A little comic relief
Mooney in Playboy is funny, you must admit. The tasteful illustration is funny, given Kirshenbaum’s (laudable) concerns about sexism. The title is funny. The post is funny. The comment is funny. It’s all funny, except for the article itself, which is more goofy than funny.
It could be a good piece, if it were re-done, by someone with a different agenda. It could be about the charge of discovery without the baggage of “reconciling religion and science.” It could be about the wonder of nature without the axe-grinding of
Doherty is among a growing number of nonreligious researchers who view scientific inquiry itself as a spiritual quest—a trend that has the potential to dramatically upend the idea that science and religion must be in conflict.
There is absolutely no doubt, unless you’re obtuse, that the purpose of Mooney’s piece is to show the commonality of scientists and religious people—as both are “spiritual”—and thereby make common cause of the two magisteria.
And the next thing you know you’re trying to explain how Adam and Eve can be both metaphorical and real, or whatever the latest dodge is.
…trying to coopt an honest scientific appreciation of the wonders of the universe as support for religion is a dishonest attempt to prop up bogus superstitions with an appeal to emotions — any emotions.
It contaminates the emotions, too. Do I have to look over my shoulder every time I gaze slack-jawed at a sunset now? I hope not.
Is Mooney not committing a non sequitur here by equating the feeling and experience of awe with religion?
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wayne de Villiers, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: A little comic relief http://dlvr.it/Ckp9W […]
I would argue that Sherils ‘concerns’ are in no way ‘laudable’, as they are fundamentally anti-sex and have had very little to do with addressing actual sexism, except when her choices of ‘sexism’ are actually used for her personal manipulative purposes. Which makes Chris happily jumping in to bed, so to speak, with Pam Anderson of all people, even funnier. Which is itself made even funnier considering Andersons vocal anti-science via her animal liberation efforts.
Shorter joke:
If Elaine Howard Ecklund believes that religious believers will accept scientists’ dedication to inquiry as somehow comparable to their supernatural truth claims, and will therefore be led to understand that religion and science are not in conflict, she is out of her fucking mind.
Have these people no idea of how religion is actually practiced?
I think the problem is really that how Christians claim to practice their beliefs and how they actually practice them are two very different things; how literally they adhere to the Bible and traditional ideas of Christianity is directly proportional to the ratio of Christians to non-Christians (either atheists or other religious) in the immediate vicinity.
It strikes me as supremely odd the accommodating liberal Christians/atheists don’t or won’t recognize that altering one’s religious beliefs in order to accept evolution will most likely have major consequences. The fundamentalists and evangelicals certainly think it will – otherwise why would Biologos spend so much time trying to reinterpret Genesis to allow for evolution or Answers in Genesis to not – with the result for the believer often being a retrenchment into biblical literalism or the rejection of Christianity. I think this is a real tipping point for those coming out of the literalist tradition – something you probably couldn’t relate to if you were from a more liberal tradition or only knew Christians from a liberal tradition.
I think of the image of Chris Mooney covering a room with wallpaper of his own face on it, over the window and doors, until he’s locked himself into irrelevancy.
I am happy to see the ‘atheist’ community rejecting his brand of spiritual atheism, although there are no doubt plenty of confused or questionable spiritual atheists around.
However, there is a more important figure who seems to espouse a similar cuddly spiritualism that I find troubling: Sam Harris. Harris is far more ‘orthodox’ member of the gnus, and I think it may be time to begin to question his approach to spirituality and morality.
I doubt his article will convince anybody of anything, but I guess it’s worth a shot.
Some commentators are accusing the word “spirituality” of being “meaningless”. I think that’s usually a pretty dim position. Meaning is not “whatever me and my best internet buds think makes sense”. Described as it was by Mooney, “spirituality” means something like a sense of meaningfulness: i.e., it involves an experience that is both emotionally charged and contentful, and the emotional charge is believed to come from the content itself, as if by compulsion. That’s roughly a usage we can predict other people to employ, so it’s meaningful. Dum de dum.
Still, I don’t think the venue is right. If I had been given a slot in Playboy, I sure wouldn’t be talking about spirituality and science. Who’s going to care about spirituality in that context? — evidently, no-one, since it was buried in the Playboy Forum. (And yes, I know PB has had some really good writers in it, and written on topics that aren’t related to sexy ladies. But still, as a rule, when I’m reading a leisure magazine I tend to want to avoid thoughts that are even vaguely related to the priesthood.)
Sorry, but no. Whores do real work and fill a need in society.
Gee, Ben, I long to know what you would write about if you had been given a slot in Playboy!
But seriously. No, you’re right, meaning is not “whatever me and my best internet buds think makes sense” – but it really is the case that “spirituality” is a word that is used because it is so mushy and vague and adaptable. Mooney did pin it down, and good for him for doing so, but if people cite and quote from the article it won’t remain pinned down. It will go wambling all over the place, you know it will.
I was once given a slot in Playboy. An editor contacted me requesting a 1,500 word article on common misunderstandings about evolution (basically he wanted a much shorter version of a piece I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer). Call me a whore, but they pay a dollar a word.
On morality, I think Harris has gotten plenty of push-back with respect to his latest book (which I’ve only just begun, so I’ll reserve judgment).
On spirituality, Harris doesn’t really bother me. Sure, he’s said some complimentary things about meditation and other practices that get lumped under “spirituality,” but I don’t see anything objectionable about that. More importantly, I haven’t noticed him using “spirituality” as a cover for blurring the lines between religion and non-belief.
You’re a whore, Charles!
Actually, there are few better places for a professional writer to be published than Playboy. If they ever come knocking on my door, they’ll be allowed in for a nice cup of tea, and I’ll have proposals for them. Whatever you might think of them in other ways, they actually pay you a decent wage for your work. About the only other way of getting that these days is to flog yourself to the Templeton Foundation. Now there’s an idea …
And I’m totally with Abbie (ERV). Kirshenbaum has always struck me more as anti-sex, or at least squeamish about human sexuality, than as concerned in a serious way about sexism. Same with Mooney, actually. Look at the way they freaked out when some people made the innocent mistake of assuming they were a couple. Anyone else would just have laughed it off, but they got all earnest and hurt. (Those who don’t recall this incident can look it up for themselves, though. I spent enough time last night doing another commenter’s homework.)
I am honored to be called a whore by you, Mr. Blackford, sir.
Frankly, I thought Jerry and PZ’s reactions were a bit over the top. Apart from the founding premise of choosing to base the discussion on the word “spirituality,” there really isn’t much to object to in the piece itself, as Mooney takes care to distinguish that he’s not talking about your ordinary garden-variety spirituality.
It even seems to perform a useful service, as it helps to dispel the common misperception that scientists are cold automatons. A significant fraction of the ordinary religious/spiritual community really does seem to think that the reason why scientists tend not to be religious is because most of them are emotional cripples who are intrinsically incapable of experiencing feelings such as awe and wonder. In short, they think we are bereft of a soul and not fully human.
Of course, other people such as Carl Sagan have done a better job of conveying their sense of wonder without all the “spiritual” baggage, but your ordinary spiritual person probably doesn’t read Carl Sagan very much. He or she probably doesn’t read Playboy much either, but the focus of the article on “spirituality” may help to draw in a few readers who wouldn’t ordinarily think about such things, and perhaps leave them with the impression that scientists are people too.
Bottom line: Aside from its tacit acceptance that “spirituality” is something to aspire to, this article doesn’t seem to promote religion in any way, so I have no real objection to it. In fact, it may even be a sign of positive growth on Mooney’s part, as it could be the first step towards a new writing style that does not rely on crapping all over gnu atheists at every opportunity. But I’ll wait to see what the future holds before passing judgment on that.
Oph, I would write a vaguely plausible sounding piece on how science-talk makes you sound trustworthy, hence a good beta-male, hence more likely to be attractive to heterosexual ladies looking for committed partners. Or write advice on how to talk to ladies that are Believers while still a) being an unabashed atheist, and b) having some remote chance of hooking up.
Or something.
Actually, I also think that it would’ve been a great place for Kirshenbaum to talk about her book “The science of kissing”. An ideal venue, an interesting topic, and would’ve be an opportunity to both communicate science like a pro and to sell the book.
On Sam Harris and “spirituality” – Meera Nanda wrote an article on that back in December 2005. No flies on Meera!
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2005/trading-faith-for-spirituality-the-mystifications-of-sam-harris/
Hamilton, I sort of agree, or partly agree. It would be fine if only…it were re-written. I do think the “booya science is way exciting” thing is very important. But he’s still pushing “science n religion r compatible.”
What a mean little toad.
Not entirely off-topic, but I am just starting to re-read Karl Frisch’s ‘Bees: Their Vision, Chemical Senses, And Language’. It is a beautifully and clearly written book (in translation of course), and it does not require a doctor’s degree or anything near a doctor’s degree to read (I first read it when in school – the English equivalent of high school). It gives a wonderful feeling of the quality of attention to his or her subject that a good scientist possesses, and a quality of attention that I don’t think it is wrong to descibe as a kind of reverence. The book is of course long out of print, as I think are all of von Frisch’s books (those that were translated), but these are the kinds of writings that people, young and old, need to be presented with, instead of vapid screeds about vapid words like ‘spirituality’. P.Z. Myers had on his website the other day a piece about some experiments with bumble-bees done by young children at a school in Devonshire, experiments that were well-designed (by the children) and fruitful and whose results were published in a famous and reputable journal. Things like von Frisch’s books and such activities provide the basis on which you can build a liking and respect for science. Mooney’s vacuous little piece says nothing of any worth and will be forgotten by most of the voyeurs of Playboy by next week, as all vacuous journalism is soon forgotten.
Yes, PZ wasn’t the only one who had the bees story – I did too, and I think I found it via Ben Goldacre. Lots of people had it – just a really fantastic story. InspiRAtional.
SC – yeah – I really hated that vulgar little “quip.” Ugh.
Ophelia,
Thank you for the heads up on that article by Meera Nanda. It was truly excellent.
The spirituality of science: “Look at that King Bird-of-paradise. Breathtaking!”
The spirituality of religion: “Look at that King Bird-of-paradise. Breathtaking! I know the One who painted it. I know how He thinks. He doesn’t think we should let gays get married”
Another (connected) matter is that I at least find all this talk about ‘spirituality’ embarrassing, along with the idea that we all have to be explicit about everything, when to be explicit in this sort of way is necessarily to cheapen and destroy; what one gets from the writings of someone like von Frisch is something that is implicit (that quality of attention), something that of course you can also find in the arts – in, for example (since von Frisch was German), Philipp Otto Runge’s wonderful painting of the Hulsenbeck children or the poems of Peter Huchel.
Thanks for the link, OB. Not the first time I’ve learned a great deal from Meera Nanda. Implicates a bit more than I took from Harris, however.
Welcome Ken. Same here about Meera.
The comment thread under Mooney’s post is pretty amusing.
MOONEY: Wow my Playboy piece is becoming quite the Rorschach.
JOHNX: Its meaningless blob. Right.
And Egbert.
Jeffy Joe – ha!
Marvellous article by Meera Nanda, and a comprehensive and, I think, valid criticism of Harris’ spiritualism, which always made me very uncomfortable. Harris needs to address these criticisms, and, to my knowledge, he hasn’t. I have a brother deeply immersed in this kind of Eastern spirituality and mysticism who claims to have discovered non-bodily consciousness, whatever that is, and speaks with favour about kundalini experiences. He also claims to speak familiarly with those who have died, so he’s really taken leave of his senses, but it all starts with an uncritical acceptance of the idea that mystical/spiritual experience hooks into the world in the same way that sense experience does.
Of course, Nanda’s article is not completely apropos of Mooney’s lucubrations about spirtuality in the Playboy article — which is pretty superificial and irrelevant piffle. Does he really think this kind of thing will help people who are anti-science because of their religious beliefs find science less threatening if they think that scientists go all wiggly inside at the beauty of a sunset or shiver with the “spiritual” depth of their experience when looking a picture of a spiral nebula? Really, the man needs to get a life!
Russell@13: “Kirshenbaum has always struck me more as anti-sex, or at least squeamish about human sexuality, than as concerned in a serious way about sexism. Same with Mooney, actually. Look at the way they freaked out when some people made the innocent mistake of assuming they were a couple. Anyone else would just have laughed it off, but they got all earnest and hurt.”
I think Kirshenbaum has a point here. What sentient being would want to be perceived as being hooked up with a ridiculous clown like Mooney?
I certainly think that Harris may be ill-advised with his use of ‘spirituality’ and ‘God’, looking at the reaction from atheists and theists alike, but I wouldn’t dismiss him for it. Words can be claimed, but some are best left as they are. I do agree that he should address a specific criticism: that he allows greater licence to some Eastern ‘ideas’ that, one suspects, he would dismiss if they were Christian or Muslim. I honestly don’t remember what he said in The End of Faith about re-incarnation and the paranormal (and my copy is loaned out), but here he says:
I think we can dismiss the contents of those books in the same way, if they make extraordinary claims on insufficient data, and, like Susan Blackmore, I think we’ve studied the paranormal enough to know it’s BS. But he clearly doesn’t think it’s worth him spending time on, so he’s not that taken by it. The suspicion is that his involvement in Eastern practices has led him to be marginally more sympathetic to re-incarnation, but I’ve no idea why he concedes anything to the paranormal; perhaps he’s friends with Uri Geller.
Re spirituality, he says:
I honestly cannot see anything wrong with this, other than the use of the terms ‘mystical’ and ‘spiritual’, which may encourage the woo merchants unnecessarily – but I’m not that bothered by them. In fact, investigations into the loss of self are helpful in trying to unpick that last refuge of the desperate apologist, consciousness.
So, I do see some cause for concern, but he’s no Bill Maher, in my book. I realise I may have been swayed by his brilliant rhetoric, however :-).
@ Mark Jones,
To be honest, this is the very reason why I’m uneasy with Sam Harris and his language. Atheists are continually taken in by his language, believing that he’s talking in terms of scepticism and open-mindedness, when in fact he’s compartmentalised in his Buddhist beliefs, and that is what motivates his interests, and his work. Although he makes some good rational arguments, it’s his motivation that I hold into question.
I don’t see this as helpful to our aims, but a potential problem as Harris continues to get support, even by the likes of Professor Dawkins.
@Egbert
I think your approach is the right one; it seem to me that Maher’s approach is not rational and, whilst I applaud him for his attacks on religion, his attitude suggests to me that these attacks are not based on critical thinking, but on an antipathy to religion. Fair enough, but I’d rather he demonstrated better critical thinking, since that would help him on other issues too.
If Harris is ‘compartmentalised in his Buddhist beliefs’ (and he’s clearly no Buddhist, though he sees it as ‘a repository of contemplative wisdom’ – !) then maybe his critical thinking is severely damaged. I’ve not seen sufficient evidence of this, but I could be persuaded if he continues too far on this tack. I think his next book is going to tackle spiritualism, so I may agree with you after that.
I haven’t looked at The End of Faith recently, but this kind of language is a bit worrying:
“Transformative experiences” is the kind of thing that Christians experience when the are converted or touched by the Spirit, or whatnot. In fact the expression ‘transformative experience’ is one of those key words that indicates that something religious is about to follow. In what sense does an experience of transformation shed light on the nature of mind? Remember, we are talking experiences here, and as Nanda points out in her very trenchant paper, even Wm James recognised that, while people certainly had experiences that they interpreted in various ways, this can have no authority for others. In other words, I take it that this means, does not shed light on the nature of mind, but are purely subjective experiences which are felt as “transformational” (whatever that means). I think this shows that Harris is skating pretty close to open water.
I have the same reservations when he talks about the moral landscape. In suggesting that science can do moral work, he simply assumes the values that underlie his claims, the claim that morality is about human flourishing. Human flourishing is a normative claim, not a scientific one. What human flourishing consists in may also include normative claims that cannot be settled by science. What this shows is a reluctance to make essential distinctions, and I think this may be the case in the way he treats of spirituality too, and the experiences of meditation. This is especially true, I think, in the light of what Meera Nanda has to say about the role that these traditions play in Indian culture. Harris is free to choose from amongst the constituents of Hindu/Buddhist culture the threads that he finds helpful, but in the cultural situation itself this is not so easy to do, and the things that Harris chooses, in that context, may in fact be the very things that undermine rationality. I was always troubled by Harris’s penchant for spirituality and meditation, because it seemed to me just straightforwardly religious, and uncritically accepted. Reading Nanda’s article confirms me in my suspicions.
Shane: I don’t know what spiritual means but yes Mooney is confusing whatever it is with the feeling of awe. It’s the same feeling I’ve had in the far north looking at wilderness that hasn’t changed in thousands of years, or watching the aurora overhead in sweeping greens, yellows, blues and purples, or dawn at the grand canyon – it’s awesome. But of the spirit? I think not. In such places you see the scientific evidence not religious evidence.
Anyhow once our sun starts to go nova it’ll all be moot, science and religion will both perish and it won’t matter if our descendants were religious or spiritual or atheistic; but I think the atheists will have had a more satisfying life
Now he has a post claiming that atheists are attacking an atheist article and spirituality means whatever he want it to mean.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/
You really need to stop with the confirmation bias. You like to select whatever agrees with your opinions or whatever strokes your ego, without being objective or rational. You may dress up spirituality with whatever you want, but it is fundamentally irrational and linked directly with religion.
The Chris Mooney way
Hey (religious) people: You know that word you’ve been using for millennial…spirituality? Well, as a science communicator I’m hear to tell you that scientists love that word too–especially physicists! Of course these egg-heads aren’t traditionally religious, in the way your fundamentalist uncle is, but they do get tingly inside at the possibility of being one with the universe, or as you say God’s Creation…basically the same thing.
Now I have it on good authority that this typically happens after a few glasses of red wine and said scientist finds him or herself in a darkened room staring up at the “heavens.”–Get it! Heaven. Outer-space. Again, same thing!–and suddenly, involuntarily says…”Gasp!” See, right there, that’s spirituality happening! Oh sure, they’re still egg-heads, and I’m helping them overcome that generalization one celebrity photo-op at a time, but, you know, that involuntary “gasp” is really not so different from you with your sacred zygotes, your angels and demons, zombie man-god and improbable virgin birth and it’s all because of the word spirituality. No questions please.
I hear that some scientists also say “Oh, God!” during sex — see, science and religion are compatible!
I like Jerry Coyne’s comment on that post.
Meanwhile, Josh Rosenau did a post on something I said, except I didn’t, two days ago, and I didn’t know it was there until now, so it’s probably too late to comment. Anyway it’s more of that there confirmation bias – he somehow manages to read me as saying exactly what I disavow in the very thing he quotes. [bangs head on desk]
Re: Ken #24 and the Nanda article
I am always leery to think my interpretation that casts doubt and reveals a rather obvious and troubling problem in the thinking of someone as erudite and brilliant as a Sam Harris that is the right one. I tend to be rather cautious when this happens and try to always go back to the source to see where I went wrong. This is what I have done about Nanda’s critical review of Harris as a New Age Trojan Horse. I think Nanda’s interpretation is… well, wrong. In my opinion, Nanda’s article distorts over and over again what Harris means. After all, I would think it very odd that someone as interested in neuroscience as Harris would dismiss out of hand such a long and rich history of powerful experiences from various aspects of ‘spirituality’ and ‘mysticism’. If I were such a person, I would want to know what was going on from the perspective of neuroscience, which would be difficult if I just ignored the whole library of these experiences out of some misplaced sense of allegiance only to the rational. Just because certain experiences are reported by using words like ‘transcendent’ and ‘mystical’ and ‘spiritual’ doesn’t mean that the experiences aren’t real; it may be that the interpretation is often inaccurate. This is the avenue of inquiry I think Harris explores in his chapter (and a few essays I’ve read) on ‘spirituality’. What I did not find is a similar interpretation made by Nanda. So I went back to the source, and what I found was what I suspected: very selective quote mining.
For example, in the End of Faith’s chapter on spirituality that Nanda quotes, Harris is talking specifically about the future where there may be a fusion of consciousness and machines and points out that any changes from any ‘transcendental’ experience through whatever ‘spiritual’ mechanism is used (and Nanda provides a list) will be a matter of what we are conscious OF and not what consciousness IS.
To help explain this point, the end note (partly quoted and very selectively so by Nanda), Harris continues: “While I have no doubt that remarkable experiences are lying in wait for initiates down each of these byways, the fact that consciousness is always the prior context and condition of every visionary experience is a great clarifying truth – and one which brands all such excursions as fundamentally unnecessary. That consciousness is NOT improved – NOT made emptier of self, or more mysterious, transcendental, etc. – by the pyrotechnics of esotericism is a FACT, which contemplatives of every persuasion could confirm in their own experience.” (emphasis mine)
From this, Nanda extracts exactly the wrong interpretation presumably to prove the point that Harris goes all woo on us by explaining that “Indeed “wise mystics” have long realized that the mystical experience does not confer existential status on its content. […] Unfortunately, Harris is not one of the wise mystics.”
Harris does NOT set consciousness free from brains and bodies but makes a point that consciousness is absolutely reliant on them, as Nanda purposefully and inaccurately portrays his potion to be. I mean, really folks, Harris is a neuroscientist for crying out loud.
Although someone like Harris needs no defense from the likes of me, I would hope that more commentators would take such blunt criticisms like Nanda’s with as much healthy skepticism as Nanda seems to expect from us about Harris and what he actually thinks about ‘spirituality’.
Yes. Tulse’s as well. (Meanwhile, Mooney’s reverted to the “it’s all explained in this other article/video/book” mode of evasion again.)
The whole thing is so silly:
So to whom is he making this alleged “case”? How could he be advancing it to gnu atheists like Dawkins if he’s merely repeating what they’ve long said themselves? And why would you “advance” someone’s argument back to them in the first place?
Either he’s trying sneakily to alter the meaning of the words – dishonestly playing on their ambiguity – to advance his own agenda or he’s terribly confused (or both).
Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
tildeb,
Is this the language of a neuroscientist, or sceptic? What does Harris mean here?
Bah. The whole thing is a mess.
Strawman characterization of gnu views completely at odds with our words:
No. They’re terms describing real human experiences upon appreciating said “brute facts,” you nitwit.
(Don’t even get me started on the religious environmentalism garbage.)
From Coyne’s comment:
This is completely clear. If he had really been trying to “[advance] the case for an atheistic, scientific spirituality devoid of supernatural belief but not devoid of feeling,” he would have simply talked about atheists and atheist scientists who’ve experienced a powerful sense of awe or wonder or connectedness in participating in the arts or gaining scientific knowledge or just ordinary life, pointing out that this involves and requires no religious dross (quite the contrary). That isn’t his agenda, though. What he wants to do is a) promote accomodationism and b) paint gnus as generally “spiritually” and emotionally stunted and in need of insights from non-atheists.
His claim of a “spiritual revolution” is also misleading. The growing – if they genuinely are so – numbers of “nonreligious but spiritual” (and “spiritual” would need to be defined by each of them) scientists and others are far more likely drawn from the religious on their way to atheism than from the atheists, though Mooney presents them as a group arising (consciously?) out of both as some sort of middle ground between atheism and theism, providing no evidence in support. (Of course, even if this were the case, it wouldn’t say anything about the validity of any “spiritual” beliefs.)
Perhaps he’d like to explain the distinction between Dawkins’ “atheistic, scientific spirituality” and that of “[t]oday’s spiritual scientists” like Doherty.
Interesting choice of title on Mooney’s follow-up post, “Atheists Attack Atheist Article,” as if there’s something wrong with that (assuming, of course, that Mooney’s article can really be called an atheist article). After all, Mooney is an atheist who seems to spend most of his time attacking the writings of other atheists — but I guess when The Great Communicator writes an article, the rest of us are supposed to practice Atheist Solidarity and shut up.
Re: Egbert #44
Clearly, Harris means one does not need faith to explore our feelings bout the sacred and spiritual needs. After all, the book is titled The End of Faith and it is to this meaning that Harris must account for them. That doesn’t mean he believes these aspects have some element of woo we must accept; quite the contrary. But I have no doubt that he finds them intriguing.
As he writes here:
ISTM that what Harris is saying is that we are not entirely rational beings, and never will be; but that it would be better to take a rational approach to our irrational needs, as far as possible, because otherwise they have a tendency to spiral out of control.
Which I can’t really disagree with, having read what I have read about human perception. What Mooney says, of course, is quite different.
Well if we all have spiritual needs then are we different from Summer the little stripey cat? What about her spirituality? What about Wiley the german pointer? Any spiritual needs there? I do wish religionists and accommodationists would stop all this projecting their needs (to be different from all other creatures in the world) onto me!
If there’s one thing they all need it is to be able to deal better with uncertainty – because that’s all there is.
As far as I can see this is more of an issue of limitations/evolution of the English Language than anything else. I’ve no problem with the use of the term “spiritual” to explain the emotions/feelings Mooney is trying to describe. The origins/root of the word is not important, in common usage it has changed to be a more generic description of an indescribable emotion than purely relating to the spirit. In the same way that “awe” just isn’t as strong a description as it used to be due to being diluted by the modern use of “awesome” for anything that is even remotely moderately good.
Maybe it’s my own limited vocabulary, but when watching Wonders of the Solar System, or reading something on quantum physics, or the majesty anything else vaguely outside the scope of my limited human perception and I struggle to truly conceive of the immensity and beauty of the facts, I can liken it to a moment of spirituality in the modern context. I wish I could describe it better, maybe I’d actually get that book deal if I could, but I can’t and I don’t think many people can given the nature of what is being described.
So on the use of the word; I’m not aggrieved by Mooney’s use. As to the purpose of the article, well, I get his point on that too. Science is portrayed as taking all the wonder out of life and as being cold and emotionless. We know that’s not the case, we know that just because you may understand the reasons or concepts behind nature it doesn’t take away your sense of awe at that part of nature, but that’s not the case everywhere.
Will telling people that you can still be in awe/spiritual about your place in the universe and a s a human even with an understanding of nature help? That remains to be seen, but I don’t see how it hurts.
I can probably be painted an accomodationist now.
Hm. I just really don’t like the word. “Awe” doesn’t have any baggage, or at least very little. “Spiritual” is equivocal at best – plus it’s New Agey and mushy. I like precision. Plus it’s hackneyed.
Apart from that, it’s a great word! :- )
And I agree about much of the content, if it had been written differently.
Pah, you’ve obviously never witnessed a double rainbow then!