sorry if it came off that way. I think spirituality can be used to express non-religious concepts such as mood or essence, as in a "spirit of generosity" (or even spirits of ammonia!). My only disagreement is with the use of the word sacred. This is what I get from Merrium-Webster:[quote] sacred:
1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2 a : worthy of religious veneration : HOLY b : entitled to reverence and respect
3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>
4 archaic : ACCURSED
5 a : UNASSAILABLE, INVIOLABLE b : highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>

As you see, the tone is primarily reverential and religious. Respect is included in the second definition, but sacred implies something more than respect or admiration, or else the terms "respect" or "admiration" would be used instead. Doesn't it seem to you that there is a difference? Aren't there many things you respect or admire, or that strike awe, that you couldn't honestly refer to as sacred? If so, what is the difference between the things you like or respect, and the things that seem sacred to you?

Think of the term "sacred cow". That refers to the something that is unquestionably venerated and comes from the hindu practice of placing cows sacred. It means, "Don't ask for a logical reason that this cow shouldn't be eaten; it is decreed and out of bounds of being questioned." A non-religious example might be the opinion of someone who holds old-growth trees sacred; to that person, there could be no reason that would justify making lumber from the tree, and no consideration of that end would be entertained. The tree would be sacred.