What I don't get is why we all talk about "morality" which has been a topic of study within religions for millenia, while discounting "spirituality" as though it's a bad word in itself, though both those words were heavily associated with religions through most of human history. There seems to have developed a particular atheist principle that anything that isn't observed in a petri dish is automatically less valuable. And I find that to be arrogant and dogmatic itself. There are lots of people who see a lot of value in poetry, music, dance, art, beauty, wonder, awe, love, and for whom "spirituality" is not associated with religious dogma, but a sense experienced when observing or thinking about the wonders of the universe, of the natural world, and of human existence.
I've talked about this supposedly bad word "spirituality" in other threads, too, e.g. here:
I have pantheist/zen/taoist/mystic leanings even though I'm an avowed atheist i.e. I don't follow and won't follow any organized, hierarchical religion, and I have no good reason to believe in the existence of any personal deity.
I think "spirituality" gets a bad rap among some atheists because it contains the word "spirit"and so is associated still with religious belonging or with new-agey scam artists.
But that may change - the way that "morality" is no longer associated with religion even though it had been so for the last several thousand years, I do think that what we may call spirituality, in its myriad of forms, will be separated from the idea of religion too, once atheists stop getting harassed for being eclectic and having varied experiences and perceptions.
For me, spirituality is the feeling of connectedness, and I think there's some good in that. Whatever it may morph into, it may not be called "spirituality" but I think the human drive to connect with other humans and other life forms and to appreciate beauty in some large, unpossessable sense will not go away. It just needs time to be appreciated on its own without the baggage of religions and dogmas.
and
It's subjective and relative, just like being "moral" is. At the basis, for me, like I said, it's a sense of connectedness, with the universe, but on a very personal level. That is, I know that I am a bunch of atoms, that I'm part of the universe which is all a bunch of atoms. What does that mean in day to day life? It means I can be humble about my place and not think the universe revolves around me, but instead feel awe that I'm part of it at all and able to recognize that I'm part of it.
Spirituality as a term has been bastardized and commercialized by religion and other dogmatic schemes, like morality as a term has been through that as well. For some people, being moral means stoning adulterers and banning homosexuality. For others, it's mostly about the golden rule. Our concept of morality has changed through times and is slightly different depending on our cultural influences. Similarly, spirituality is a concept that's also just a word for a feeling that has been interpreted differently by different people. Religion does try to prostitute it, it's true, like it tries to claim morality as its invention, it claims spirituality for itself. But the fact is that a tendency for morality, as in empathy & reciprocity for the benefit of social cohesion is built in to us (studies have shown this), and a sense of being part of a greater whole and feeling in awe at being part of it all, is also a tendency built in to us, whether we call that being "spiritual" or not, whether we associate it with a particular religious tradition or not. It also has social value as it allows us to think of other people (imagining ourselves in "their shoes"), consider the effects of our actions (as being part of the whole) and not feel as much despair about mortality if we are busy appreciating the universe and its wonders.
In fact there are many people who do benefit from using art, music, poetry and other such "spiritual" things more than or as much as from reading dry scientific accounts that eschew any human need for aestheticism and "spirituality".
I know it's not a popular opinion among atheists, many of whom tend to deny the human history of concepts like "morality" and "spirituality" and the human need to feel like there may be a connection between seemingly disparate things. But the fact that there has developed a "right" way to be an atheist is problematic as it resembles a doctrine, a dogma by its exclusion of any heterodoxy of thought or experience.
Have to respectfully disagree Chris. Your dislike of the word "spiritual" reminds me of the Muslims disliking anything westerners do or say based on the saying "do not imitate the kuffar". For me, no one has a monopoly on language, terms, so what if organised religion has hijacked the word "spiritual" for centuries? Before religion came about I am sure our atheist ancestors had plenty of spiritual experiences and did not attribute them to anything.
Yep. And Abrahamic/organized religions do not have a monopoly on human experiences, sensations, meanings, and words. Why should we deny that, for example, Taoist, some branches of Buddhist and Hindu, and other traditions have had modes of thinking that didn't deny empirical knowledge for the sake of religious dogma, and didn't deny spiritual experiences based on a limited understanding of the natural world? There are lots of cultures and peoples for whom spirituality and a clear understanding of the natural world can and do co-exist. Just because the Abrahamics couldn't manage that for the most part, doesn't mean we need to privilege their way of thinking about science or spirituality.
For me, what spiritual implies is something science does not explain, for example the effects of meditation. That does not mean that I don't want science to explain it - to the contrary I would rather a world where science could explain everything. But in the meantime I see no problem with using this word as an atheist.
Well stated. We should remember that science's greatest strength is leaving things open that it has not yet reached definitive answers for. And that includes realizing that science doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum, and remembering that "science" has also been wrong at times, like
when "science" claimed that African peoples' brains were "naturally" formed to make them docile and in need of being enslaved. "Science" is also not a religion and we ought to not reinforce the view among religionists that it is one by claiming in the name of science that those things that science doesn't yet understand just simply don't exist.
Topic: My spirituality as an Atheist