We often use the terms physical, emotional and spritual to describe our sense of being. What would be a better word to use than spiritual for those who do not accept that concept.
I wouldn’t use any word. If you don’t believe in the concept of spirits or deities, there’s no need for a descriptor.
I thought about that also but I find people who are clearly athiests that seem to have a very spiritual aspect to their personalities. I think that comes from searching for answers, if complete openess was maintained as part of that searching process I think it would fullfill the same the same area of our physch that others accomplish through spiritual endeavors.
A better question might have been, " how would you define spirituality" If an accepted definition matched another word closely it could be used in its place, the key word is being “acceptable”. If the definition was not accepted it would be meaningless.
Metaphysical? Psyche?
imaginary.
nonphysical might be a term to accommodate psychological or paranormal stuff not caused by spirits.
Nobody is talking paranormal. A premise is being made that we have a side of our personality that we usually refer to as spiritual, it is not unusual to see athiests display traits that would otherwise be defined as spiritual. I guess reflective and inquiring might be close. But there does seem to be an aspect of mental processes that we use to fullfill an area of our being.
Metaphysical is good.
Also, philosophical
Mind, Heart, Body
Or the CAP model:
I think philosophical would cover it pretty well. It doesn't confuse religion with sprituality. They don't go hand in hand.
existential?
I like this much better. I went and looked up the meaning to see if I had interpeted the same way. This really seems to fit perfectly.
As a very pragmatic cynic who is both completely non-religious and non-spiritual, so-called ‘spirituality’ is nothing more than a subset of emotionality. Usually triggered by significant and difficult to reconcile aspects of the physical world. I know that’s no fun, but that’s really all there is too it. No Virginia, there is no Santa Clause…
I think spiritual is used to describe our highest potential values or complex philosophy.
Transcendental? That doesn’t fit well in a sentence.
Zen
I like both reflective and philosophical, but they sound too passive to me. My interpretation of what the OP is asking for has to do with the quest to be a better person, both morally better and also more self-realized and complete.
Last weekend the City Arts & Lectures broadcast had Rick Hanson on it, a person who seems completely non-theistic, and who talked about how one can achieve better intra-personal and inter-personal health through such disciplines as meditation and mindfulness (I especially liked how he gently but firmly put down the attempts at woo that his interviewer was trying to put forward). I think this is the sort of thing that I am thinking of.
I don’t think the word existential captures this either. I’m not coming up with a word for this myself, I’m hoping that someone else will. I remember once a work friend stated a conversation with “I know you’re religious, right?” to which I had to say no, and then she said “Well, spiritual, anyway?” and I demurred somewhat, saying it depends on what you mean by that. It would have been nice to have a go-to word for this trait.
I don’t believe this is true, more often than not I think it is a feeling of gratitude and just wondering who or what to thank.
Spiritual, metaphysical, transcendent (or transcendental), and existential are all philosophical concepts with different though somewhat overlapping meanings.
“Spiritual” is often perceived to have religious connotations although I myself don’t see it or use it that way; “metaphysical” carries connotations of the supernatural; “transcendent” probably comes closest to being a synonym and implies things that are beyond the realm of direct experience. “Existential” is a little different and deals very specifically with the philosophical issues of human existence rather than, say, broader issues about the nature of the universe.
If you believe that, it’s also necessary to believe that all of philosophy is some sort of mindless emotion, and that nothing is real that is outside of direct human experience – or at least, that nothing is real if it can’t be described, predicted, and understood by science. That’s worse than just “no fun”, that’s an unrealistically limited world view. It’s also an incorrect definition of some of these terms. One useful working definition of spirituality and transcendence is the very pragmatic belief – one that might be described as secular spiritualism – that there will always be aspects of reality that are forever beyond scientific description, such as ultimate causes, the origin of the Big Bang, or the nature of parallel universes. We might gain better understanding of some of these phenomena, but only to reveal still deeper mysteries. A secular spiritualist believes that science can never completely describe itself and that there are realities intrinsically outside of science.
I like transcendent.
Meh…
Everything that was once outside science’s reach, like the very large (the size and workings of planets, the Sun, the universe etc.) and the very small (chemistry, biology, atomic & quantum physics etc.) were all once the domain of spirituality. It’s nothing more than acknowledging that we don’t know something and right now there’s no way we can know it. In the past that also meant leaving it ‘to god’ in some form or other (and often equating we ‘can’t’ know something with we ‘shouldn’t’ know it). First the Earth was the center of the universe. Then the Sun. Then the Milky Way. Now we’re just a speck. Arthur C. Clarke said,* “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”*. That will always be true.
And I don’t think of philosophy as a “mindless emotion’”, but it is merely a set of ‘rules’ and ‘ways of thinking’ that we all currently agree on. Nothing more.