For Spinoza, atheism and materialism were pretty much synonymous. This is quite insightful.
It's how they used the word back then and too many persons still do.
Probably most atheists are spiritual but few would use the word. IMO if they're able to be selfless and rapt with wonder at nature, science, art, et al, what more's needed?
I rarely encounter a spiritual christian though. It's like their religion kills it in them, by getting addicted to belief instead of opening up to experience and letting it lead the way.
Now, there are certainly exceptions, people whom we might call spiritual atheists. We might count Spinoza in this group.
I count him in that group. And Einstein. And myself (so I'm in good company!).
Also some of the living philosophers I enjoy reading most. Christof Koch wrote
Then I Am Myself the World: What Consciousness Is and How to Expand It. To me the topics covered are what essential "spirituality" looks like, when given a "left-brain" analytical treatment. "Spiritual" because he seeks facts first, then suggests applications to improve folk's lives, and life on earth. (In place of begging a god to do the work for them).
If we do that, however, we would really have to open it up: Moses, Hegel, Jesus, Marx. In fact, Judaism and its offspring, Christianity and Islam, are essentially of this nature. The Shema states, "Hear, Israel, existence is your god, existence is one." This insight is not acceptable to most of the denizens of this forum because they seek to condemn religion in its essence, which compels them to ignore the claim that religion is essentially correct, and that what it needs is not condemnation, but true understanding.
More likely they find "spirituality" in science instead of mysticism, and don't know what the "Something More" is that some of us talk about. And it's not their fault if people who choose to talk about that are too vague to be intelligible.
Also, how can they understand if we "spiritual atheists" won't
drop the theism-words?
I don't see "God is existence" as "religion in its essence". I've looked for the "baby in the bathwater" in religions, and feel I found it in mystics like Meister Eckhart, Rumi, Bhakti poets, some Zennists, et al. But IMV this is not religion's essence.
The essence of religion is superstition, people wanting to escape reality via 'believing real hard'. The superstitionists are not the corrupters of religion, they're the originators. The exceptions to this are outliers to religion -- they're the ones the religious folk tend to enjoy lighting on fire as heretics. This is why I find the word "spiritual" meaningful (a little, until someone new ager starts yapping about crystals or something). It emphasizes there's an inward personal quest you must undertake to be less "materialistic" (ie, more selfless). The outer shell, religion, isn't necessary.
I think it'd help a lot, if someone wants to get notions of a "something more" across to secularists,
to drop the theism words. They obfuscate, and make it seem like you're advocating religion/superstition.
www.shortform.com
