What the hell does “spiritual” mean anyway?!?
By Steven Olsen, co-founder of Carl Sagan’s Dance Party
“I am spiritual, but not religious” is a phrase used quite frequently, to the point of cliché. When I hear it my gut reaction is that this person will be nicer than your standard fundamentalist Christian, but I tend to put less stock in their perception of reality.
The reason why is because spiritual is poorly defined–perhaps intentionally. This allows it to be a catch-all term for new agey metaphysics, belief in “only the new testament,” a fuzzy deification of the universe, The Secret, various forms of neopaganism, and a way to strike a sense of balance between the dogmas of Christianity and the horrible void of a materialist existence. It always amused me to see this on dating websites as it seemed to imply that the poster merely wanted to be appealing to the widest possible demographic sphere.
So let’s try to find out what “spiritual” even means. From Merriam Webster’s:
1. of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit, 2. a : of or relating to sacred matters b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal 3. concerned with religious values, 4. related or joined in spirit, 5. of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena.
Definitions 2 and 3 seem hardly distinguishable from “religious.” 1, 4 and 5 seem to fit the Spiritual But Not Religious crowd a bit more. However, it’s far too broad to be of any use. Aside from the original usage of spirit to mean “breath” it doesn’t really describe anything that we can demonstrate as being real. We can play dictionary tag all day and still not get a clear definition of what spiritual is supposed to mean.
In the early 2000s, I thought that while there wasn’t a god, there probably was something to spirituality. This problem of definition was apparent even then, but I thought I could come up with a better definition. After careful thought, I decided that the definition for spiritual should be “A feeling of awe connected to something larger than oneself.” There aren’t any gods or demons, but I certainly felt…compelled when I saw pictures from the Hubble Telescope, or contemplated the full scale of evolution or my place in the universe. These thoughts humbled me and filled me with emotion. If anything was “spiritual,” it had to be science. Looking back however, I see I was mistaken. My definition of spirituality was just as meaningless as Sylvia Browne’s. A word doesn’t really have meaning unless a plurality of people agrees on the definition. I could say that “chair” means “a large species of monitor lizard which resides on the Komodo Island near Indonesia.” But if I do that, I shouldn’t then expect people to know what I mean when I describe being terrified of being eaten by chairs.
Just as the religious are obligated to provide evidence of the supernatural, the spiritual are obligated to define their term better. So if you absolutely must use this term, define it before jumping in with the assumption that people know what you are talking about, then provide the evidence for it.
Unlike my unique definition of chair, spirituality is given a great deal of weight in the United States. I’ve had Christians admonish me and my atheist peers because while we have read the Bible, we don’t read it “spiritually.” When I then ask for a definition of spiritual, I am told that I must read the book with faith. So the only conclusion I can arrive at is that we have to read our ancient holy books as though we already believe them, or we’re doing it wrong. I’ve not yet met a Christian interested in reading the Bhagavad Gita spiritually using that definition.
Why does all this matter? Shouldn’t I let people with poor language and reality testing live their lives in peace? Unfortunately, all desire to be live and let live must be set aside for now as Christians have forced the issue into public life. American soldiers are now being forced to undertake Spiritual Fitness testing, and mandatory remedial spiritual training. Since this is such a poorly defined word, you can rest assured that foxhole atheists are getting this message: “You are unfit as a soldier.” Here is Rock Beyond Belief’s founder, Justin Griffith’s results from the unconstitutional mandatory spiritual testing. Using the broadest definition, lets see what happens if we replace every instance of ‘spiritual’ or ‘spirituality’ with “dedicated to the that which can’t be properly demonstrated” and see if it makes more or less sense.
Earlier I intimated that some of the ambiguity on the definition might be intentional. Based on my experience in churches and the Army’s spiritual fitness fiasco, I have come to be convinced that the non-dogmatic, hippie new agers defined spirituality as this vague and fuzzy kind of dedication to the unreal and this redefinition has since been worked to the advantage of fundamentalist Christianity. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution constantly is in the way of Christians in America using the government to indoctrinate, and this is just another way of trying to sneak religion in through the back door. Just like “intelligent design.” When you can’t win on merit, just wear a disguise.
In conclusion, all we can really determine about the term “spiritual” is that it either means the same thing as religion, or it is defined as what it is not–dogmatic, mean religion. So it either means one thing or something on the exact opposite end of the spectrum of the nonexistent. Who knows, maybe they just don’t like the baggage that comes with the word “Christian.” It means something different to everyone who uses the term, so if someone insists on using it then have them to define it. Hold their feet to the fire and you’ll soon learn that either spiritual is indistinguishable from religious or it is even more meaningless than religion. And something more vapid than religion is quite hard to imagine.