It's often levelled at atheists that we are not spiritual people. I accept that we may not be 'religious', but are we (can we be) spiritual?
Answers on my desk by registration tomorrow morning...

Carl Sagan said: "A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge".

Are some atheists pantheists? Do we find spirituality in the world we see without the need for Big G?

As a staunch atheist, i still consider myself a very spiritual person. I can see the beauty in a sunset of the works of nature far beyond the base image my highly evolved eyes see. And indeed i would be much closer to being a pantheist than an outsider would think, i feel that the lack of a god explanation for every wonder that science cannot explain allows me to have a deeper appreciation for it.

I kind of raised this in an earlier discussion, indeed a question could be whether human beings are, by definition, spiritual beings. There is a distinction between religion and spirituality - simply go into any bookshop and the spirituality books - plenty about angels, for example, without obviously relating them to Christianity, Islam or other religions - are a massive section.

We need to somehow come up with a working definition of spiritual or spirituality - not easy, I appreciate!

The wikipedia entry on pantheism denies that pantheists are atheists - it says they are non theistic, but not atheistic. (Not sure I appreciate the distinction!)

a final thought is whether religion and theism is synonymous - Buddhism is often defined as a religion, but there is no creator God. If we don't use 'belief in God' to define religion, but another way then where to do we go from here??

(Note to L. Anderson-porter - what is a 'staunch' atheist?)

Carl Sagan is quoted here - he also said that he wasn't an atheist, and described himself as an agnostic - he said 'An atheist has to know a lot more than I know' - at the risk of sounding like a question in Question Time - what do panelists think of this?

Hi Chris
"The wikipedia entry on pantheism denies that pantheists are atheists - it says they are non theistic, but not atheistic (Not sure I appreciate the distinction!)"

Not sure I do, either. I don't fully agree with the wiki definition as it puts too much emphasis on god (it even refers to the capital G god). Pantheism is just a spiritual appreciation of Nature without any allusion to the supernatural. L. Anderson-porter above put it well. Why do we need to put a supernatural spin on what we see, feel taste and smell?

Hi David,

Personally I don't think that atheists are spiritual, because 'spiritual' implies seeing something outside of the confines of this world (at least to me - I appreciate that defining the terms is going to be a problem). What theists define as spiritual, atheists here have proclaimed merely as processes of the brain at work.

The descriptions of how a sunset or the universe affects us is 'awe' rather than spirituality.

Wayne

Hi Wayne
If, in your view, we atheists are not spiritual then we are, by that reasoning, condemned to hell. We can't 'learn' to be spiritual, can we? We can't force it.
However, I disagree that we are not spiritual. I live at the foot of a mountain and on the odd days when it's not raining here, I climb to the top and look out over the sea. The feeling I get goes beyond awe. It's a real connection with what is around me - a connection with something higher and bigger than me. Now, religious types will say that this is god, but it's not. It's Nature, of which I am a part. Yes, it's a brain function, but it can be an overwhelming one at times. I have no problem with this feeling having a neurological basis. Maybe that's all spirituality is - a brain function. But if it can make you humble and appreciate the grand scheme of things, then it serves a purpose (both to theists and atheists).

David, thanks for your response. I'm inclined to agree - but you wouldn't, possibly, describe everything you see, smell etc as being spiritual (or would you), so is it only the natural world that we engage with, and call it spirituality? also is pantheism scientifically acceptable?

Chris.
No I wouldn't describe everything as spiritual. Is every act a theist performs a spiritual one?
Is it only the natural world that we engage with? Yes. We only know of the natural world / universe. What else is there that we know of?
Is pantheism scientifically acceptable? Not sure what you mean here. Acceptable to whom and for what?

Isn't atheism mostly about not projecting a human image on the universal creative principle? Not being religious or even calling oneself atheist does way not mean that one is lacking spirituality. On the contrary, I have found among atheists some people with the best sense of life - better than some people with dogmas, some people who only refused the religious - often human projected image of God.

Yes atheists can be spiritual!

David - sorry if I was unclear - I mean the natural world, as opposed to the created world of humanity - so could an atheist find a cathedral, temple, mosque, stonehenge etc spiritual?

'No I wouldn't describe everything as spiritual. Is every act a theist performs a spiritual one?' for me the answer is yes. Others may disagree with me, but for me, yes.

Richard Dawkins doesn't seem simply to have 'God' in his sights, but anything that is anti-rational, and I wonder if pantheism could be described within the same way - is there good evidence for pantheism? I think Dawkins called pantheism 'sexed up atheism' - is that a compliment? L Anderson.porter describes beauty, but what does that word mean? and if different people see beauty in different things, can spirituality mean anything beyond our own thoughts?

I've come across god with a capital G on other websites, including the Stanford Encyclopedia, and the Pantheism website.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ is an interesting article.

In my oppinion...

I use to say that I am athiest untill an older friend pointed out that because I dont deny (more evedence needed for conclusion) the posibalty of a god / any spritual entity I am agnostic. hence to be a true athiest is to fully submit belief to centempory (Mainstream) sciences.

i do not belive athiests can be truely spritual if the are truely an athiest.

Once agen ( In my oppinion )

EDIT: my understanding of pantheism

God canot be personafied as is the simply the combined energys of the uni/metaverse :D

Chris
Personally I don't find churches, mosques etc spiritual. I tend to avoid them. The times that I have been in them, I have found them rather sterile, formal places. Give me the earthy chaos of an ancient forest any day!

Pantheism as 'sexed up atheism'? I'll take that as a compliment!

The 'God' references on pantheist websites are interesting, considering God (as we define it) doesn't even come into it. It's about seeing the world without a god (or it could mean that the universe as whole is god / divine).

Regarding beauty, yes, it's a subjective opinion. As I said, churches do nothing for me, but to some (theists and atheists alike), they can be places of great beauty.

Thanks for the site references. I'll check them out.

Hi Chris,

You said:
"is there good evidence for pantheism?"

How would you tell the difference between a pantheistic universe and one of purely naturalistic origin? One is a universe that follows a set of laws with no characteristic, interventionist deity and the other... Wait, which one have I already described?

I don't know whether I find religious buildings spiritual, I've yet to see a satifactory definition of 'spiritual', but I can appreciate the architecture and history of certain buildings. This can include churches, etc. Tewkesbury Abbey, for example, can look very nice, particularly when lit up at night, viewed across the river. Another church near me was converted into a club. The architecture is still interesting... and some of the things that I've done inside there could possibly e described as spiritual.

[Edit] Changed 'Tewkesbury Cathedral' to 'Tewkesbury Abbey'. Doh!

I'm an ordained Buddhist as such I have no belief in a God, I am an atheist.
Buddhism is a religion and a deeply spiritual practice.

Sam - Tewkesbury is an abbey! But I take your point. It needn't be simply religious buildings though, but I wonder if a pantheistic view would see something human made as spiritual, even if it's a stately home, theatre production or whatever - that was the distinction I tried to make between the natural world and the human world. (I see something spiritual in the religions buildings I have seen, even when I do not share their religion)

You're right, someone has to bite the bullet and make definition of spiritual, spirituality and pantheism, there must be a distinction, surely, between the 2 world views you describe, otherwise all atheists would be pantheists. I would seek a broad intelligent understanding and define these terms, but it's my turn to do the washing up, which will be a extraordinary spiritual experience, I'm sure!

Sam - given that the church near you is now a club - did you mean simply to put an e in your posting - no wonder you think it is spiritual!

Chris,

Yes, I know that it's an abbey. Stupid mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

I don't think that all atheists would be pantheists. I think that pantheism involves worshipping the universe, which is undeserved (worship as opposed to seeing it with wonder, awe, etc). I just don't see a practical difference between a pantheistic universe and a naturalistic one.

"did you mean simply to put an e in your posting"

:D That's the best typo I've ever come up with. I'm leaving that one.

Thank you Ruby :o)

I can fully relate to you.

You have just given possibly the best summary about what I always found disturbing about religions - the humanised image of God - also the dogmatic mentality, and most of all the amount of hate - oh what a contradiction! - cultivated within such groups, and mostly those who consider themselves as the most faithful and fervent believers. Which made me run away from such groups, from religion allover. And find and live my own spirituality which is about cultivating universal love, about cultivating my relationship to my divine core and inner guidance, and to manifest it the best I can.

I do not cultivate a humanlike God figure, and in this sense I may be called atheist and non religious - while I consider myself as thoroughly spiritually oriented.

Sam - no problem - the difference between a cathedral and an abbey is easily explained - a cathedral is where the cathedra (bishop's chair) is placed, whereas if you're abbey and you know it clap your hands! (To play with the heading of this discussion I once said I was a Marxist and a Christian - and when asked if that isn't difficult I pointed out it's Groucho not Karl, who ain't as funny)

In the Stanford website it says 'Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God ... the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74).' - well, it's a start to defining some of these terms that I don't realy fully understand.

Chris,

In my case, the difference between a cathedral and an abbey is whether or not I have South Park on distracting me while I type a post.

If you're happy and you know it... That evokes really clear infant school memories. Weird.

I've been thinking about what is 'spiritual' about an experience. I think that maybe it's an experience that is intellectually and emotionally stimulating. Yeah, that's probably really vague. I think it's a matter of intensity. So for me, music would be spiritual, as would... wait, let's just stick with music.
I don't know whether the term 'spiritual' is very useful for me. It's not something I normally apply to things. I don't think, "Listening to that music was a spiritual experience" but instead just experience what listening to it does for me.

Perfectly right Sam, and to be fair someone religious wouldn't necessarily think I am having a spiritual experience at this moment, although afterwards they may believe they have. With regard to music someone might find Bach's music, or Wagner's operas as spiritual, or an expression of purgatory, depending upon your point of view! One of the seeming differences between animals and humans is that there seems, as far as I understand, that animals don't create anything beautiful for its own sake, but humans do, and that might be one aspect of an understanding of what makes humans spiritual beings. (I'm not saying that animals aren't beautiful, but it has a purpose, attract a mate, a beauty that scares off predators etc). It may be that using the term spiritual isn't helpful to you, in which case the answer to the intial question may be no, but if you find something 'moves' you, or gives you a lift, but what you describes, it seems to me, needs to be named - I can define anger, hatred, love etc, these are names to things that I can definetly relate to.

Bishop John AT Robinson said (somewhat controversially) that sex was an act of holy communion, at the time of the Lady Chatterly trial!

Chris,

I was thinking more Sisters of Mercy than Bach, but hey! each to their own.
Are you sure that the things that we create aren't to attract a mate? Otherwise, why would any man sit through Bridget Jones' Diary?
I don't know whether aesthetic appreciation is spiritual or not. I'll keep reading this discussion.

Sex as an act of holy communion? No way! Christians have spent centuries saying how bad sex is. They gave up their right to it. That one's ours!

Sam,

Thanks for your message - I'm writing this to stick this discussion back to the top of the list - most of the discussions I think are getting dull, but the question as to whether aesthetic appreciation is spiritual I think is actually interesting!!

Yes I did sit through Bridget Jones Diaries because my then fiancee (now wife) wanted to see it, but I don't claim to have created it - I didn't fancy Renee Zelwegger at all (in case my wife reads this).

The comment about sex is interesting - personally I've never given up the right (or indeed privelege!!) of sex. I really wonder if you believe that only either atheists or christians can have sex - gosh it's the 1st October - your turn atheists!!

Hi Chris,

You said:
"I really wonder if you believe that only either atheists or christians can have sex"

No, of course not. I was trying (but obviously failing) to be a little bit funny.
However, it is true that Christianity has a, shall we say, conservative view of sex (put your hands up Catholics!). A message that is, broadly speaking, 'sex is bad, except for procreation within marriage', I think is unhelpful and, when taken too far, damaging.

And now, as it's the 1st of October and apparently our turn, I'm off... urm, out.