by logansrun 38 Replies latest jw friends
Well I'll disagree with ya, Bradley.
Should we not call someone "soulful" if we don't believe in souls? Words come to mean more than their etymologies.
I think that the use of the word 'spiritual' by us non-religious folks is important because it emphasizes the fact that our spiritual experiences involve precisely the same type of feelings as religious experiences; we simply have a different interpretive framework for those feelings.
Eu,
Good point.
Logan,
The statement is :
Unless you believe in "spirit(s)" you cannot be "spiritual"
not:
Unless you believe in "spirit(s)" you cannot be "spiritual"(spiritual only according to my definition).
So far youv'e just based everything on your limited interpretation of the word spiritual and completeley ignored any other legitamite interpretation.
I don't agree that one has to believe in incorporeal spirits of some sort to describe oneself as "spiritual". While the original meaning of the word certainly involves unseen forces (the word is derived from the Latin spiritus which literally means breath, as in "a puff of wind"), it has evolved a much more general meaning. For example, the Online Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm) gives one definition of spiritual as: "1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit". It gives one definition of spirit as: "5 a : the activating or essential principle influencing a person". What these ideas mean varies immensely from person to person. Since language is dynamic and people are always using old words in new ways, to be spiritual doesn't mean the same to an atheist as it does to a religious person. Yet both are valid concepts to the people who use the word to convey meanings that are specific to some group.
For example, I can say "it was a spiritual experience riding through the Rocky Mountains on my motorcycle", and most people will know perfectly well what I mean. They won't think that I suddenly found religion. They won't think that I saw ghosts while on my ride. They'll easily understand that I'm talking about a feeling of respect for the grandeur and beauty of nature, and a sense of wonder at it all.
AlanF
AlanF said :They won't think that I suddenly found religion.
Perhaps, but they will almost certainly think of you as someone who believes in god, gods, or spirits, unless you've made it explicitly clear otherwise. Then they'd just think you were trying to get laid. ;-)
I can see the points made by Alan and Euph, but I tend to agree with Bradleys first comments. The language/social climate may well be headed towards a looser interpretation of "spiritual", but it's not there yet. IMO, it won't be a good thing when it gets there, as this is really an example of people who ideally would be tightening up (in terms of intellectual honesty) in their use of language, and instead are loosening up in their use of precise, honest language. A can't beat 'em, may as well join 'em sort of situation, when "they" in fact need to be beaten badly ;-)
Then they'd just think you were trying to get laid. ;-)
It is the eternal misfortune of sensitive guys to speak quite sincerely but have people think that they're just trying to get laid. And I'm sure you know that personally, Six, despite your facade.
A can't beat 'em, may as well join 'em sort of situation, when "they" in fact need to be beaten badly ;-)
Now that's where we part ways, smiley or no smiley. I think that a recognition of our shared humanity--including our shared spirituality, which transcends any mere religious interpretation--is a lot more important for our relationship with believers than trying to convince them of our viewpoint.
Meaning is determined by usage: it is in constant yet generally slow motion (although there are sweeping changes sometimes, due to fashion and media for instance). Neither can etymology and dictionaries stop its evolution, nor can the whim of one individual change the meaning of one word for everybody else. Semantics is perhaps the only true example of democracy.
I think I can understand what Euph is getting at: the present religious / non-religious border is an artificial one, and unbelievers should actually claim their part in the treasures of ideas, symbols and experiences enclosed in religious shrines. This belongs to all mankind.
But practically (or socially) the borders are what they are. What can the borderline thinker do but sneak in and out, under the mantle of ambiguity, with the permanent risk of getting caught and burnt by a bunch of "us vs. them"?
Euph:
I can see what you're getting at, too, but I agree with Didier that we're a fair way off being able to define the word that way. I would ask, though, why would unbelievers desire to claim the words "spirit" and "spiritual" when there are so many others that can describe the emotions that they feel are on a par with those of the believer?
Just to fully quote Alan's references:
SpiritualFunction: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French spirituel, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL <man's spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : SPIRITUALISTIC
- spir·i·tu·al·ly adverb
- spir·i·tu·al·ness noun
SpiritFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French or Latin; Old French, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe
1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
2 : a supernatural being or essence: as a capitalized : HOLY SPIRIT b : SOUL 2a c : an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; specifically : GHOST 2 d : a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being
3 : temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated <in high spirits>
4 : the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
5 a : the activating or essential principle influencing a person <acted in a spirit of helpfulness> b : an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind : MOOD
6 a : a special attitude or frame of mind <the money-making spirit was for a time driven back -- J. A. Froude> b : the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something <undertaken in a spirit of fun>
7 : a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person's actions
8 : a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature
9 : a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness <denied the charge with spirit>
10 a : DISTILLATE 1: as (1) : the liquid containing ethyl alcohol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mash -- often used in plural (2) : any of various volatile liquids obtained by distillation or cracking (as of petroleum, shale, or wood) -- often used in plural b : a usually volatile organic solvent (as an alcohol, ester, or hydrocarbon)
11 a : prevailing tone or tendency <spirit of the age> b : general intent or real meaning <spirit of the law>
12 : an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance <spirit of camphor>
13 : enthusiastic loyalty <school spirit>
14 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b
synonym see COURAGE
Interesting points, all.
Put another way, if you didn't believe in the physical world (as some philosophical idealists and eastern cults do) would you describe anything as physical?
Perhaps context is the key here. If AlanF, Six of Nine, Narkissos and I were hiking in the Himalayas and one of us said, "This is a real spiritual experience, isn't it?" we all would probably understand what he meant because we know the underlying worldview of each other. But the general public -- especially in America, especially in the "red states" -- might take it totally different.
Oh, I found Jesus this morning, by the way.
Bradley
I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I guess I understand why theists might feel that non-believers are co-opting their language by describing ourselves as 'spiritual.' By using the word to signify psychological rather than other-worldly phenomena, we are implicitly dismissing the significance--or existence--of the supernatural.
But I think that an analogy exists in the use of the word 'God'. For centuries, mystically and philosophically minded believers have used the term 'God' to describe an entity far removed from the deity of more literal believers. Aristotle's God and Descartes' God and the God of the Qabbalists are as different from the petty tyrant of traditional Judeo-Islamo-Christian thinking as atheists' spirituality is from believers'.
The only similarity between Aristotle's (or John Shelby Spong's) God and Yahweh is the psychological function they serve. So if liberal belivers are allowed to call their non-personal deity 'God' on the basis of psychology, I say that non-believers can call our connections to the transcendent 'spirituality' on the same grounds.
logansrun wrote:
Put another way, if you didn't believe in the physical world (as some philosophical idealists and eastern cults do) would you describe anything as physical?
Actually, yes.
For example, if I were a solipsist, and believed that only consciousness was real and not matter, I would probably still use the term 'physical' to describe my perception of the external world, and/or consciousness-affecting interactions with external perception (such as eating).
