I
IWantGod
Guest
I think Sam Harris and some others have spoken about how atheists can be spiritual, but does this make sense from a naturalistic viewpoint?
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
It could be your use of the word and someone like Sam Harris’s is different.This from Harris:
In writing my next book, I will have to confront the animosity that many people feel for the term “spiritual.” Whenever I use the word—as in referring to meditation as a “spiritual practice”—I inevitably hear from fellow skeptics and atheists who think that I have committed a grievous error.
The word “spirit” comes from the Latin spiritus, which in turn is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning “breath.” Around the 13th century, the term became bound up with notions of immaterial souls, supernatural beings, ghosts, etc. It acquired other connotations as well—we speak of the spirit of a thing as its most essential principle, or of certain volatile substances and liquors as spirits. Nevertheless, many atheists now consider “spiritual” thoroughly poisoned by its association with medieval superstition.
I strive for precision in my use of language, but I do not share these semantic concerns. And I would point out that my late friend Christopher Hitchens—no enemy of the lexicographer—didn’t share them either. Hitch believed that “spiritual” was a term we could not do without, and he repeatedly plucked it from the mire of supernaturalism in which it has languished for nearly a thousand years.
It is true that Hitch didn’t think about spirituality in precisely the way I do. He spoke instead of the spiritual pleasures afforded by certain works of poetry, music, and art. The symmetry and beauty of the Parthenon embodied this happy extreme for him—without any requirement that we admit the existence of the goddess Athena, much less devote ourselves to her worship. Hitch also used the terms “numinous” and “transcendent” to mark occasions of great beauty or significance—and for him the Hubble Deep Field was an example of both. I’m sure he was aware that pedantic excursions into the OED would produce etymological embarrassments regarding these words as well. Carl Sagan also freely used the term spiritual in the same way. (See C. Sagan. 1995. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Random House. p. 29.)
We must reclaim good words and put them to good use—and this is what I intend to do with “spiritual.” I have no quarrel with Hitch and Sagan’s general use of the word to mean something like “beauty or significance that provokes awe,” but I believe that we can also use it in a narrower and, indeed, more personally transformative sense.
Of course, “spiritual” and its cognates have some unfortunate associations unrelated to their etymology—and I will do my best to cut those ties as well. But there seems to be no other term (apart from the even more problematic “mystical” or the more restrictive “contemplative”) with which to discuss the deliberate efforts some people make to overcome their feeling of separateness—through meditation, psychedelics, or other means of inducing non-ordinary states of consciousness. And I find neologisms pretentious and annoying. Hence, I appear to have no choice: “Spiritual” it is. samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality
G
Gertabelle
Guest
I find people’s use of words very interesting. Thanks for posting this.
Personally, I have no problem with people using the word “spiritual” if they have no religious beliefs. I have many friends and colleagues who consider themselves agnostic or atheist. And I’m delighted that they are still spiritual, in the sense of spending time reflecting on things other than the material or physical. Some will use the word spiritual, some will simply allude to what Harris is talking about here.
I’m surprised by the backlash that Harris seems to be experiencing in his choice of the word. Anyone who’s ever been in love, or been deeply moved by beauty, or even just had an “aha!” moment can understand the concept of a “spiritual experience.”
When I put it that way, I guess I can understand the backlash. In English, that does tend towards religious belief in some circles.
Anyway, carry on.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I must disagree with using the word in this way. We had need of a word to fill a meaning, and spiritual is the word chosen, over the course of generations.
I have no problem with atheists having spiritual feelings… altho it seems to contradict what they are about. If they want to meditate or do something like that, it’s fine. But if they want a word, let them come up with their own word instead of stealing one of ours, esp on the specious excuse of its ancient etymology!
We have the word psyche, let them use that. They can feel psychEc, something can soothe their psyche.
I have no problem with atheists having spiritual feelings… altho it seems to contradict what they are about. If they want to meditate or do something like that, it’s fine. But if they want a word, let them come up with their own word instead of stealing one of ours, esp on the specious excuse of its ancient etymology!
We have the word psyche, let them use that. They can feel psychEc, something can soothe their psyche.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
New Atheism is kind of dead. 
B
Bradski
Guest
What the…?
G
GLam8833
Guest
A more disturbing “spirituality” is that propounded
by Oprah Winfrey, claiming to be “Christian” but
espouses the spirituality within you, the “god”
that is you, often using Christian terms in her
“teaching”:
In 1998, Winfrey began an ongoing conversation with Gary Zukav, an American spiritual teacher, who appeared on her television show 35 times. Winfrey has said she keeps a copy of Zukav’s The Seat of the Soul at her bedside, a book that she says is one of her all-time favorites. (Wikipedia)
by Oprah Winfrey, claiming to be “Christian” but
espouses the spirituality within you, the “god”
that is you, often using Christian terms in her
“teaching”:
In 1998, Winfrey began an ongoing conversation with Gary Zukav, an American spiritual teacher, who appeared on her television show 35 times. Winfrey has said she keeps a copy of Zukav’s The Seat of the Soul at her bedside, a book that she says is one of her all-time favorites. (Wikipedia)
I
inocente
Guest
“stealing one of ours”? Is that like ranchers stealing the farmers’ womenfolk or something? Unless you say spiritual™ or spiritual[sup]©[/sup] or spiritual[sup]®[/sup], and have the relevant paperwork, you don’t have any exclusive rights.
Btw spiritual is a genre of song, and Psychec is a type inference engine for incomplete C code. Please come up with your own words instead of stealing one from others.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Oprah isn’t a big fan of organized religion. She has a show out now that is partially inspired by her church experiences. I think it is called “Greenleaf.” It doesn’t paint a rosy picture of church.
Who owns the word?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
This doesn’t make much sense. Spirit indeed means breath, referring to the breath of God, who breathed life into this world. Also the Holy Spirit descends upon people who are receptive to the breath or the word of God.
Atheist may indeed feel this spirit, but they should identify it as God. It doesn’t come from nowhere!
B
Beryllos
Guest
It does.
When Pope Francis spoke in 2013 about atheists, I thought of Sam Harris. There’s a guy who is seeking the truth and trying to do good.
Sam Harris has seen that there are real benefits to prayer and spirituality. He recognizes that it makes people’s lives better, but doesn’t think it’s supernatural. He has decided to investigate, perhaps in the hope of finding a naturalistic understanding. I think that is great.
Pope Francis said “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
By the way, Harris wrote an excellent book about lying (Sam Harris — Lying). I think it should be required reading for Catholics. Here at CAF, threads appear from time to time about the morality of lying, and I am astonished by the wriggling and maneuvering as Catholic members attempt to justify lying. Harris’s book comes a lot closer to the teachings of the Church (CCC 2482). His book doesn’t mention religion or atheism. He has come to the same conclusion by his own route. I think this is awesome. It’s like Pope Francis said, we are all created in the image and likeness of God, and we all have his law inscribed in out heart.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s vulnerable to the same determinist and materialist lance that allegedly slew god.
B
Beryllos
Guest
- Status