Spirituality? October 21, 2006
Posted by ocmpoma in : supernaturalism , trackbackI originally wrote this as an essay while an undergraduate. I realize that it makes for a long post, but I figured it could serve as a better introduction than my “Intro” post:
Many people often discuss spirituality, things which transcend “normal” life, things which connect us in some way, which bind us all, which affect that part of us that most would call our souls. I, however, don’t accept any of this as credible. I’m not denying the feelings of others, and I’m not saying that those emotional bonds and connections aren’t important - what I doubt is that they are in any way spiritual. What I doubt is that “spirit” in this sense actually exists at all. I certainly do not believe that there is some sort of transcendent essence, or soul, nor do I believe that we are in fact connected to the world or universe at large.
This is not to say that I haven’t experienced things which are commonly considered transcendental. I have indeed felt almost overwhelmed with awe in the face of nature, finding myself contemplating a panoramic view of mountain and desert, or watching a hummingbird as it hovers near a flower. Every sunset seems to me to be an absolutely magnificent display of art.
I also find great joy in poetry and prose; thinking of Keats’s Grecian urn or wondering with Hamlet what this quintessence of dust truly is. Other forms of art have made an impression on me as well - Monet’s capturing of light on a canvas or Rodin’s mastery of the human form as a means of conveying emotion. I truly feel that those who have gone before and left some form of lasting work behind have indeed communicated with me, and with anyone else who has encountered their work. I find it heartwarming to think that this form of communicating with others long after we are gone is not only possible, but actual.
I have as well often all but lost myself in reflection when pondering the beauty and symmetry of the mathematical and physical laws which enable us to better understand reality. To think that what began as simple measuring and manipulation of numbers - perhaps the most abstract of all thought - could have led us to theoretical heights of such magnitude is astounding. It is amazing that we, through simple logical thought and once again through communication with those who have gone before, could perceive such things as subatomic particles and the fundamental workings of the universe, and peer into its distant past.
I have felt hope and joy, heartbreak and sorrow. I have known despair, and felt redemption. But this in no way reveals to me the essence, the requirement, for something spiritual: a spirit. Of course, the word has many meanings, including a courageous will to push on. But in this sense, in the sense of spiritual things, it takes another, more inexact meaning. In this sense, it refers to an extant human spirit. This spirit is not necessarily tangible, but it is thought of as real - perhaps not real in the same sense that New York City is real, but more real than other intangible, internal things, such as desire or forgetfulness. In this sense, spirit and spirituality are thought of not merely as concepts, as are desire and forgetfulness and that courageous spirit I mentioned above. In this sense, spirit and spirituality are considered to be part of our very being as humans. It is this idea with which I disagree.
Not only is there no evidence for some form of immaterial spirit, the idea — if considered on its own merits and not in the light of its place within our culture — is all but senseless. What is a spirit, other than some nebulous ‘other’ which I described above? What is its place in our consciousness, and how, exactly, is it a part of us? How does it connect us to each other? These questions cannot be answered with anything other than metaphor, because the entire concept of spirit and spirituality is nothing more than a metaphor, an internal understanding or misunderstanding of the human condition.
When someone talks about spirituality, they are understood only because there is some vague idea of what the concept means that is shared by those with a common culture. This is why something that seems deeply spiritual to one person can be completely devoid of profundity to another. If questioned rigorously, no one could come up with more than platitudes about spirituality, and those platitudes would not necessarily be the same as those which another would come up with. In the end, spirituality and spirit are filler words, specific enough in shared context to be understood, and vague enough that they lack any real meaning.
And if spirituality is an almost meaningless concept, then it follows that awe of nature is not a spiritual, higher connection with nature. Empathy for the ideas and feelings of another, be they alive or long dead, is not a spiritual connection. And hunger to understand the underlying fabric of reality is not a transcendent connection to the universe itself. All of these things — awe, connection, a hunger for understanding — are a deeply ingrained part of human nature. But they are no more evidence of some transcendent, immaterial soul than is a love of chocolate. And not only does this spiritual part of us not exist, we do not need it.
I see no reason for people to cling to the notion of something eternal and larger than themselves that is at the same time a part of them. I see no reason for us to continue wishing that we could all be connected somehow, or that after we die, we in fact continue on in a different (and usually better) state or realm. In short, I see no reason for us to want to be spiritual. To me, these concepts are vestiges of our cultural past, when we were confronted on a daily basis by a vast world which we not only could not control, but which we could not understand. Our sense of awe in the face of nature is well-founded. And we naturally have always felt a close connection to those who were near us, to those who cared for us or felt the same as us. This is the source of our feeling of connection when we encounter the writings of someone long dead with whom we identify. Our natural curiosity is part and parcel of our hunger for understanding of the workings of reality, and of the reason we find such joy in that knowledge.
I do not see the lack of a soul or spirit as lessening our lives or value as people; rather, I see the idea that there is some sort of eternal, ethereal connection as lessening what we are — individuals who depend upon one another, here and now, for our survival. Seeking out some metaphysical spiritual enlightenment might make us better people, but at what cost to our idea of reality? By focusing on an ethereal, spiritual world, we necessarily neglect this one. By dreaming of heaven, we forget earth. We should seek not to transcend this world, nor to outlast it. We should look to our lives as we live them, and consider what we can do to affect the future — ours as well as everyone else’s. What we should be looking for is not a spiritual connection, but a real one.
Tags for this article: atheism , supernaturalism
[?][More Help]
Comments»
Nice essay.
Only, I disagree with the following: “Seeking out some metaphysical spiritual enlightenment might make us better people”
That typically doesn’t help to make you a better person.
Hmmm… perhaps I should edit out ’spiritual’ in that sentence…
At any rate, I think that in some cases, looking for a more porfound perspective on things can genuinely improve one’s life. Hence the ‘might’ qualification.
Very nice words ocmpoma. These kind of reflections are the ones that lift my “spirit” every single day.
I was hiking in the mountains near Mendon, Utah when I looked up at the sky, paused, and felt an incredible sense of awe at the thought that no god had made all this, that it was all self-generating and self-perpetuating, that it all just is.
Then a group of hiking Mormons disturbed my reverie with their dogmatically scripted observations of how their manly god had created all that I was seeing.
By far, the most wonder and challenge I’ve experienced in the face of nature has been without the indulgence in the god concept. The Mormons I encountered on my path were dreaming of Heaven. I was caught up in a consideration of natural reality, and I have to say that I far preferred my own experience. They were dreaming of Heaven. I was experiencing it.
Nice essay. Your best point, in my opinion, is that it is impossible to define the “spirit” in terms everyone can agree on. The entire concept appears to be a label we are taught to apply to a certain set of emotions. Since this set of emotions is one that doesn’t really produce noticeable changes in behavior (as happiness or anger do), we can never really be certain that the word means the same thing to everyone else as it does to us. I may use “spiritual” to refer to an overwhelming collection of emotions that is different in composition to the one which you refer to as “spritiual”.
The whole exercise is rather like trying to describe the taste of a food to someone who has never eaten anything before. Without some physically consistent reference (e.g., the taste of salt is called “salty”), there is no way to be sure that we are talking about the same thing.
Just out of curiosity, do you remember what grade you received on this essay?
[Off topic: I seem unable to post comments here when I'm logged in. I see "Logged in as cycloneranger", and the "message" field followed by the "say it!" button. When I try to click "say it!", I get an error: "Please fill in the required fields (name and email)." These fields don't appear, though. I had to dump my cookies to get this to post. Weird.]