To date, the answer to the question seems to be: “Humanists can be spiritual in one sense of the word.”

You would then have to discuss the meaning of the word “spiritual”. Otherwise you really do run the risk of meaning the supernatural. Worse still, you might appear to be a believer in denial that his spiritual experiences were evidence of a God (because that’s what these experiences mean to believers).

If one had been in debate on Thought for the Day, it would have been a good idea to have asked what was meant by “spiritual”. Did it include belief in the supernatural (Gods, ghosts, etc) for the 80% sample quoted – and maybe not just in a recognisable Christian God. Why would anyone deny that humanists could have moments of peace and beauty, as well described in Jeremy’s and subsequent pieces, but legitimately prefer not to call these experiences spiritual in the religious sense?

It would be interesting for the camps to swap sides and argue the opposite position!

I think it’s at best a weasel word which taking the Wikipedia definition is

Weasel words is an informal term for words and phrases that, whilst communicating a vague or ambiguous claim, create an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said.

Why try to highjack a term like spirituality with all its many and varied meanings? I don’t want any of my awesome experiences confused with their mystical forces or gods.

a) It’s not that rare to find Humanists who have had what I described as “spiritual experiences”, even quite powerful ones, and therefore know what is meant by the term.
b) Some Humanists don’t like to use the term “spiritual” for the reasons given in Marilyn’s “against” piece.

Reading between the lines, I suspect there may be some correlation between those who feel strongly that the term should be avoided and those who have not had the experience. That’s not surprising. (To take an extreme analogy: if you’d never seen the colour blue, you’d have trouble understanding someone who tried to explain why the word “blue” was required.)

I’m sure that advances in neuoscience will explain why some people are more prone to these experiences than others. And there’s nothing superior or inferior about someone who has had them versus someone who hasn’t. That does nothing to change the reality of the experiences for those who have them and therefore consider them a positive and enhancing part of their humanity.

But there are a couple of points where I’d like to take issue:
a) NealO thinks that “…Spirituality is therefore a word best avoided, particularly without a rigorous definition”. Well, I’d hoped that the “What is Spirituality?” section in my piece gave a pretty clear definition of what I think it means from a Humanist viewpoint. In summary: “spiritual experiences” are subjective human experiences that have most or all of these characteristics:
* They’re non-intellectual.
* There’s a sense of connectedness with a greater whole, other people, wider humanity, the rest of the universe, or simply “something greater”.
* They involve a diminishment of the ego, sometimes to the point where there is no sense of separation between subject and object (not “you” looking at “it”, but simply “looking”).
* They are very individual.
* They are associated with a sense of elation, joy and – often – compassion; they are powerful and positive for the person involved.
* Knowing that they purely subjective does nothing to diminish their power.

b) George Jelliss would go further and ban me and other Humanists from using the word Spiritual at all. Of course, I have a problem with that. But he then illustrates one reason why we need it: no-one can come up with a better word to meet the need. Inventing new terms that no-one else will understand cannot be the answer.

I suspect there’s also a concern here that using a term shared by religious people is somehow “letting the side down”. But in fact that shouldn’t be a problem: when they talk about spiritual experiences and when we do, we probably mean roughly the same thing. The difference is that, as Humanists, we don’t bolt on all sorts of supernatural causes and characteristics.

Why can’t we accept that Humanists can be “spiritual”, and that we know what we mean?

As mentioned in other comments these “spiritual” events would have previously have been attributed to the intervention of a deity, but I no longer believe that is the case. But I also marvel at the ability of humanity to seek answers to the world around them whether through science or religion – it’s just another facet of the human state.

Of course the human imagination is very powerful, and gives rise to some overwhelming and sometimes frightening experiences. I get an odd reaction when I see a photograph or film of the earth from outer space – not from far away like the moon, when it just looks like a sphere, but nearer, when you can see the curve of the planet, the black sky, and the blue-and-white of he surface. It looks so much like a home, somehow. When we had the eclipse in 1999, I experienced physical fear even though it wasn’t total where I was, just looked as though something had taken a bite out of the sun and reduced its splendour to pale silver, and even though I was of course fully aware of the scientific explanation and there was nothing whatever to fear. This sort of thing presumably occurs because some parts of the brain are more ‘primitive’ – older in evolutionary terms – than others.

In the book On Humanism published by Routledge Richard Norman says of the word, “Spirituality is a word I distrust. It is inherently slippery.” If you try looking at the dictionary you will find a myriad of definitions and you have to pussyfoot about to find one that is remotely acceptable to express a humanist viewpoint.

Trying to focus on any narrow definition of a word in a discussion is always difficult when so much of the definition places the word alongside spirits and other non visible intangible forces similar to your average sky god.

As for the authors quotes from Compte-Sponville and Einstein it seems to me the situations they discuss are largely due to occasionally enabling your mind yo escape from the bondages of your nurture and circumstance to think and feel in a truly uninhibited way. Much as a ‘free spirited’ person.

If I want to get involved in a discussion it will only be if I can move the topic to me/humans possessing a free spirit if only because spirit sounds like spirituality and seems to placate. Alternatively I substitute ‘feelings of great awe for the natural world’. Bring on another picture from the hubble!

I think Spirituality is therefore a word best avoided, particularly without a rigorous definition.

The only noise to be heard was the faint hiss of the skis over the snow as I was pulled up the slope by the lift. I was enjoying the view when I suddenly noticed how different the sky looked. It wasn’t the light baby blue sky that I was used to at home and took for granted, it was an immense expanse of the most beautiful deep azure infinity blue that was quite awe inspiring. Looking up above me it was hard to focus as there was no point of reference; it was as if the night sky was visible in broad daylight.

Now I know that this effect was due to the position of the sun, the altitude, the contract with the whiteness of the snow all around and the clarity of the air, but none the less it gave me the most profound feeling of awe that I have ever experienced. I have had similar experiences since then but not to the same intensity as that sudden jolt of realisation the first time around.

I have coined an alternative set of terms that may be acceptable. Namely, “immotion”, “immotional”, “immotionality”, which refer to “inner feelings” or “inward-directed feelings” as contrasted with “emotion” which tends to be thought of as referring to outward-directed feelings. Thus “immotionality” would describe a state of internal stillness, whereas “emotionality” is usually taken to suggest something approaching an hysterical state.

According to my theory, the faculty of reason also depends on inner feelings, in that one accumulates evidence for and against a proposition and one evaluates the evidence by imbuing it with feelings for or against, and one concludes with the side that has the greater strength of positive feeling. It is in this manner that one acquires motivation for action in support of the proposition.

Of course reason also proceeds by logical deduction, but this cannot provide motivation, unless one has a passionate devoton to logic, which many rationalists do have.

To be conscious is to experience the universe. Unfortunatey the words at our disposal to describe our experience are seldom if ever adequate. Indeed most seem to originate in the religious or mystical interpretations of our ancestors. Although as a humanist, I struggle with words like ‘spiritual’ to describe my own experience, it seems to me that the only vocabulary available to us is that normally used by the religious, in the absence of a meaningful and attractive secular vocabulary.

Since my first self-realised experience, I have experienced many more; albeit still very rarely – perhaps once a year. I now distance these feelings of “self-realisation” from the “hierarchy of needs” because I have experienced feelings of elation when not everything was fine and dandy.

Other more minor experiences have been due to a mild intake of alcohol and an excess of caffeine, which is interesting.