“Spirituality” in a Secular Context
Jewish Atheist quotes Carl Sagan as saying “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” This statement by a well-known atheist struck me as strange. What definition of “spirituality” could Sagan have in mind that would comport with naturalism? The simplist definition that comes to mind is “concerning things of the spirit”. In response to my comment asking for a “working definition of ’spirituality’”, JA writes:
[I]t’s simply the feelings of wonder, of flow, of awe, of transcendence, etc. etc. Basically, the same thing it means for religious people, except without the supernatural explanations.
First of all, that doesn’t capture what a typical speaker of English generally means by “spritual” and most dictionaries explicitly identify spirituality with God. I’m particularly struck by JA’s usage of “transcendence”. What exactly, in Sagan’s physicalism, are we supposedly transcending?
David,
When an atheist sees a beautiful sunset or has a beautiful run through the woods, he feels the same feelings a theist does. He can enjoy “soul” music as much as any Gospel singer. He understands what is meant by “soulmate.”
“Spirituality,” “soul,” etc. work perfectly well as metaphors even for the atheist.
Comment by Jewish Atheist — April 2, 2006 @ 10:37 am
I wrote a comment, but it’s not showing up. Testing?
Comment by Jewish Atheist — April 2, 2006 @ 10:50 am
JA, you need to expand on what you mean. A theist (generally) doesn’t understand “spirituality” as a metaphor, but rather as denoting humanity’s interaction with God. An atheist may use the same termonology but it can’t mean the same thing. You said it yourself, they “work perfectly well as metaphors“. But metaphors for what?
Comment by sagoboulevard — April 2, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Metaphors for what?
“Soul” is a great metaphor. What does it mean when I say that music touches my soul or that I’ve found my soulmate? I’m not sure I know another way to put it. I mean that music touches me profoundly? That I’ve found someone who seems a perfect match for me? (And what’s “me” in that sense but a metaphor?)
“Spiritual” as theists often use it is also metaphorical. Unless they’re talking about a near-death experience with an accompanying vision, theists tend to use the word in much the same way. The perfect shabbat meal, with friends and zemirot, is “spiritual.” It’s much the same for us atheists.
We just don’t confuse the metaphorical for the literal.
Comment by Jewish Atheist — April 2, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
When theists speak of a “spiritual” experience, they presumably mean an experience relating to the soul. If you deny the existence of a soul (or something analogous to it), that radically changes the meaning of the term.
Comment by sagoboulevard — April 2, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
Well, obviously. Nobody’s arguing that atheists mean the same thing by it as theists. However, the point is that the same feelings of spirituality, transcendence, etc. can be found outside of theism, and that science offers them as well.
Comment by Jewish Atheist — April 2, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
I agree that it is a bit incongruous. However, ’spirituality’ is a metaphore for an hightened emotional state in the same way, ’soul’ is a metaphore for ones intangible source of emotions. So, I suppose that he meant that science stirs an emotional connection with nature.
Comment by dbs — April 3, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Dbs, welcome to the blog. You’re probably right but I’m not sure if Sagan really understands the difference.
Comment by sagoboulevard — April 3, 2006 @ 1:36 pm