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.
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’s general use of it 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 transcendent 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.
The point you are attempting to make by juxtaposing that quote with the comment beneath it seems to have eluded me. Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing a bit more explanation.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Sincerely, I agree with much of the spiritual defintion; so why was it on an atheist page? Was this the kind of thing, the conference discussed?
I ask, because with a cursory browse, I didn't read much describing the actual goings-on, or the scheduled lectures of the convention.
How well received was this opinion, there? ...And is there any dissenting views here?
No, they didn't mention planning to attend, but it was my impression -they attend and support such functions as this; so, I was asking if they went to this one?
I see. Because Gob did NOT go to a previously held Global Atheist Convention, you got the impression that he might have attended this one. Thank you, that's ever so much clearer.
And yes, anyone who has attended can tell you so themselves, and can answer whatever questions you have about it, which is what I said in my second post.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
I really don't understand why you're harping on this, Scooter. I didn't think loCAtek's original post came across as either offensive or derogatory, and when you asked her why she posted it (a question most here don't routinely get asked) she gave you an answer. I know you dislike her and think you'll find some nefarious motive if you just keep digging...but what purpose does that serve? Why not just let it go?
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
It was done, as far as I was concerned, and I did not respond to her any differently that I would have to anyone else whose posts were confusing to me. Was there a reason why you felt you needed to inject presumptions of hostile motives in order to fan as yet nonexistent flames? It hasn't been a couple of days since I wrote several posts attempting to assist her with her questions about air conditioning (whether actually helpful or not, I leave to her judgment). Would I have even bothered with that if I "didn't like her", or if my intention was to seize on the slightest of pretexts in order to pick a fight?
We're going to have a serious problem here if people insist on interpreting every interaction with loCA through the lens of what happened in the past.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Getting back to the original post, there is no need or call to go beyond the clear English meaning of the word, "spirit," which invariably refers to a being or entity which is not physical or tangible in nature. In short, a supernatural being.
Atheists disdain belief in the supernatural, as an absolute first principle.
If this writer believes that meditation is a "spiritual" experience, then he is either NOT an atheist, or he has committed a "grievous error," as his critics assert.
