# What is this "Spirituality" you Earthmen speak of? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029 "2005-06-27T12:51:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/221 "2005-07-02T09:05:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Enlightened self-interest. If I go around fucking other people over, they’re going to try to fuck me over in response. I don’t want to be fucked over, so I act accordingly. I’m not sure that’s true. A lot of people are weak willed and cowardly. You could fuck them over at will without any fear of retribution. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/222 "2005-07-02T09:09:11Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I’d suggest that this is how most people do things. They learn from the past and use it to predict what will happen in the future. The rules you quoted were developed from observations of past events to quantify those events in such a way that the predictions of future similar events are more accurate, were they not? No. Not the rules. In fact, the rules are sometimes so counter-intuitive that people commit logical fallacies. The rules are analytic. They are, in fact, arbitrary. Two systems of logic might even have different sets of rules. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/223 "2005-07-02T09:31:27Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m asking what the purpose of morals are for those who really believe that we are not connected and this brief physical life is all there is? If we believe that to be true then what practical purpose do morals serve? Are they reasonable and logical? It depends what your objective is. Just because you don’t believe in God or an afterlife doesn’t mean that the only thing left is hedonistic accumulation by any means. If that _is_ you’re aim, then I suppose morals are indeed impractical and illogical. However, most people find their happiness in some other way. > [@](#): > > Think about it. If this life is all there is then doesn’t it really make more sense to be as self serving as possible? See above. Also, some materialists might not be so sure about the nature of this “self” that is supposed to be served. A strict “me and them” delianation is, in some sense, arbitrary. In other words, a person might reasonably consider his “self” to include more than just the stuff encased by his physical body, while still not really believing in what we’d call a spiritual plane of existence. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/224 "2005-07-02T11:40:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And you seem to be saying that if you discovered that the “truth” were that these physical bodies are all we got, there’d be no reason not to go out and rape or steal or whatever. Am I missing something here? Evidently. I’m not talking about anything that drastic. Commiting crimes could have pretty adverse effects. > [@](#): > > Enlightened self-interest. If I go around fucking other people over, they’re going to try to fuck me over in response. I don’t want to be fucked over, so I act accordingly. That means you don’t want to be too obvious. I’m talking about something more subtle. > [@](#): > > “Self interest” is also a subjective term. I’d rather people like me than I have a lot of money, because being liked makes me feel better than being rich. If someone prefers being rich to being liked, there’s no absolute authority I can point to that says he’s wrong, and so there’s no reason for him not to do whatever he can to get ahead, if the rest of us let him get away with it. Now we’re getting close. If this body is all there is then why care about straving children in some other country. It just isn’t practical. Certainly protecting our self image can be self serving but I’m wondering , why give a shit about certain things. A lot of companies now will do things we think are immoral, selfish, or unjust, for profit. Then they sponser something to put on their nice guy face. Seems totally smart and realistic if this is all there is. Helping the poor. Hey, those lazy shits are responsible for their own lot in life. All I need to do is give them just enough so they don’t revolt. The sick, thats natural selection. As long as I have good insurance then who cares. Civil rights, hey, go with the majority, why waste time, energy, and money defending some group that has little to do with me. > [@](#): > > Absolutly. But do you want to think short term, or long term? In the long term, you’ll generally get farther if you learn to get along with the people around you. According to atheists there is no long term. I need only do whats best for me and my immediate group for one single lifetime. Maybe atheists have a just in case mechanism. I also have to wonder about legacy. “I want to leave something behind for future generations” Why? Maybe my own kids or grandkids, but after that who cares. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/225 "2005-07-02T11:52:39Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > It depends what your objective is. Just because you don’t believe in God or an afterlife doesn’t mean that the only thing left is hedonistic accumulation by any means. If that _is_ you’re aim, then I suppose morals are indeed impractical and illogical. However, most people find their happiness in some other way. I didn’t say by _any_ means. You’re right of course. Material wealth doesn’t motivate everybody. It would also be logical and reasonable to say. I’ve got enough. I don’t need enough money for ten lifetimes, only this one. I’m speaking of the more altuistic pursuits. Under atheism those seem illogocal and impractical. > [@](#): > > See above. Also, some materialists might not be so sure about the nature of this “self” that is supposed to be served. A strict “me and them” delianation is, in some sense, arbitrary. In other words, a person might reasonably consider his “self” to include more than just the stuff encased by his physical body, while still not really believing in what we’d call a spiritual plane of existence. Ahhhh, now we need to question the parameters of athesim. What fun. Obviously there is reason for me to protect my immediate family, unless of course I have too many kids. In that case selling a couple for experiments might be the logical step. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/226 "2005-07-02T12:51:58Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Oh, my, children will be children. Well, I think inane posts that take seriously the Healing Touch, aka Laying On Of Hands, and feeling the “life force” deserve no more than an inane response. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/227 "2005-07-02T13:01:30Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Well, I think inane posts that take seriously the Healing Touch, aka Laying On Of Hands, and feeling the “life force” deserve no more than an inane response. Congratulations. You succeeded. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/228 "2005-07-02T16:19:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Now we’re getting close. If this body is all there is then why care about straving children in some other country. It just isn’t practical. Certainly protecting our self image can be self serving but I’m wondering , why give a shit about certain things. Humans are social animals. In evolving our social structure, we have gained a sense of empathy. We feel bad when we see starving people, and we feel good when we do something to help them. Atheists have the same empathy module as everyone else. You’ve stated before that you don’t believe in Christian heaven and hell. Do you believe in any differentiated afterlife (in punishment for the bad and reward for the good, for example)? If not, why do _you_ do “altruistic” things? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > A lot of companies now will do things we think are immoral, selfish, or unjust, for profit. Then they sponser something to put on their nice guy face. Seems totally smart and realistic if this is all there is. 1. You are thinking of specific companies that you don’t like when you say this, right? Is it, then, necessarily really a smart strategy in the long term? I’m not talking about the this-life-plus-afterlife long term, I mean the life-of-the-company-rather-than-just-the-immediate-future long term. 2. I’m not a company. I’m an individual. Individuals at a company have empathy, but the company as a whole does not. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Helping the poor. Hey, those lazy shits are responsible for their own lot in life. All I need to do is give them just enough so they don’t revolt. The sick, thats natural selection. As long as I have good insurance then who cares. Civil rights, hey, go with the majority, why waste time, energy, and money defending some group that has little to do with me. Mostly empathy. Without religion, I have no reason to see other human beings as different enough from me to be denied rights. In addition to the empathy I feel toward them, if they can be denied rights for the color of their skin or their sexual orientation or whatever, I could logically be denied those same rights for something as arbitrary as, say, not believing in god, or not feeling a mystical connection to the rest of humanity. Even if it’s unlikely to happen to me, I can feel empathy toward future people in my situation. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > According to atheists there is no long term. I need only do whats best for me and my immediate group for one single lifetime. I believe **Miller** was talking about the real-world long term. If I screw people over, it might not hurt me tomorrow, but it will likely hurt me in the long term–meaning before the end of my life. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Maybe atheists have a just in case mechanism. I also have to wonder about legacy. “I want to leave something behind for future generations” Why? Maybe my own kids or grandkids, but after that who cares. Empathy, empathy, empathy. I’m programmed by evolution to care about other human beings, and that’s fine with me. I’m not going to fight against that programming, because it feels good to help other people… and because that programming makes people want to help me. I have no need of an invisible being hinting at what’s right, or a mystical connection that somehow makes me not want to screw people over. Another explanation of all of this that just came to mind, but it’s more about why we have empathy and should just go with it than anything I ever think about when deciding to do or not do something: the Beautiful Mind bar-scene explanation of the Nash equilibrium. If we all do what we think is best for just us as individuals, we’ll end up worse than if we all do what’s best for us _and_ each other. In the game of life, we score higher if we work with the other players than if we work against the other players. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/229 "2005-07-02T16:52:09Z")
> [@](#): > > **Cosmosdan** : The question for me is where does honor and morals come from for atheists? > > \ > > Under atheism [altruistic pursuits] seem illogocal and impractical. Do you think that morals and honor are always logical and practical or are the reasons for these values a little more intangible? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/230 "2005-07-02T16:54:37Z")
> [@](#): > > **David Simmons** : Being religious does not now prevent, and never has prevented, someone from having a bloated sense of their abilities and a desire to enforce their will on others just because they can. Cite? (snort!) ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/231 "2005-07-02T19:13:35Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I didn’t say by any means. You’re right of course. Material wealth doesn’t motivate everybody. It would also be logical and reasonable to say. I’ve got enough. I don’t need enough money for ten lifetimes, only this one. I’m speaking of the more altuistic pursuits. Under atheism those seem illogocal and impractical. You’re still assuming that serving one’s own needs must be the primary goal under atheism. That’s simply not the case. Deciding to focus on your own pleasure is no less arbitrary than deciding to focus on the betterment of all mankind. If the latter, or something approaching it, is one’s aim, then morals and altruism are perfectly reasonable. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > See above. Also, some materialists might not be so sure about the nature of this “self” that is supposed to be served. A strict “me and them” delianation is, in some sense, arbitrary. In other words, a person might reasonably consider his “self” to include more than just the stuff encased by his physical body, while still not really believing in what we’d call a spiritual plane of existence. > > Ahhhh, now we need to question the parameters of athesim. What fun. > Obviously there is reason for me to protect my immediate family, unless of course I have too many kids. In that case selling a couple for experiments might be the logical step. 1. There isn’t that much more reason to protect the interests of your family than to protect the interests everybody else. There’s an evolutionary imperative, but, as has been pointed out, the same imperative exists in regards to humanity in general (even if to a lesser extent). 2. More importantly, I wasn’t referring to one’s family when I talked about the boundaries of the “self.” I was referring humanity, or the world, or the universe in general. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/232 "2005-07-02T19:38:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Now we’re getting close. If this body is all there is then why care about straving children in some other country. It just isn’t practical. Certainly protecting our self image can be self serving but I’m wondering , why give a shit about certain things. Beggars in Spain. It is impossible to know, right now, the ultimate potential of any single human in dire circumstances. Why should I care about ending famine and building schools in Africa? Because that starving kid being pestered by Sally Struthers today might grow up to be the guy who cures cancer in twenty years. Or he might be a famous musician. Or he might just be a regular, middle class schmoe, who goes to work in a factory and makes affordable DVD players for me to buy. Global prosperity helps everyone. That’s why it’s, y’know… global. Or I could just let him starve and be illiterate. His country will be over-run by bandits and terrorists, who at worst may use it as a basis for attacking my country, and who at the very least will make their country too dangerous and disease-ridden to be safely visited, and I won’t ever be able to go there on vacation and see the giraffes. Which would suck, because giraffes are neat. > [@](#): > > A lot of companies now will do things we think are immoral, selfish, or unjust, for profit. Then they sponser something to put on their nice guy face. Seems totally smart and realistic if this is all there is. > > Helping the poor. Hey, those lazy shits are responsible for their own lot in life. All I need to do is give them just enough so they don’t revolt. The sick, thats natural selection. As long as I have good insurance then who cares. Civil rights, hey, go with the majority, why waste time, energy, and money defending some group that has little to do with me. Because none of us has any sort of a guarantee that we, personally, will never be the guy under the boot. No matter how much we have going for us right now, we could lose it all tomorrow. Therefore, it behooves us all to make sure that society is designed in such a way as to help everyone, everywhere, who is less fortunate than ourselves, if for no other reason than as security for ourselves in case our lives ever goes tits up. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/233 "2005-07-02T22:45:13Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Cite? (snort!) Pick any Pope. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/234 "2005-07-03T01:04:24Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > Humans are social animals. In evolving our social structure, we have gained a sense of empathy. We feel bad when we see starving people, and we feel good when we do something to help them. Atheists have the same empathy module as everyone else. That seems logical and believeable. The problem is if empathy is a part of evolution then why don’t we see more of it. > [@](#): > > You’ve stated before that you don’t believe in Christian heaven and hell. Do you believe in any differentiated afterlife (in punishment for the bad and reward for the good, for example)? If not, why do _you_ do “altruistic” things? I don’t believe in a reward and punishment kind of spirituality. It’s more a matter of the who we truly are. We are spiritual beings and part of the same spiritual body. Like the cells in our own bodies of the drops of water that make up the ocean. Being good to others is being good to a part of myself. Taking responsibility for myself and being good to myself is doing whats best for others [QUOTE] > [@](#): > > I believe **Miller** was talking about the real-world long term. If I screw people over, it might not hurt me tomorrow, but it will likely hurt me in the long term–meaning before the end of my life. As I said, that only means you have to be smart and subtle. You don’t want them to know you’re screwing them over. In fact looking out for number one is not considered screwing people over at all is it? > [@](#): > > Empathy, empathy, empathy. I’m programmed by evolution to care about other human beings, and that’s fine with me. I’m not going to fight against that programming, because it feels good to help other people… and because that programming makes people want to help me. I have no need of an invisible being hinting at what’s right, or a mystical connection that somehow makes me not want to screw people over. I don’t agree. We may indeed be programed with some empathy but looking at the condition of the world I’d say not much. There could be other influences. People who used to be believers and have lingering guilt. Just plain programing from our culture. My question is are those feelings logical, and reasonable if we really believe this short physical life is it. > [@](#): > > Another explanation of all of this that just came to mind, but it’s more about why we have empathy and should just go with it than anything I ever think about when deciding to do or not do something: the Beautiful Mind bar-scene explanation of the Nash equilibrium. If we all do what we think is best for just us as individuals, we’ll end up worse than if we all do what’s best for us _and_ each other. In the game of life, we score higher if we work with the other players than if we work against the other players. I’d have to see that again. I can’t remember all of it. It certainly is logical to work together on certain things. According to my own beliefs it is perfectly logical to do what is the most positive for others. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/235 "2005-07-03T01:13:27Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Do you think that morals and honor are always logical and practical or are the reasons for these values a little more intangible? Good question. It seems to me that our decision making comes from what we believe. We have concious beliefs and subconscious beliefs. Some religions teach that we seek to make all our decisions conscious ones. To see life clearly for what it is. I would say that if we make our choices based largely on our subconscious beliefs then that might be considered intangible. Others believe the Holy Spirit calls to all of us from within. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/236 "2005-07-03T01:36:49Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > You’re still assuming that serving one’s own needs must be the primary goal under atheism. That’s simply not the case. Deciding to focus on your own pleasure is no less arbitrary than deciding to focus on the betterment of all mankind. If the latter, or something approaching it, is one’s aim, then morals and altruism are perfectly reasonable. I’m not assuming anything as fact. I’m just questioning. So morals are arbitrary? Do we draw them at random out an evolutionary hat? 1. There isn’t that much more reason to protect the interests of your family than to protect the interests everybody else. There’s an evolutionary imperative, but, as has been pointed out, the same imperative exists in regards to humanity in general (even if to a lesser extent). There is. I thought evolution would tell us to leave the sick behind and not waste resources on them. I thought evolution would tell us to not value those who don’t contribute much? > [@](#): > > 1. More importantly, I wasn’t referring to one’s family when I talked about the boundaries of the “self.” I was referring humanity, or the world, or the universe in general. Thats a stretch. Self might be reffering to humanity? What kind of spiritual mumbo jumbo is that? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/237 "2005-07-03T02:00:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Beggars in Spain. It is impossible to know, right now, the ultimate potential of any single human in dire circumstances. Why should I care about ending famine and building schools in Africa? Because that starving kid being pestered by Sally Struthers today might grow up to be the guy who cures cancer in twenty years. Or he might be a famous musician. Or he might just be a regular, middle class schmoe, who goes to work in a factory and makes affordable DVD players for me to buy. Global prosperity helps everyone. That’s why it’s, y’know… global. He probably has an equal chance of being the guy who breaks into your house and steals your DVD player. > [@](#): > > Or I could just let him starve and be illiterate. His country will be over-run by bandits and terrorists, who at worst may use it as a basis for attacking my country, and who at the very least will make their country too dangerous and disease-ridden to be safely visited, and I won’t ever be able to go there on vacation and see the giraffes. Which would suck, because giraffes are neat. I thought you were full of crap up until this point. This however is a compelling arguement. Giraffes are neat. Not to mention the monkees. I likes the monkees 😃 > [@](#): > > Because none of us has any sort of a guarantee that we, personally, will never be the guy under the boot. No matter how much we have going for us right now, we could lose it all tomorrow. Therefore, it behooves us all to make sure that society is designed in such a way as to help everyone, everywhere, who is less fortunate than ourselves, if for no other reason than as security for ourselves in case our lives ever goes tits up. It’s a great thought but pretty impractical. We have no gaurentee that anyone we help will in turn help us. It’a vague hope at best. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/238 "2005-07-03T15:51:28Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > The word _spiritual_ means a lot of different things to different people. > > To me, one of the meanings of being _spiritual_ is having an awareness of our inter-connectedness to all things. I’ve heard a number of people define “spiritual” in this way. The problem I find here is that for those who don’t believe in a higher power, the connotation the word has is that of a spirit being, i.e., a consciousness that exists in a disembodied form. In this way, the word “spiritual” simply doesn’t work for me. I do believe that we are, in one way or another, connected to every person and every thing on the planet. It is more of a “we’re all in this together” approach. It is a sense of responsibility and humanity-based equality that I have chosen to adopt. I believe that we all share in a need for love and beauty. I believe that artistic expression is the way that we connect emotionally with one another to communicate our bond with other human beings. I believe that through art, we can find a common bond that connects our minds and hearts, and gives us a deeper understanding of the world and its inhabitants. I also believe that this is a direct communication – from one mind to another – and has no need for a spirit conduit to make the connection. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/239 "2005-07-03T18:29:37Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I’ve heard a number of people define “spiritual” in this way. The problem I find here is that for those who don’t believe in a higher power, the connotation the word has is that of a spirit being, i.e., a consciousness that exists in a disembodied form. In this way, the word “spiritual” simply doesn’t work for me. > > I do believe that we are, in one way or another, connected to every person and every thing on the planet. It is more of a “we’re all in this together” approach. It is a sense of responsibility and humanity-based equality that I have chosen to adopt. I use the term God but I have no problem with your description here. I certainly don’t see God as some external being out there that we have to appease and obey. I tell my christian friends that that kind of language that permeates christian literature and conversation is only holding them back. I try not to let semantics seperate me from others so if someone says pray and someone says meditate I see them as the same purpose. God for me is whatever that connection between us is. I only have ideas about it. I don’t pretend to know. > [@](#): > > I believe that we all share in a need for love and beauty. I believe that artistic expression is the way that we connect emotionally with one another to communicate our bond with other human beings. I believe that through art, we can find a common bond that connects our minds and hearts, and gives us a deeper understanding of the world and its inhabitants. I also believe that this is a direct communication – from one mind to another – and has no need for a spirit conduit to make the connection. We use words to express things that are hard to describe. I call the Holy Spirit the voice of God within us all. It is merely the words I choose to express our connection. We can and do communicate on a much deeper level than mere words. I’m a muscian and I love those moments when music breaks down the barriers between people. Nature can help us feel that connection. I’ve seen other moments, even moments of sorrow or crisis where the inner self rises above the fear of the moment. Moments of incredible kindness and unselfish giving where the sense of that connection you speak of is almost tangible. It’s a beautiful thing. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029/240 "2005-07-03T19:13:16Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You’re still assuming that serving one’s own needs must be the primary goal under atheism. That’s simply not the case. Deciding to focus on your own pleasure is no less arbitrary than deciding to focus on the betterment of all mankind. If the latter, or something approaching it, is one’s aim, then morals and altruism are perfectly reasonable. > > I’m not assuming anything as fact. I’m just questioning. So morals are arbitrary? Do we draw them at random out an evolutionary hat? They’re not random. They are based, among other things, however, on certain arbitrary assumptions. Maybe you’re not assuming, but your statement that altruism seemed to make no sense under atheism _was_ based on the assumption that self-interest had to be the main good under atheism. That assumption is faulty. Do you see why? > [@](#): > > I thought evolution would tell us to leave the sick behind and not waste resources on them. I thought evolution would tell us to not value those who don’t contribute much? You’d be wrong, apparently. Instances of human societies in history leaving the infirm to fend for themselves are the exception, not the rule. > [@](#): > > Thats a stretch. Self might be reffering to humanity? What kind of spiritual mumbo jumbo is that? Mystical mumbo-jumbo, actually, not necessarily spiritual, though at that point it’s really a matter of how you want to use the words (see the posts by **Kalhoun** and yourself above mine, e.g.). Regarding your response to **Miller** , a couple of points. First, did you really think that his argument that global prosperity helps everyone was “full of crap”? Second, are you familiar with the [Prisoner’s Dilemna](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/)? From the link: > [@](#): > > The “dilemma” faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent. A common view is that the puzzle illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest. More generally, if the payoffs are not assumed to represent self-interest, a group whose members rationally pursue any goals may all meet less success than if they had not rationally pursued their goals individually. Another way of looking at it is that, by cooperative action, we bring more total value into society, hence everyone’s expected value goes up. You asked where morals come from for an aitheist, and are they as irrational for him as they seem? You’ve been given several good answers. An atheist may value the welfare of others as much as or more than his own welfare – this is in no way less rational than valuing his own self-interest most. He may (particularly if he follows certain Eastern modes of thought) have a very different conception of the “self” than others. He could believe that rational cooperative action is better for him _in the long run_ than rationally self-interested action. Any or all of these things could be true. Are you unsatisfied with these explanations? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-spirituality-you-earthmen-speak-of/310029.md?page=13)