If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered , and engaged , you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. That, I propose, is the secret to spirituality, and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul.
Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
You didn’t start with quotation marks, so I started reading this in your voice until about halfway through when I realized HOLD UP VICKI DOESN’T WRITE SENTENCES THIS LONG!
I've been thinking about this for the last few days, and I'm a little dissatisfied with using the word spiritual based on a "scattering of meanings".
Most concepts, even if they're fuzzy, have a recognizable core. But from the list of seven things that you've defined as spiritual, it's not clear to me what exactly they have in common. What do these things share that makes us want to group them under the same label?
The one answer I can think of is that all seven are profound sources of meaning and purpose for most people. So perhaps instead of using a loaded word like "spiritual", it's better to say that education should provide people with a deeper understanding of what they consider the most important sources of meaning in their lives.
Hmm! I wrote a long reply that boiled down to “by gum, you’ve done it again, Timothy!” but I just realized that if that’s entirely true, then why do some atheistic materialists (like Sam Harris) still resort to using the word “spiritual”?
(Not that I can think of the answer offhand, mind you. Just that the question ought be raised.)
Great question! I can't really answer for atheistic materialists, but I know one who said that he liked using the word spiritual because "it just sounds so delightfully WRONG." Maybe that's reason enough. ;-)
In Sam Harris's case, I think he's writing for people who see no rational reason to believe in God, but cling to some vestiges of religious faith because they don't know what else could bring meaning to their lives. So he's choosing the word "spirituality" deliberately in order to persuade them that they're not losing anything by giving up their faith.
I'm curious whether you think he succeeded at that? But that could turn into a very long conversation, which might be off-topic here.
You should stop saying "spiritual" because you immediately have to clarify what you mean. Open with the clarified definition and leave the baggage associated with "spiritual" at the door. Focus instead on the specifics of items 1-7 above; you'll communicate what you're trying to communicate more clearly.
Upon reflection, I think you’re entirely right — the word itself will usually fail to get the meaning across, and so we should only use it internally, or if asked “how does spirituality fit inside this kind of education?”
Even if it is to be used internally, it should be narrowly defined. The gpt definitions are so many things that even "internally" I wouldn't necessarily know what you're talking about. So, besides the word carrying around a lot of baggage, it's the lack of a "new" or a "your" definition that is also problematic.
I am an atheist and always have been. I also homeschool a couple elementary students.
When I was young, I had a very hard time relating to the word "spiritual". I had attended churches of many persuasions and had teachers that touched on spiritually, esp in literature. It never really made sense through the lense of religion, because God was never something that I could relate to.
It wasn't until I started digging deeper into science, and even more so when I started exploring nature through backpacking and rock climbing, that I really started to grock spiritually. From my own experiences engaging with reality and from teaching my children to think about reality, I think that your exploration of "spirituality" has been thorough and consistent with what makes for an enriching education. The beautiful things is that this sort of spiritual education is lifelong and only gets better, more exciting and revealing, as we age.
Gotta agree with Glenn. Why use the word spiritual when you can describe all of those things without using the word. And btw, I didn't bat an eyelash as a religious person when you used the word spiritual because that Emerson-esque way of using spiritual as "spiritual" has been around since, well, even before Emerson. Monistic materialists are perfectly welcome to use the word spiritual to have its purely metaphorical meanings and religious people who use it to speak of the other aspect of a dualistic cosmology can track.
And, science classes can absolutely be taught with the concept of the spiritual because "science" is not a cosmology or even an epistemology and doesn't have the resources to support them. It's an empirical method that yields internally consistent data when we interact together as discrete consciousnesses and making a number of self-evident claims about reality. As long as the concept of the spiritual does not modify the results of the data (e.g., Young Earth Creationism), then I don't see a problem.
Use 'spiritual' where it'll help; avoid it where it'll hurt. As a rule of thumb, I'd go with "if someone ever asks if this whole thing is spiritual, that person will be OK with a 'yes' for an answer;" for the life of me, I can't imagine a LessWronger or atheism-as-default person ever bringing up the word/subject
1) Rebranding as “spiritual” is not a good idea, but as a descriptor, totally fine.
2) But also I believe that indeed everything is spiritual whether we admit it or not,
3) and so science is not special among the spiritual subjects (which is all of them) except that it is useful, high status, and distinctly modern and western.
> “science is not special among the spiritual subjects (which is all of them) except that it is useful, high status, and distinctly modern and western.”
Agreed! I only focused on science here because (1) it’s what the last post was about, and (2) it just sounds so delightfully WRONG to say that “science” should be spiritual (and provoking the bourgeoisie is a favorite pastime).
It's not the word 'spiritual' itself; it's that the word 'spiritual' is so often a stand-in for 'supernatural,' as in spiritualism, as in mediums channeling spirits. You're using it in a carefully defined way. The public does not.
This is why scientists are always inventing annoying polysyllabic monstrosities out of Greek and Roman roots in the first place, because they want to lock in a single usage.
Just wanted to chime in late with the unhelpful observation that, to a California, the world "spiritual" is so genericized as to be almost completely meaningless and inoffensive.
Saying you are going to teach "morality", on the other hand, is fighting words. Even (especially?) if it involves giving empathy to (certain) villains. Perhaps sadly, most spirituality (and culture) is defined more by its villains than its heroes...
> young-earth creationist movement is already using Egan’s tools far better than mainstream science; it’s how their movement thrives. Someday I should write a post about this; if you’d like to make that day come sooner, let me know in the comments
When science curricula don't produce a mixture of awe, humility, the terror of the sublime... and the curiosity about Big Questions that follows, they're selling the world and the discipline of science short.
Given Schrodinger, Relativity, and the premise that "reality" is both local, and only fixed when observed ... how is understanding life, the universe, and everything NOT a spiritual exercise?
Particularly, when aesthetics, values, and agency are in the mix.
Re. Religion, using the definition "a particular system of faith and worship" - and the common description of various ideologies, and things like "consumerism," as religions .... it might be reasonable to describe "science" as a religion, and the "scientific method" as a religious practice. We apply the method "religiously," with a modicum of "faith" that it will yield accurate results.
We have the advantage that science, and the scientific method, seem to work pretty well. Or, as Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Technological magic works. Engineers are TechnoMages.
> “Given Schrodinger, Relativity, and the premise that "reality" is both local, and only fixed when observed ... how is understanding life, the universe, and everything NOT a spiritual exercise?”
Hard agree, here — except (now that I think of it) maybe I’d replace the word “is” with “should be”.
Understanding the Universe ought to be experienced as (in at least some of the ways listed above) spiritual, but in most classrooms, this is absent. So I think that we’re looking to bring the subjective experience of spirituality into this.
But I’ve got to say that I’m a little unnerved that some folk could read this and misinterpret us as calling for, say, every physics class to be a 90-minute-long LSD trip. (Even my science classes aren’t that…)
If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered , and engaged , you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. That, I propose, is the secret to spirituality, and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul.
Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
You didn’t start with quotation marks, so I started reading this in your voice until about halfway through when I realized HOLD UP VICKI DOESN’T WRITE SENTENCES THIS LONG!
Nice quote; might use it someday! Thanks for it.
I've been thinking about this for the last few days, and I'm a little dissatisfied with using the word spiritual based on a "scattering of meanings".
Most concepts, even if they're fuzzy, have a recognizable core. But from the list of seven things that you've defined as spiritual, it's not clear to me what exactly they have in common. What do these things share that makes us want to group them under the same label?
The one answer I can think of is that all seven are profound sources of meaning and purpose for most people. So perhaps instead of using a loaded word like "spiritual", it's better to say that education should provide people with a deeper understanding of what they consider the most important sources of meaning in their lives.
Hmm! I wrote a long reply that boiled down to “by gum, you’ve done it again, Timothy!” but I just realized that if that’s entirely true, then why do some atheistic materialists (like Sam Harris) still resort to using the word “spiritual”?
(Not that I can think of the answer offhand, mind you. Just that the question ought be raised.)
Great question! I can't really answer for atheistic materialists, but I know one who said that he liked using the word spiritual because "it just sounds so delightfully WRONG." Maybe that's reason enough. ;-)
In Sam Harris's case, I think he's writing for people who see no rational reason to believe in God, but cling to some vestiges of religious faith because they don't know what else could bring meaning to their lives. So he's choosing the word "spirituality" deliberately in order to persuade them that they're not losing anything by giving up their faith.
I'm curious whether you think he succeeded at that? But that could turn into a very long conversation, which might be off-topic here.
You should stop saying "spiritual" because you immediately have to clarify what you mean. Open with the clarified definition and leave the baggage associated with "spiritual" at the door. Focus instead on the specifics of items 1-7 above; you'll communicate what you're trying to communicate more clearly.
Upon reflection, I think you’re entirely right — the word itself will usually fail to get the meaning across, and so we should only use it internally, or if asked “how does spirituality fit inside this kind of education?”
Even if it is to be used internally, it should be narrowly defined. The gpt definitions are so many things that even "internally" I wouldn't necessarily know what you're talking about. So, besides the word carrying around a lot of baggage, it's the lack of a "new" or a "your" definition that is also problematic.
I am an atheist and always have been. I also homeschool a couple elementary students.
When I was young, I had a very hard time relating to the word "spiritual". I had attended churches of many persuasions and had teachers that touched on spiritually, esp in literature. It never really made sense through the lense of religion, because God was never something that I could relate to.
It wasn't until I started digging deeper into science, and even more so when I started exploring nature through backpacking and rock climbing, that I really started to grock spiritually. From my own experiences engaging with reality and from teaching my children to think about reality, I think that your exploration of "spirituality" has been thorough and consistent with what makes for an enriching education. The beautiful things is that this sort of spiritual education is lifelong and only gets better, more exciting and revealing, as we age.
Gotta agree with Glenn. Why use the word spiritual when you can describe all of those things without using the word. And btw, I didn't bat an eyelash as a religious person when you used the word spiritual because that Emerson-esque way of using spiritual as "spiritual" has been around since, well, even before Emerson. Monistic materialists are perfectly welcome to use the word spiritual to have its purely metaphorical meanings and religious people who use it to speak of the other aspect of a dualistic cosmology can track.
And, science classes can absolutely be taught with the concept of the spiritual because "science" is not a cosmology or even an epistemology and doesn't have the resources to support them. It's an empirical method that yields internally consistent data when we interact together as discrete consciousnesses and making a number of self-evident claims about reality. As long as the concept of the spiritual does not modify the results of the data (e.g., Young Earth Creationism), then I don't see a problem.
Use 'spiritual' where it'll help; avoid it where it'll hurt. As a rule of thumb, I'd go with "if someone ever asks if this whole thing is spiritual, that person will be OK with a 'yes' for an answer;" for the life of me, I can't imagine a LessWronger or atheism-as-default person ever bringing up the word/subject
Call it what you will, but remember to define the words you use with great clarity in order to help guide ensuing arguments along the same path.
1) Rebranding as “spiritual” is not a good idea, but as a descriptor, totally fine.
2) But also I believe that indeed everything is spiritual whether we admit it or not,
3) and so science is not special among the spiritual subjects (which is all of them) except that it is useful, high status, and distinctly modern and western.
> “science is not special among the spiritual subjects (which is all of them) except that it is useful, high status, and distinctly modern and western.”
Agreed! I only focused on science here because (1) it’s what the last post was about, and (2) it just sounds so delightfully WRONG to say that “science” should be spiritual (and provoking the bourgeoisie is a favorite pastime).
It's not the word 'spiritual' itself; it's that the word 'spiritual' is so often a stand-in for 'supernatural,' as in spiritualism, as in mediums channeling spirits. You're using it in a carefully defined way. The public does not.
This is why scientists are always inventing annoying polysyllabic monstrosities out of Greek and Roman roots in the first place, because they want to lock in a single usage.
Well said — I have to remind myself that in language, connotations eat careful denotations for breakfast.
Just wanted to chime in late with the unhelpful observation that, to a California, the world "spiritual" is so genericized as to be almost completely meaningless and inoffensive.
Saying you are going to teach "morality", on the other hand, is fighting words. Even (especially?) if it involves giving empathy to (certain) villains. Perhaps sadly, most spirituality (and culture) is defined more by its villains than its heroes...
> young-earth creationist movement is already using Egan’s tools far better than mainstream science; it’s how their movement thrives. Someday I should write a post about this; if you’d like to make that day come sooner, let me know in the comments
count me as interested!
When science curricula don't produce a mixture of awe, humility, the terror of the sublime... and the curiosity about Big Questions that follows, they're selling the world and the discipline of science short.
Given Schrodinger, Relativity, and the premise that "reality" is both local, and only fixed when observed ... how is understanding life, the universe, and everything NOT a spiritual exercise?
Particularly, when aesthetics, values, and agency are in the mix.
Re. Religion, using the definition "a particular system of faith and worship" - and the common description of various ideologies, and things like "consumerism," as religions .... it might be reasonable to describe "science" as a religion, and the "scientific method" as a religious practice. We apply the method "religiously," with a modicum of "faith" that it will yield accurate results.
We have the advantage that science, and the scientific method, seem to work pretty well. Or, as Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Technological magic works. Engineers are TechnoMages.
> “Given Schrodinger, Relativity, and the premise that "reality" is both local, and only fixed when observed ... how is understanding life, the universe, and everything NOT a spiritual exercise?”
Hard agree, here — except (now that I think of it) maybe I’d replace the word “is” with “should be”.
Understanding the Universe ought to be experienced as (in at least some of the ways listed above) spiritual, but in most classrooms, this is absent. So I think that we’re looking to bring the subjective experience of spirituality into this.
But I’ve got to say that I’m a little unnerved that some folk could read this and misinterpret us as calling for, say, every physics class to be a 90-minute-long LSD trip. (Even my science classes aren’t that…)
Though... gotta say, I did a LOT of acid in my MIT days. A good way to study cognitive psych, from the inside out. 😀