I am confused. Can someone tell me what "spirituality" means? I feel like I should already know. It's important enough to be constantly described as one of our defining characteristics as humans. And, like love, it provides a thread of commonality that gently tugs diverse individuals and groups towards one another. Even when we worship different gods, attend different schools, have different skin colors, we're all supposed to share spirituality. But how does it affect us to share something that we can't even define? And how do we learn more about it?
I thought about what people do in this society when they're confused about something. I could probably have stood up and walked outside and down the street and into a church or a synagogue. I live in Manhattan, and there is no shortage of religious representatives from every tradition you might be able to think of, and from about 85 that you definitely never would've thought of, even if someone gave you a lot of clues. It's true that some of the mosques and Buddhist and Hindu temples sit at somewhat inconvenient distances from me, but then, a sizable chunk of the Upper West Side is less a glorious tumult of multiculturalism and more a place where the few people with dark skin are pushing light-skinned babies in expensive strollers. Still, I could get to a Hindu temple without enough trouble to justify more complaining than, "Oy vey, could they maybe turn on some air-conditioning in this subway car? What are we, animals, that we should sweat like this?"
But I have a computer. So I didn't go outside. And I didn't get on the subway. I did the normal thing. I looked it up. And here's what I found:
"Spirituality can refer to an ultimate or immaterial reality; an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the 'deepest values and meanings by which people live.'"
Yes, that's Wikipedia. That's the first sentence of the page on spirituality. At least, I think it's a sentence. It continues on to say, "Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life. It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world."
Hmm. That's extremely broad. I didn't think I should stop there, so I decided to read a book. Princeton religion scholar Leigh Schmidt wrote one called Restless Souls that charts the development of American spirituality. Rather than the "New Age" phenomenon it is sometimes misinterpreted as, spirituality as an egalitarian, pluralistic realm of experience and thought has enjoyed a unique, thoroughly developed, and sometimes intellectually advanced role in American history.
Schmidt cites solitude as one of the defining characteristics of the developing spiritual movement in the 1800s, and later explores the evolution of a universal spiritual consciousness that became a staple of the movement (if it may be referred to as a cohesive movement at all). He is careful to state that there is neither a single definition nor several compact definitions of spirituality. He identifies religious liberalism as an inextricably interwoven and informing partner to and part of spirituality, and, as liberalism itself is complex and difficult to define, so indeed is spirituality.
So basically, Schmidt can't (or won't) define spirituality, either. Unlike Wikipedia, he doesn't embarrass himself by trying. Instead, like any good religion scholar, he writes not about what things mean but about what they mean to the people who use them. But where does that leave me? Without going out and asking everyone I can find, can I figure out anything real about spirituality? It's solitary. It's universal. It's mixed up in religion, but it's definitely distinct from institutional religion -- which is not to say that it doesn't pop up constantly in traditional, institutional religious contexts. It's everywhere! It's out of control! No one can stop it!
Here's what I think: The ambiguity of the term allows for it to be applied universally. Maybe its nebulousness contributes to its appeal. It can mean anything anyone wants it to, and people who might not otherwise agree on theological points or even big questions like "Is there a God?" can talk spirituality without a hitch. Interfaith groups can rely on spirituality to form bridges between religions. We can all have it in common -- until someone says, "I don't think I'm spiritual," at which point everyone can say, "Oh no, you are. You just don't know it."
Can someone be religious without being spiritual? It's completely plausible. He/she can observe rituals and participate in community and recite prayers, all without considering himself or herself spiritual. Can someone be spiritual without being religious? Of course! In fact, it seems like that's one of the benefits of spirituality for many people. It's a convenient concept for people who would like to maintain some religious credibility outside of religious institutions: "I don't go to church, but I'm very spiritual." People can use spirituality as a buffer.
But what if you don't consider yourself either religious or spiritual? What's left? Maybe an approach to being human that doesn't require big labels. Maybe one day you stand on top of a mountain and look out at the world and feel moved by its enormousness and grandeur and you don't call that feeling anything at all. Or maybe you automatically call it "spiritual" but recognize that this word appears in your mind because of your cultural context and not because the concept itself holds any intrinsic truth.
Relying on ambiguity can be risky. After all, I still don't really know what spirituality is. And when someone tells me I'm spiritual, I'm not sure what they're saying about me, and I'm not sure whether it's something I'm comfortable having attached to my name.
In spirituality's defense, though, maybe we don't need a perfect definition. It seems to be the case that we can't ever adequately define some of the big aspects of ourselves. Like love. Or trust. Or yearning. And it might be the openness of these concepts that allows us to share them across beliefs and practices and hang-ups and traditions and totally different preferences in breakfast foods. So, really, if I get called spiritual once in a while without understanding what it means, I can always just ask. And maybe it's time to walk outside and start asking anyway. Maybe the best way to learn more about spirituality is to find out what it means to individuals -- not just websites and scholars, and not just the people inside the Buddhist temple and the Presbyterian church, but the people on the crowded subway. I'll let you know if I can work up the courage.
Follow Kate Fridkis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/eatthedamncake
By CORNELIA DEAN
The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is “unassailable fact,” the journal Nature said this month in an editorial on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought. A headline on the editorial drove the point home: “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
Or as V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of “the universal spirit of the cosmos,” but the soul as it is usually spoken of, “an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.” Belief in that kind of soul “is basically superstition,” he said.
To continue to read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26soul.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print”
The word of God tells us that the natural man recives not the things of the spirit of God, for they are follishness to him. Neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. So it really does depend on weather you put your trust in God. If so, you will understand spiritual things. If not you will continue to be carried about being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrin.
And by the way for those who just want to say that the Word of God was written by man, they are right. It was written by man, every single word. As it says in 2nd Tim. 3:16 "Alll scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrin, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rightousness: That the man opf God would be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." It was written by man, but it was and is the inspiration of God.
In my newly released book titled "The Sword and the Spear" I take readers through everday events that will cause them to continue to stay speared by Satan's tossings to and fro not having the ability to stand on a level path, or it will cause them to pick up the mighty sword of God and swing their way to victory having their feet planted of solid ground.
Check it out;
http://bit.ly/cfz9s2
God Bless,
Rod
Do you respect all voodoo, including Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Mormonism, idol worship or are you only addicted to the voodoo of your own cult?
Do you think full-of-faith people from India made a big, bad mistake when they became addicts to a multitude of Heavenly Pies? Do you thing they will burn in hell for eternity?
You can call it a soul, or a spirit. You can call it anything you want; but I believe that our character, the principals of who we are on the deepest level exist on a spiritual level. It would be nice if that spirit outlived our bodies, but I doubt it. Still even the most hardend scientist would tell you that there is much about the universe that we cannot yet quantify. It doesn't mean we will never be able to. The same is true of the human mind. So why not sum up the part that we cannot yet quantify as the spirit.
How do you know that?
A bunch of men gave us the bible saying it was from God.
They even decided what to include and what to eliminate.
*dusts off shoulder.*
These words for many people have been “emasculated” and “castrated” to become meaningless: mere gibberish, gobbledygook, spiritual mumbo jumbo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism
I don't think wikipedia did such a bad job. I suggest that to be spiritual is to be actively engaged in trying to clarify one's basic values and strategies for pursuing them. Such a project requires, according to most philosophers, having a conception of the world or life as a whole, as the background context in which competing values and perceptions can be compared or integrated.
The search for a unifying context is often equated with the search for a metaphysical theory. But this is where most of the confusion comes in. Thinking about the ultimate value of life is not something that requires metaphysical beliefs. And it is a context wherein two different senses of "belief" get conflated: one (usually indicated by "belief IN...") relates to values, the other ("belief THAT...") to facts.
The most useful connotation of "spirituality", I think, is that which explicitly avoids questions of factual belief.
There is too much aggressive, arrogant peddling of organized ignorance and sacred superstitions to the detriment of our society.
Tell me, do you respect smokers?
How about alcoholics?
How about drug addicts?
"Spiritualism" and "smoking" are not virtues. Although smokers and “spiritual” people are often blessed with other, good qualities and should be respected for them, they should only be tolerated for their smoke or spirituality.
Whenever people infected with the virus of faith triumphantly and contemptuously claim that “there are no atheists in a foxhole”, I can’t decide if I am more offended by their brazen chutzpah for asserting that an uninfected person can’t have such strong convictions as Full of Faith people do or more saddened and shocked at the depth of their delusion.
I feel the same whenever Full-of-Faith people derisively insult their interlocutor for his rejection of a pie-in-the-sky by declaring “I will pray for you”.
People of reason resent the stench coming from Thomas Jefferson’s dunghill, the sacred superstitions. They polish Thomas Jefferson’s “diamond”, the Golden Rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
I advocated the clarification of values and contexts of meaning WITHOUT any assertions of faith or reference to the supernatural. Your response is all about faith and the supernatural. It is unresponsive to both the article and my post.
I think that in my responses to you I will undertake a campaign against radon gas. No matter what you say, my answer will be "But what about radon? Don't you know that it can kill you?" When you say that that's not what you were talking about I'll say "But the government says that radon can kill you! It's an odorless gas! See my website about radon."
When you ask questions I answer them directly. Why post comments in response to me that have nothing to do with what I said?
That is the best help I have found to make some sense of the word.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who cans no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” By Albert Einstein
.Albert Einstein, was SPIRITUAL MAN ,so he discovered the mysterious.This happened to every inventor, poet, writer , scientist,who propounded any great deed but not all are like Albert Einstein, who knew , how his inner powers are to be utilized, using the SPIRITUALITY. YOGA , was a tool, developed by GREAT ANCIANT SCIENISTS, called “Rishis/Maharishis for it. Every scientist needs CONCENTRATION for his research work. How would you concentrate with out knowing the exact method of attaining CONCENTRATION? It is in spiritual scriptures of “ASTANG YOGA”.
As a scientist, don’t be trendy, apply your x, y method of science to realize GOD, if failed to realize, then go to a YOGI, make a belief in his “ METHOD OF YOGA “. If you don’t realize GOD, after applying the “ Method Of Yoga “,only then have a disbelief in GOD.Spirituality is not based on BELIEF/FAITH but the scientists have to follow & believe on " METHOD OF SPIRITUALITY" ,otherwise "Method Of Science" would be called " METHOD OF NON-SCIENCE".
You say: "Most modern scientists see spirituality & scriptural statements with DOUBT, except a few, like Albert Einstein".
Here is what my "Rabbi" said about addictions to sacred superstitions.
“The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, THE CONCEPT OF A SOUL WITHOUT A BODY SEEM TO ME TO BE EMPTY AND DEVOID OF MEANING.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter February 5, 1921; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 40.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
For Einstein the Word God was Devoid of the Divine.
Most mortals believe in a “personal God”, in heaven and souls, in idols and all kinds of sacred follies. And they also believe that Einstein believed in God. Not only Einstein’s personal God has been dead all along. In fact God was never even alive according to Einstein.
According to Einstein, God is “a product of human weakness”. That is what’s important. Beyond that all the pretentious, pseudo-science is empty, meaningless, and delusional.
Einstein’s quotes were used by dealers of delusions to confuse the common man to fool him about Einstein true religious beliefs. Einstein categorically rejected the supernatural.
In his article, Albert Einstein’s God — the “Product of Human Weaknesses”, published on Thursday, May 15, 2008, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth wrote: Einstein’s language is very clear. God is dismissed as “nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses” — a statement hauntingly like the verdict of Friedrich Nietzsche... In the end, it is better to see Einstein, not as a believer of sorts, but as an atheist of sorts. Belief in God was simply childish, he asserted.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2008/05/15/albert-einsteins-god-the-product-of-human-weaknesses/
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html
1.I do not advocate in favor any personal God.
2.Try to understand difference between religion & spirituality.I am talking of spirituality,which can remove the " weakness & confusion", rather than creating it,as you said.If you want to know life, you have to search within your self, by applying " method of spirituality",which were invented by Rishis of India( today you call inventors as scientists ).These methods are practical , stepwise approach to realize GOD (universal one,not personal).Spirituality is a science to know life.See one of the various" methods of spirituality" in u-tube : Sri Vidhya by Swami Rama( 49 videos) to have an idea to realize God.Spirituality requires courage to do practical on one's own body.It is ignorance to call it " weakness & confusion" . Spirituality is not the property of any religion.Contd...
Don't believe me? Here it is then:
S: (n) spiritualty, spirituality, church property (property or income owned by a church)
http ..etc. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn and enter "spirituality" in the search field.
By way of example, one might say "The Vatican City is an independent state of great spirituality, painstakingly accumulated over many centuries and replenished daily by the gullible".
Proabably not quite what Ms Fridkis was looking for though.
Rest assured, dear Parsimonious that many of us looked up the dictionary (and some of us explored many sources) and we know about that definition.
That was the easy definition. Obviously this is not the one we are discussing.
The less factual the claim, the better, it seems.
Great comment. But I prefer a less polite, more direct definition.
The word 'spirituality' serves as an all purpose euphemism for a plethora of sacred and semi-sacred superstitions.
It is useful as it avoids potentially offensive or embarrassing details about the particulars of various superstitions and by being vague and all encompassing can confound anyone who wants to debate specifics about the stupidity.
1. “Infinite power of the spirit, brought to bear upon matter evolves material development, made to act upon thought evolves intellectuality, and made to act upon itself makes of man a GOD. First, let us be Gods, and then help other to be GODS. "Be and Make." Let this be our motto.”
2. All the powers in the universe are already ours. It is we who have put our hands before our eyes and cry that it is dark.”
3.“We are responsible for what we are, and whatever we wish ourselves to be, we have the power to make ourselves. If what we are now has been the result of our own past actions, it certainly follows that whatever we wish to be in future can be produced by our present actions; so we have to know how to act.”
4“The greatest religion is to be true to your own nature. Have faith in yourselves!”
Dear Uncle,please read the works of Indian spiritual masters like-Swami Vivekananda,Sri Aurobindo,Paramahansa Yogananda,Swami Rama in the real context of religion & spirituality.
OM.
The connection with religion is that religion also pursues questions of value and purpose, but usually attaches them to a metaphysical theory. Spirituality would then be religion without a metaphysical theory.
Clearly there are many different uses of the word. And the "spirit" part of "spirituality" can lead one right back into metaphysical religion. (On the other hand we can think not of ghost-spirits but of "the spirit of the times", "the spirit of this music", "team spirit", etc.) But on the whole I think that the movement from religion to spirituality is a positive one, even if it makes things difficult for those who are primarily concerned with refuting metaphysical beliefs.
We would love to know what does "spirituality" mean for you.
1) For example, do you believe in the concept of "a soul without a body"?
2) Do you consider, as a principle, that it is always wrong to disparage sacred stupidity?
1) No
2) No, but it is sometimes unkind and unwise.
All of you people are talking about the mis-users of religion & spirituality.Don't merely go by the definition of these words ,written in books.Try to read ancient Indian Scriptures to assimilate the real STUFF,which is a real scientific approach.See quotes of the greatest spiritual master Swami Vivekanand-
1. “Infinite power of the spirit, brought to bear upon matter evolves material development, made to act upon thought evolves intellectuality, and made to act upon itself makes of man a GOD. First, let us be Gods, and then help other to be GODS. "Be and Make." Let this be our motto.”
2. All the powers in the universe are already ours. It is we who have put our hands before our eyes and cry that it is dark.”
3.“We are responsible for what we are, and whatever we wish ourselves to be, we have the power to make ourselves. If what we are now has been the result of our own past actions, it certainly follows that whatever we wish to be in future can be produced by our present actions; so we have to know how to act.”
4“The greatest religion is to be true to your own nature. Have faith in yourselves!”
Dear holyheretic,please read the works of Indian spiritual masters like-Swami Vivekananda,Sri Aurobindo,Paramahansa Yogananda,Swami Rama in the real context of religion & spirituality.
OM.
Please allow me to ad your luminous quote to my database. Simply Brilliant.
I learn from you all the time and steal your ideas freely.
Thanks for sharing with us your definition of "spiritual" people.
I happily agree that the part of your definition applies to many so called "spiritual" people.
"They are...in the process of working their way out of it".
I had long ago concluded from our fruitful, enjoyable conversations, that this definition applies to you, dear philosopher.
A definition for "uality" I've found to be "the search of" making spirituality to mean "the search for the purpose for existence". When I look at how most scriptures attempt to give explanation for..., science attempts to determine the cause of... and the various events and lifes in existence are symbols pointing us to the explanation interpreting existence, we can see where spirituality is all encompassing.
That leads us to recognize spirituality is "the search for existence's purpose" and everything is either demonstrating an attribute of existence or in the process of comprehending it. Therefore, it is correct to say everything is spiritual.
This is one of the better, tidier definitions I've seen for spirituality. I'd be comfortable with the word if this was how more people used it. :)