Check out the “Naturalism and Spirituality” page. The first line strikes me as a bit funny and ironic:
Although naturalism may at first seem an unlikely basis for spirituality…(You can read the rest for yourself.)
Naturalism actually doesn’t seem to have much to do with spirituality. First, there is no higher power to be spiritual with. And, most cripplingly, :) THERE IS NO SPIRIT!!!! What is spirituality? This is pretty funny, but I’d like to hear a defense about it.
P.S. I think Rev. Canon Dale Owen should write about this…
Obviously, they use the word “spirituality” a little differently; it’s for those who say they are “spiritual but not religious,” harboring feelings of “oneness” or “connectedness” with nature, others, themselves. “Spirit” becomes a metaphor, like “the spirit of the age,” a “spirited defense,” “team spirit,” “with us in spirit,” “in high spirits,” “the spirit of the law.”
Yes, I notice that your examples all imply some kind of unity, and some of them imply a unity between persons. How, on a naturalistic philosophy, are sentiments of this kind possible? What makes us feel “team spirit”?
“High spirits” are a bit more clear because that is a way to describe some sort of harmony of body, which results from some circumstances.
I’m questing for a clear answer and you’ve given me a start, Jim. Please let me know what else you think…
Andrew, I think the website would probably contain an answer somewhere, most likely framing the discussion in terms of evolutionary adaptation. I won’t presume to speak for Mr. Clark or his center :)