What is this "Spirituality" you Earthmen speak of?

[I haven’t yet read the whole of this thread (reading from work) so someone may have said something like this:]

To understand “spirituality” we gotta wrestle with the word “spirit.” If we agree with T’Plana Hath of Vulcan, “Nothing unreal exists” then the “supernatural” is a null term if by “natural” we mean “reality.” Is there something real that can be described as “spirit”? If so, in what way is our behaviour affected by this something?
(I think my " key is stuck)
We can all concede that a human individual appears to be more than the sum of its parts (if you disagree, I’m curious as to the arguement). The gap between the parts and that sum is mysterious. Maybe it’s knowable maybe it’s not - but as of right now it is unknown and hence mysterious.

What is consciousness? What is emotion? What is memory? It may very well be nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions obeying the formulas of physics. But there is a difference between such reactions in a test tube and the reactions inside my skin. That difference is what I woud call spirit.

Whatever it’s explanation, whenever that explanation arrives, that which makes me a sentient emotive being is my spirit.

Spirituality, then, at the very least is a celebration (of whatever scale) of this yet unexplaned aspect of who I am. It can (but doesn’t have to) extent to a collective celebration with others. As for behaviour: if I value my own spirit I am likely to value yours. The way I treat you should reflect this value.

What has this to do with God? Some more from the " key: If by God you mean “Jesus Christ” or “Shiva” or “YWVH” or “Allah” I can offer no qualified opinion. I kinda like the God=universe theory. Heinlein eloquently states this as “Thou art God.” So if all of us are piece of God then self-reflection is God contemplating his/her own navel. As each of us gets closer to understanding this, God gets closer to “waking up.”

This is all meant to be taken poetically. A scientist can maintain the rigours of scientific method and healthy scepticism without the need to explain in mathematical symbols Beethoven’s 9th to enjoy it.

The universe is musical. Spirituallity means to enjoy the music.

I don’t know why anyone would be an altruist. God isn’t. The problem with altruism is that it is moral suicide. It’s the equivalent of passing the oxygen mask to everyone else first. Let me put it another way: if selflessness is a central tenet of Christianity, then why ought one to accept, let alone seek out, one’s own salvation? Morality should not be tied to ethics; morality should be tied to aesthetics. A person should pursue whatever it is that he values. Hypocrisy is the denial of something you hold dear.

Not that the response was directed at you for it clearly wasn’t – I was simply taking my turn in lekatt’s childish game. However, devoid of intellectual pretensenses your argument is not dissimilar to his.

Ultimately, we all get our moral compass from the same place: ourselves. Some of us are good, some bad, some indifferent. Makes no difference whether I use a god to justify my actions or not --the very actions speak for themselves.

Yes and no. For what if a person genuinely values altruism? Even if its for the afterglow said person gets from the act.

BTW, “God isn’t,” is obviously your interpretation of said being. Bet any number of believers would disagree with that perception – and there’s no way you could prove them wrong.

So are we saying that a basic “zest for life” is spirituality? Why not just say “zest for life” and quit confusing everyone? I don’t know of any adults who would disagree on the meaning of “zest for life”…but I know that if I ask ten adults what spirituality is, I’m going to get ten different answers, most of them relating to a higher power.

I think it’s a sneaky way of getting some people who believe in a higher power to force non-believers into making themselves sound like believers.

Yes, where “zest for life” is intended, that is a better phrase than spirituality.

This phrase, though, doesn’t address the point about that mysterious something. Its existence is self-evident but its explanation isn’t. When I say “Spirituality, then, at the very least is a celebration (of whatever scale) of this yet unexplaned aspect of who I am,” I meant to suggest it doesn’t end with the celebration - rather begins there. It’s in what form this celebration takes place that differs amongst those 10 adults.

For me (and I dare say for many) the heart of spirituality is the exploration of what if any meaning there is to that mysterious something - the age old questions “Why am I here?” “Who am I?” etc. Let me don my flame-retarded garb as I say: too many take the easy route by uncritically adopting what they’re taught in Sunday School as the explanation.

What I offer to the discussion is the definition of spirituality as the acknowledgement and exploration of the spirit as I tried to define it, valuing it in oneself and in others, and acting accordingly.

The OP suggests maybe one can “have spirituality” without knowing what it is - like cholesterol. If you either got it or you don’t, what does it mean to not be spiritual?

I wish I could communicate with animals other than humans. Failing that ability, it appears that other animals do not wrestle with issues of spirituality. If so, why not? They do not create works of art, do not perform ritual worship, and have not created social structures beyond what could be equated with the tribal. Again, why not? I do maintain, though, that my dog enjoys a rich emotional life and to the best I can ascertain is self-aware and displays a healthy zest for life.

This is not to promote a humanocentric view of the universe - only to hold up an comparative example of spirituality, how its lack may be manifest. There’s something to it that is more than just “zest for life.”

I’m struggling with how to respond to this point. You divide non-believers and believers implicitly favouring the non-believers (unless I misjudge your intent). Belief in what, and why is it bad? And do you mean belief as in Santa Claus, or belief as in Democracy (i.e. belief in the existence of something or belief in the value of something)?

There is no question there are higher powers than us. That’s not to say there are higher powers that are intelligent, personal, interested in us, etc. I dare say that all labels used by all religions are incorrect in any literal/historical sense - their value being only in the poetic, allegorical sense. Religion is our manufactured attempt at expressing the unknowable - or at least the unknown.

Atheism is a belief that there is no such thing as god. I suggest in North America most use the word to mean “I do not believe in Jehovah” or Christ or whatever. One can maintain this belief without denying one’s spirit in the sense I’m trying to convey.

Agnosticisim is the belief that the either the nature of God is unknowable, or that one does not yet know the nature of God. Again, one can maintain this belief and still explore and celebrate the mystery.

Theism is the belief… you get the idea.

I do advocate the belief that there is a special, mysterious, and valueable aspect to our composition as a human. It’s not magical or supernatural, but it’s cool whatever it is, and fills me with a sense of wonder, curiosity, zest for life, love of others, and a ton of unanswered questions.

I do call myself spiritual, but I do not call myself a “believer” in the colloquial sense of a prosethelysing evangelist. One can explore the spiritual without the prerequisite of a mythology. The mythologies that exist are, like other forms of art, human expressions of this mystery. Like other forms of art, some are high art and some are fingerpainting. Spirituality and religiosity are not synonyms. We could look at “Dogs Playing Poker” and fight with each other over whether the dogs exist or not - and not come close to understanding its spiritual value [that debate for another thread :slight_smile: ]

Well, IF this is an accurate definition of “spiritual”, then I suppose I am. The problem is that there are so many definitions, and many of them carry religious connotations, that I prefer to use terms that can’t be confused with religious, as I am firmly not of that mindset. Other than that, I think we are on the same page. Nice post, by the way.

You’re right. In trying to answer the OP, I tried to penetrate “spiritual” starting from the root word “spirit.” In doing so, I ignored the fact that “spiritual” is a loaded word. My attempt to secularize the definition of spirit and thus derive the meaning of spirituality cannot succeed - that word is unfairly under the jurisdiction of squatter’s rights of the religions that have claimed it.

There is a seed of mystery, of longing, of wonder and awe, that can be found at the heart of science, religion, art, and society. If this cannot be called “spirituality” we need a new word!

the numinous?
mysterium tremendum?
secular spirituality?

Oh, I like mysterium tremendum. Let’s start a movement!

No arguement from me on this. I agree.

I know of no theists who believe in any imaginary sky friends.
No wonder it’s taking so long.

**Scott ** i don’t understand your question. My response to the RedFury was because his post was so outrageous. I see he meant it to be and exaggeration.

Did you also find lekatt’s “Atheists have no motivation to be kind, compassionate or any other morals” “outrageous”? Can you understand why RedFury replied to that with an obviously and purposefully outrageous statement, particularly since many atheists had already posted to explain why we do have motivation to be kind and compassionate, and exhibit other morals?

I see your point here. This has been an educational thread for me. When I spent time studying different religions I found many things that they had in common. Often the differences were more of a matter of termnology. Like each was trying to describe that mysterious something and interperting it slightly differently. It surprises me how much those differences in termology seperate people.

In this thread while exploring the meaning of spirituality I discover a connection with atheism that is similar. My objection is not in people describing that mysterious something in their own words but more those who seek to limit the words used in describing it, i.e. “my way and my way only”
Thanks for your input. It’s been helpful.

For words with wide scope of meaning I am perfectly comfortable in choosing my own meaning within that scope and allow others to do the same. I don’t assume I know someone’s definition until it’s clarified for me. Perhaps in this thread you’ve succeeded in expanding the bounds of “spiritual” to include a more secular definition. Hooray I say. Although mysterium tremendum is pretty cool. It’s as good as term as God any day.

Point taken. She certainly wasn’t repeating any assertion I made. I suppose I read her statement in the context of the thread and didn’t see it as offensive, only poorly phrased.

Spirituality and religion, from my monotheistic point of view, deal with my relationship to God. They are alike in that they both recognize God as the supreme power over the universe; the omniscient governor of all things. They both recognize that God knows us better than anyone else, including ourselves.

The difference comes from the approach towards him. Religion is interested in his importance and authority. Spirituality concerns the personal relationship with the only one who understands us perfectly. I lean towards spirituality, myself. I believe God is more interested in the personal relationship than being worshipped and revered. He knows my thoughts and feelings better than I do.
I am always amused at people who believe that God takes offense to things as if he were some priggish, stuffy schoolmarm. C’mon…this is the guy who INVENTED sex, farts, curse words, and STD’s…I think he is beyond offense, considering he not only has seen everything, but knows everything ever imagined by anyone, ever.
And church? He is not impressed with a group of people who show up once a week, sing, and get talked at. Now, if you really want to impress him, show as much deference and repect to crackwhores and bums as you would to yourself.
All purely IMHO. ;j

Back to the point of equivocation, it depends on what you mean by fear. Fear as reverential awe is not the same as being scared. In fact, the Biblical meaning of the term is all but obsolete, and speaking of the admonition to fear God as though the modern term applied is rather like speaking of knowing a woman — meaning to have sex with her as opposed to being acquainted with her.

Other thoughts on this. Thinking of what Liberal often says about pursuing what we value, I think this is a major part of what Jesus speaks of in the Bible when he points out that our actions speak of who we really are, not our lip service. Regardless of what you say you believe when the moment comes and you have to choose in any given situation, then your true self is revealed.

      I find it infuriating and insulting when "born agains" dismiss acts of kindness, love, and compassion by others as meaningless because they haven't accepted Jesus as saviour. I picture an atheist risking their life to pull a born again christian from a burning building and then useing CPR to revive them and the christian says 

“gee thanks, but do you know Jesus as your lord and saviour?”
If you can’t tell by the act they just preformed then it’s not them who has a problem with God.

I understand your explanation of what the term meant 2000 years ago. We are communicating in present day and my question referred to people who are taught to fear God useing the more contemporary meaning of fear. as in, God will punish me by letting or making bad things happen if I give in to temptation.

Church can quickly become a social club where people support and help each other and occasionaly reach out to help “outsiders” all for the glory of God. They seem to miss the part where Jesus taught them there aren’t any outsiders.

In thinking about it I like the term **mysterium tremendom ** even more because right away it acknowledges that we don’t know. Perhaps the term spiritual can have two subcategories. Spiritual with supreme diety who created the universe and participates in our lives in various ways, or spiritual without said diety. Just the certain unknown something we try to grasp.