Leaderboard

Yes, they're releasing a split lp with the death metal band Atheist later this year, check it out. Broadly speaking, the word "spiritual" refer to something immaterial. a simple google search on its etymology clearly show this. It just seems to me that some scientists just throw the word "spirit" in an attempt convey what they can't explain in materialist, mechanistic terms yet still fervently stick to their narrow, reductionist (everything is made of things) assumptions. My point is, if you want to stick to your guns in that department, fine but leave spirit out of the equation. Otherwise, you're doing a performative contraction. As far as I'm concerned, "awe" is indeed a much more appropriate word in this context. What's even more curious to me is how some "scientists" believe that you can have order out of pure chaos or pure accident (atoms banging each other). Is it really more reasonable to believe in this "ops" theory than the one proposed by religions? I think not. Again, you're refering to pre-rational/mythic-literal religions; that's far from the whole story. But yes, if it can't pass the test of modernity and its scientific advances, yes I'm you with, it should be dismissed. However, we have to acknowledge that science, as of today, have quite many blind spots and is FAR from being in a position where it can answer some of the most important questions: What is consciousness? What is life and how is it created? What created the evolution? What came before the big bang? etc. My point is, we HAVE to be scientific, but also be humble about the fact that science's understanding of the universe is (very) limited. Otherwise, we might have much more in common with dogmatic religions than we'd like to think. Boy, what was the topic about again?

Such gorgeous production on this one.

Are you familiar with Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens? I'm asking because you really sound like them. Now, let's have a look at what spirituality means according to wikipedia: "There is no single, widely agreed definition of spirituality.[11][12][note 1] Surveys of the definition of the term, as used in scholarly research, show a broad range of definitions[10] ranging from uni-dimensional definitions such as a personal belief in a supernatural realm[5] to broader concepts such as a quest for an ultimate/sacred meaning,[7] transcending the base/material aspects of life, and/or a sense of awe/wonderment and reverence toward the universe." It seems, one way or another, that "spiritual" people do not deny the sacredness of their worldview, hence my suspicions when the agnostics (and the atheits for that matter) refer themselves as spiritual. I get the point that spirituality is not dogmatic, more experimental, more inclusive but there's still this notion of the "sacred" intrinsically linked to their beliefs (which is certainly true for all spiritual persons I know of, bar none). Some atheists (new atheism movement) would acknowledge some experiences as "spiritual" which is kind of wacky coming from a stricly materialist, deterministic viewpoint (which is absolutely what they stand for). Indeed, if the whole experience of listening to Bach can be explained in terms of synapses firing, neural pathways and dopamine, qualifying this kind of experience as "spiritual" is just preposterous. Anyway, enough of my ramblings. On a side note, have you ever heard of Ken Wilber's work? I highly, highly recommend his new book "The Religion of Tomorrow". Wilber makes a distinction between mythic-literal religions (which are those you loathe, and for good reasons) and the trans-rational ones embodied by some the mystics of the great traditions (i.e. Zen, Dzogchen Buddhism and Vedanta). I know more and more scientists are interested in those, especially since the rise of mindfulness meditation. It's a dense, thick book (more than 800 pages), but it's well worth the time and investment, especially so for the agnostics out there!