Albert Einstein wrote:
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
I sometimes like to use the word "spiritual" in a similar sense to the way Einstein uses the word "religious" in this quote. Of course, it is necessary to read between the lines and tell when someone says they are spiritual but that simply means they believe in the supernatural, but can't make up their mind about God. Those "spiritualists" I rebuke. However, I would consider myself "spiritual" in the same sense that Einstein describes here, in the sense that I have a reverent and awestruck wonder for the world around me and the things which we have yet to discover. Yet this feeling does not affect my ability or my motivation to seek out and discover causes for that which we have yet to understand, rather, it actually motivates me more than if I did not have a respect for the grandness of the world around me.
I think that Richard Dawkins hits closest to the mark in one of his more famous quotes:
"We are surrounded by endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, and it is no accident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random natural selection – the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth."
Of course, he throws in more technical terms between his expression of awe for the world around us (likely out of caution, because otherwise creationists would misquote him), and he is seeing the world through a more biological lens, but his words, if applied to the world and the universe at large, mirror my own thoughts and feelings very closely. And I would call myself "spiritual" because of that. And I do not throw about that word to describe myself without explaining exactly in what sense I mean that word, and whether it influences my belief in anything supernatural, which of course it doesn't. My "spirit" then simply refers to the melting pot of emotions contained within my mental being, or can refer to the mental toughness or freedom of thought and joyous expression of which I am capable. Used in this manner, the word "spirit" lacks any implications of the supernatural in the exact same way that saying Aretha Franklin sings R-E-S-P-E-C-T with "soul" does not imply that some essence of her being survives the personal cataclysm of death.
In short, context matters enormously, and clarification is almost always needed when discussing with theists or other "religious" or "spiritual" claimants what one means when one says they are "spiritual". I think that it is important to stake a claim, even if only a partial one, over these terminologies. I wouldn't recommend starting with "religious" because it is too much of a loaded word. But for starters, I would say that claiming atheistic spirituality definitely is a positive thing. It would help dispell the stigma and stereotype that Atheists are emotionless machines of logical reasoning and harsh scientific fact-analyzing, cold acolytes promoting the dehumanization of the entire world. Simply defending our own domain of ownership over this phrase will help the world see that Atheists are just as human as the rest of the world. And why shouldn't we be able to enjoy beautiful language to describe our experience of the world? Just because our aesthetic pleasure and appreciation for the little things in life comes from our accurate perception of reality instead of a distorted dream world does not mean that we are not entitled to it just as much as those who ascribe to a supernatural reality! Moreover, as intellectuals, our perceptions can offer an even GREATER appreciation than the theist or supernaturalist is capable of. A distorted worldview will only offer a narrowly defined understanding and therefore a one-dimensional (yet somehow fervent) respect for the better things in life. Yet an informed worldview opens up so much more, and allows one to find meaning in so much more, even in the little things, as was the case with Richard Feynman:
“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”
I believe that instead of ostracizing the words "religious" and "spiritual", we should embrace them, but change their meaning. Make them our own. Because if we reject those words, we alienate those of us who are NOT scientists, technical experts, or advocates of reason. We will alienate those of us who are artists, dancers, musicians, performers. We will estrange poets, writers, freethinkers, people whose greatest power comes from the pen and not from the sword. And if we limit ourselves in our expression of the very media we rely on so heavily to speak out against the burden on humanity which religion is, then we cripple ourselves in that pursuit. Moreover, in doing so, we reinforce the negative stereotypes which have plagued Atheists throughout history, stereotypes which are still an integral part of the ridicule and prejudice against Atheists today, in our current highly vocal political movement. Just as we do not seek to euthanize the people who are religious in today's day and age in order to create an Atheistic haven tomorrow, we should not want to refuse association with words like spiritual or religious (though for the time being, as I said earlier, I think the word "religious" is still too potent to be used in our favor) as long as we change the meaning, and INFORM that the way we use it is different than they use it. It is a lot harder to fight against us if we use the same words as them, even if we use them differently. And come to think of it, that's a little like religion........... when others believe in God a little differently, various religions will claim superiority........ but they are all the same - misguided. If we use the same words, but differently, then they will have less of a definitive reason for hating us. Yes, we will probably never rid ourselves of religious prejudice until we get rid of religion, but at least we will be a very positive step in the right direction. One of the best things we can do right now, at the present moment, is to do whatever we can to break stereotypes and shrill bigotry, and THEN we can access the reason and logic of those people, whereas before their reason and logic was clouded by intolerance and stubborn refusal to listen to heathens.
Hopefully, eventually, as belief in the supernatural dissipates into the void of history, the word "religion" becomes synonymous with "fairy tale" for EVERY member of the human race, not just the rational ones. And hopefully we may someday be able to use the words "religious" and "spiritual" to describe moods, feelings, and emotions instead of our worldviews. When that day comes, we will truly be free from the shadow of the supernatural and the irrational.
It will be glorious.
MY two cents on your post...when trying to drive home a point on sensitive issues like spirituality and beliefs, there is a a thin line we often believe we should not cross but end up crossing. Every man has what suits him, be it the belief in the existence of a supernatural power or the theory of evolution. Charles Babbage had this quote "If i choose to believe in God and life after death and you don't, if there's no God, we both lose, but if there's a God, you lose and I gain everything". I hope you understood it's meaning. As a scientist, I look at people who dispell the theory of God and say evolution is the real truth, the question is this: After all these years, why have we not witnessed an ape giving birth to a full fledged human being? afterall it's been hundreds of years and let us believe in the logic of evolution, it basically says ape---->man and man will someday evolve to an unknown higher species but yet another theory propagates devolution. Which should we believe? Evolution after homo sapiens or devolution? Science is confused without religion trust me and religion is unbalanced without science. But Atheism is a big gamble.
That's Pascal's wager. But let's turn it on its head. There are hundreds of faiths in supernatural beings; if one decides to believe in one system, how correct is one likely to be?
Your reasoning is flawed.
The concept you are discussing early in your statement is based on Pascal' wager, which basically reads like this: "It is better to believe in God and be wrong than to not believe in God and be right", and there is often a nice little chart that goes along with it, an example of which can be seen here:
The problem with this is that it is a false dichotomy, and an arrogant one at that. Rather than wording it as "god either exists or he does not exist", I would rephrase it as "the Christian god either exists or he does not exist". Under this reworded context it can be seen that the odds are actually not 50/50 as it first seemed. There are literally thousands of religions on this earth, and it is presumptuous to assume that only the Christian religion is the one worth considering.
If you think about how many other gods out there are "possible" based on how many religions there are (in hinduism alone there are something like 300 million), then you cannot actually say the odds are in your favor if you believe in god. There are so many to choose from that the odds are so much greater that you have chosen WRONG than anything else. And what if the real god or gods are jealous? What if they would resent you more for picking a fake god instead of not believing in any at all? There are too many possibilities.
I believe in science, and I cannot in good conscience believe or support the idea that any religion is a valid ideology because, the way I understand it, they conflict irreconcilably. Science isn't perfect of course, but filling in the gaps in our understanding with the explanation of god is, to me, irresponsible and lazy. So I reject it.
Like I said, it was my opinion and what I choose to believe as for the author of the quote, if it was Paschal, then the site that attributed the quote to Babbage needs to be sued or something...I stand by my Christian views because I have nothing to lose. I am not flawing your beliefs, only saying be more objective.
That's fine. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I'm not going to hate on you for it, although I do disagree with the logic behind it. Anyway, have a good one! Cheers. No hard feelings about what I said, I hope.
none at all
I look at science and spirituality as two sides of the same coin, neither more valid than the other. Everyone leans more in the direction of one or the other. If they lean to far, they become unbalanced. I have spiritual beliefs but I treat them as theories that I put faith in, I do my own personal experiments with them and collect data the way a scientist would, though not nearly as formally.
I don't see how any experience of reality could be defined as more accurate than another....maybe more verifiable, but even that, I'm not sure.
Balance is key though. I like your attitude and what you have to say.
This attitude is exactly the one I am prescribing in my post. It is an enlightened state of mind to be flexible in your beliefs and to be open to being proven wrong. We are all misguided and ill informed in some way, and the only way to grow is to accept that and do your best to understand the world around you. And to be spiritual to me means nothing more than to revere in the fact that we are alive and we are experiencing life together, as a species, as members of the animal kingdom and as kinfolk to all living things, on the beautiful pale blue dot we call our planet.
I love it! Hahaa I've had problems with some evangelical atheists before but your attitude and ideas are great :-D Stick around!
I used to be a militant atheist. I have some Facebook notes from a few years back which are pretty hard nosed when it comes to the beliefs of Christians. I am much more relaxed and unconcerned with what other people believe nowadays. I still think that the type of thinking promoted by most religions is harmful to the forward, informed thinking that is necessary for the general populace to possess if we are to progress as a society. Science and technological advances are things to be celebrated and supported. But when there is a certain undercurrent of society that is deeply skeptical and resistive to these new ideas, it hampers progress and sometimes regresses into silly debates over reproductive rights of women, over whether established scientific theories (evolution) are actually valid despite decades of supporting evidence, etc etc.
Basically, the problem with society nowadays is ignorance. People think that democracy applies to everything, not just politics. Facts, beliefs, ideas, everything in their minds is subject to approval. But facts exist whether you approve of them or not. In the words of one of my favorite authors, Isaac Asimov,
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "
In thr past I've also been an aggressive atheist. Now I take it more easy about this, also I have changed my views.
The interesting think about the scientific approach is that even for top scientists and physicists it is not clear what the real meaning and implications of the more recent theories and mathematical equasions like quantum theory and string theory are.
According to these, our reality is completely mind-blowing and not imaginable to the average person. Who would usually think that there are things like worm holes and parallel universes and matter is existent or not depending on whether there is an observer?
Therefore, especially as an atheist it is very important use critical thinking but always stay open-minded at the same time, not to narrow the view too much.
I agree with that. If you narrow your views, you narrow the people you can connect with and relate to. And I value the ability to connect with others despite our differences.
By the way, @redgaruda. I used to play a phone app game that was loosely based on Pokemon. The name of the game went through several changes because of copyright issues with the names they were using (the game was based on china). There was a guild in that game that I was the leader of called garuda. Where did you get your username from?
Really, you were the leader of the garuda guild? That's nice! I never played this game, maybe I should have!
It is just a coincidence, basically I made the name up by myself.
According to hindu mythology a garuda is a powerful bird, a kind of powerful giant eagle.
I still think this kind of stuff is interesting - mythology and fairy tales - whether or not these things have any base in reality, these kinds of archetypes play a real role in our individual and collective subconciousness ;-)
The guild I was the leader of was originally created by a guy from either Indonesia or Malaysia, I forget which. After he stopped playing the game, our guild elected me to be guild leader. He just stopped playing with no warning, and left no line of succession so we had to vote. Our guild ended up being the strongest guild in the whole game, too.
I believe the word garuda might be an Indonesian or Malaysian word as well, because the guy who named it was from around there. So I was thinking that either you played that game and was in my guild, or you were also from one of those two countries.
It's good to learn what that word means though!
Yes, also in Thailand, Malaysia/Indonesia the Garuda is very common and a symbol of royalty.
You can find out more under https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda.
Actually - and I wasn't aware of that - there is a deity called red garuda, I just found out.
As for myself, I'm not from Indonesia but I'm a german born guy living in Taiwan!
Cool! I've been to Taiwan, but only for two short layovers on my way to the Philippines.
How long have you been living there? Did you move there as an adult or did your parents move there when you were younger?
Do you speak Taiwanese well? What job do you have there? Where were you educated?
Is the Garuda anything like the phoenix? The phoenix comes from western mythology, but when I think of "red garuda" it makes me think of a phoenix, due to the red imagery and the regal, "royal" connotation.
thanks for up voting my post ! Your post sounds very complicated , but I am spiritual , not in the god way though , I do believe there is much more to all that goes on and why we are here for sure ! Upped back !
im trying to win this contest ita a culinary challenge !! If you res teem it for me , I will res teem yours ! Thanks !
https://steemit.com/steemitculinarychallenge/@karenmckersie/steemit-culinary-challenge-29-brunch-bbq-smokie-kabobs-lots-of-awesome-colorful-original-photos
@karenmckersie I upvoted it and resteemed it! Thank you. Your food looks amazing!
I really wish I could cook like that, because I love food so much. But I don't have the patience for it.
haha thanks ! Its easy ! Put pineapple and brown sugar on it , add the rest of juice in the can to a bit of water to the bottom of your roasting pan , and bake it at 350 For like an hour or two , however big it is ! Lo!! Its that easy !! Then its done ! Throw it in the oven , have a couple beers , then its ready ! Haha ! Good luck and thanks for up vote and res teem ! Will do the same for you ! 👍👍👍🍍
All ready upped ! Now res teemed as promised ! Thanks ! 👍👍👍
Thank you so much!
your welcome ! 👍👍👍
Upvoted and follow.
Cheers and good post m8!
Glad to hear it! I love it when people appreciate my work.
I just followed you too.
Thats why i am on steemit, to be in contact with people who think the same as me.
I am done with explaining the reality to a wall or a sheep.
I prefer to talk with open minded people, and they are here on Steemit!
@joanaltres what do you think of this bit of writing? It's from a different point of view compared to yours, but I think you might find it interesting. Cheers.
Congratulations @snakefly! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!
https://steemit.com/religion/@faurman/i-am-going-to-hell-in-every-religion
I look at it as two sciences, the esoteric and the exoteric, somewhat like speculative and natural philosophy.
In Vajrayana Buddhism, experience is everything, beliefs can be a hindrance to fully experience all that we can.
But I agree with the post, that atheism and spirituality are not mutually exclusive - I just dislike both words.