Should Skeptics Abandon Spirituality?

It should go without saying that not all naturalists are spiritual. Some secular naturalists in particular disagree with our use of the word “spiritual,” and as we’ll see, this dispute is ultimately semantic. Yet, if we’re as intellectually honest as we claim to be, then it’s important that we confront these questions. After all, it’s in a naturalist’s worldview that we should think skeptically and therefore seek to challenge our beliefs.

Of the prominent naturalists I’m aware of, Tom Flynn certainly stands out, and as far as I know, he’s the only one that has made a genuine effort to criticize naturalistic uses of the word “spiritual,” hence why I will focus on him in this article. I should note that Tom Flynn passed away just a few years ago and I in no way wish to tarnish his life and memory. Flynn contributed a lot as a skeptical activist, and I’m sure that as naturalists, there is far more where we would agree than disagree. He also has made some valid critiques of naturalistic spirituality that are worth our attention, and in my view, can guide us toward honing and refining how we go about sharing Spiritual Naturalism with the world. However, because his writings are currently the most prominent polemics against naturalistic spirituality, we as Spiritual Naturalists are compelled to address them.

Flynn’s quarrel with spirituality stems chiefly from his activist intentions, which I find myself highly sympathetic to. As a skeptic, I don’t want dogmatic claims to dictate the customs I should follow and the laws governing my life. After all, it seems that a great deal of political and social dogma generates unnecessary conflict and suffering. I surely prefer to live in a world that embraces skepticism to one that rejects it—or worse, silences it. Therefore, challenging dogmatism and promoting skepticism is a cause quite dear to me. Where I think Flynn ultimately misses however, is that in order for skepticism to better compete against dogmatism, it must existentially and aesthetically appeal to people. Spiritual Naturalism helps skepticism meet this goal without detracting from it or watering it down, allowing skeptical activists to meet supernaturalists halfway, and thus more effectively get their message across. Verily, I would make the case that spiritual language can make skepticism far more rich, colorful, and meaningful in ways that secular or nihilistic approaches to skepticism cannot.

I. Spirituality is Anti-Naturalistic
Flynn considered the word “spiritual” to be “inescapably anti-naturalistic.” More precisely, he saw naturalistic spirituality as “a corrosive supra-naturalism that, taken seriously, would undercut the naturalist enterprise”. To put this to the test, he referred to the American Heritage dictionary and dictionary.com. American Heritage says the following with regards to “spiritual”:
1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or pertaining to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church of religion; ecclesiastical; sacred.
5. Pertaining to or having the nature of spirits; supernatural.

Notably, Flynn pointed out that every item on this list has a supernatural referent. Likewise, he listed definitions for “spiritual” from dictionary.com:
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach of life.
3. closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor’s spiritual heir in linguistics.
4. of or pertaining to spirits or spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic.
5. characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type than her rowdy brother.
6. of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature.
7. of or pertaining to sacred things or matters; religious; devotional; sacred.
8. of or belonging to the church; ecclesiastical: lords spiritual and temporal.
9. of or relating to the mind or intellect.

Once again, Flynn indicated that these definitions skew in the direction of supernatural interpretation, concluding that “spirit” is a word without a referent. So this must mean it’s in our best interest to reject Spiritual Naturalism then, right? Not quite. As SNS Editing Director Thomas Schenk notes:

Some people define “spiritual” as dealing with something called ‘spirits’, immaterial beings; defined thus, it is necessarily at odds with naturalism. Others define the spiritual as a particular mental perspective, a way of seeing, and as such it is quite compatible with naturalism. So the simple answer to the question posed is that “spiritual naturalism” is not an oxymoron if it is defined as a particular way…

Upon deeper examination, it appears that Flynn made a grievous error by referring to what Philosopher of Religion Eric Steinhart calls the Theistic Dictionary. In an episode of the Crusade Against Ignorance podcast, Steinhart asks, “Who wrote your dictionary? Dictionaries record the culturally dominant usage.” Because these dictionaries were written in a Christian-dominated culture, Flynn was essentially relying on a Christian dictionary. Steinhart adds that atheists like Flynn who use the theistic dictionary are really just cultural Christians; they don’t believe that God exists but they believe in Christian culture by accepting the Christian meanings of words and the network of Christian concepts. Such atheists, according to Steinhart, are twilight atheists. Though they don’t believe in God, he argues that twilight atheists “still believe in his shadows.” The shadows of God, in this case, are “deeply entrenched habitual patterns of thought and practice.”

Defining “spiritual” theistically also relates to what some Spiritual Naturalists call “the schism.” For instance, when we study Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism—in addition to figures like Socrates, Zeno, Heraclitus, Epicurus, Buddha, and Lao Tzu, we find approaches to spirituality that were far more rational than faith-based. Over time however, the notion of the supernatural emerged—likely resulting from concepts such as Plato’s theory of ideal forms and the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Hence, spirituality was thrown into what can be called “the black hole of supernaturalism,” creating the schism between the natural and the sacred.

Similar to above, the philosopher and ethicist Robert C. Solomon lamented in Spirituality for the Skeptic that spirituality “has been hijacked by organized religion, New Age eccentrics, and divisive sectarians.” He noted that this hijacking has distorted spirituality, packaging it in ways that alienate those who seek a more evidence-based understanding of life’s mysteries. The atheist philosopher Sam Harris holds a view similar to Solomon, declaring that it is “one of the most damaging lies of religion” that aspects of spirituality such as charity, community, ritual, and contemplation can only be embraced through faith. Until we can talk about spirituality within the scope of reason, Harris warns that “our world will remain shattered by dogmatism.”

Can a term’s meaning be rigidly fixed anyway, or does it shift depending on context and audience? SNS founder Daniel Strain notes that “the s-word is in a state of transformation” because naturalists haven’t abandoned it. Indeed, we see that a growing number of Spiritual Naturalist individuals and groups have been emerging in recent decades. In the same spirit (pun intended), Steinhart notes that words “are our servants and not our masters,” and that we can therefore reclaim spirituality within a naturalistic context. So on what grounds must we reject a word due to its past associations? Flynn’s rejection fails to answer such questions. His stance on spiritual language seems more akin to a form of linguistic dogmatism than a position anchored in a true skepticism.

II. Spirituality is Confusing
Expanding on his commitment to linguistic purity, Flynn considered spiritual language to be admitting “a new obscurantism” into our vocabularies. He noted that “if you tell the average American that you’re spiritual, you’ve told him or her that you believe in immaterial substances, whether you mean to say that or not.” Former SNS Education Director Jay Forrest 1 noted that Flynn is right in at least calling us to be careful of our language. Indeed, “spirit” and “spiritual” can be problematic words when used in a dogmatic sense. Yet, Forrest added that it is “inevitable that we borrow some term from the religious traditions,” and that “spiritual is the best choice.” In particular, Forrest noted that the term “has the advantage of being popular within the public arena. A lot of people believe that you can be spiritual without being religious.”

Steinhart adds that typically, atheists and theists aren’t confused because Spiritual Naturalists are really clear that we’re using the word “spiritual” naturalistically. So who’s confused? Let’s say that someone still misinterprets your use of the word “spiritual” though, despite your best attempts to clarify what you mean. Is it then a fault of the word itself, or perhaps that of the listener? Furthermore, should fear of being misinterpreted be a sufficient reason to categorically reject certain language? I cannot find a reason why this should be so. Strain reminds us that views similar to Flynn’s “are often focused on (or distracted by) the culture wars; namely that portion where one is concerned about what others might think.” He elaborates further:

(i)t would be far more palatable to us if someone accidentally thought for a moment that we believed some minor thing of little importance (like a deity for example) for a few minutes, than it would be for them to get the impression that we didn’t appreciate the sacred, or the role of spiritual practices, or humility, or the importance of universal loving-kindness—or, worst of all, if they got the impression that our disagreement with their personal beliefs was the most important thing about us or more important than our shared love and humanity with them.

Similarly, an SNS member asks “is there any less scientific notion than that an idea should be abandoned because it’s too nuanced and might confuse the proles?” More bluntly, she proclaims “I’d much rather be momentarily confused with someone who believes in pixies or whatever than a nihilist or a solipsist.” Something else to consider is whether language can ever be truly precise. Strain notes that spiritual traditions often define common terms differently. For instance, he points out that “compassion” is interpreted differently in Christianity compared to Buddhism and that “forgiveness” is understood differently in Judaism compared to Catholicism. Should we abandon these terms as well? It seems more that language is inherently slippery and dependent on context, audience, and intent. How could we expect ourselves to rigidly police it?

III. Spiritual Language is Easily Avoided
In further defense of his commitment to linguistic purity, Flynn argued that words like “spirit” and “spiritual” are easy to avoid or replace. In a list titled 95 Ways Not to Say Spirit, he provided the following alternative terms:
● “Spirit” in the sense of life: animation, consciousness, dash, energy, essence, feeling, spark, vitality, vivacity
● “Spirit” in the sense of mood: attitude, disposition, feeling, frame of mind, humor, temper, tenor
● “Spirit” in the sense of vigor: ardor, enthusiasm, gusto, liveliness, resolution, spunk, zeal
● “Spirit” in the sense of courage: audacity, dauntlessness, determination, firmness, fortitude, grit, pluck, resolve, steadfastness, tenacity
● “Spirit” in the sense of nature: character, drift (as in, “You get my drift”), essence, gist, quintessence, substance
● “Spirit” in the sense of intent: intention, meaning, purport, resolution, sense, significance
● “Spirit” in the sense of the sublime: admirable, affecting, amazing, astonishing, attractive, charming, dazzling, elegant, elevated, enticing, excellent, exciting, exquisite, grand, harmonious, imposing, impressive, inspiring, lofty, magnificent, majestic, marvelous, matchless, moving, noble, outstanding, overwhelming, peerless, piquant, poignant, provoking, radiant, resplendent, seductive, sensual, sparkling, splendid, stately, stimulating, stirring, stupefying, superb, thrilling, touching, unsurpassed, venerable, virtuous, wonderful, wondrous.

As amusing and thought-provoking as one may find this list, a good question to ask is whether this exercise is actually useful or simply pedantic. Upon further inquiry, it still seems that there are an abundant number of cases where we cannot find a better word to use other than “spiritual.” For instance, in his dissertation on spirituality and skepticism, Senior Lecturer from UCF Sabatino Dibernardo maintains that he is “inclined toward rehabilitation of traditional articulations in order to suit aesthetic and/or pragmatic proclivities.” To further illustrate his point, he quotes Pierre Hadot:

Spiritual exercises. The expression is a bit disconcerting for the contemporary reader. In the first place, it is no longer quite fashionable these days to use the word “spiritual.” It is nevertheless necessary to use this term, I believe, because none of the other adjectives we could use—“psychic,” “moral,” “ethical,” intellectual,” “of thought,” “of the soul”—covers all the aspects of the reality we want to describe.

Likewise, Harris emphasizes:

there is no other term—apart from the even more problematic mystical or the more restrictive contemplative—with which to discuss the efforts people make through meditation, psychedelics, or other means, to fully bring their minds into the present or to induce nonordinary states of consciousness. And no other word links this spectrum of experience to our ethical lives.

Strain similarly adds that Flynn didn’t “seem to understand the enormous importance of using language in ways that inspire reverence and allow our minds into a disposition of awe and a sense of the sacred.” Nor did “he seem to understand that certain truths are more accurately communicated through such language than using technical terms.” He adds, “(i)f one does not get that practical mechanism of how spiritual practice is not mere entertainment, but a method of personal transformation, then it is entirely expected one would have Flynn’s view of spirituality and spiritual language as extraneous.”

Strain further expands on his position:

…the driving force behind our spirituality is the fact that we are on a personal quest to cultivate mindfulness, compassion, and wisdom in ourselves and fully embrace all that it means to be a human being—and there simply is no better word to capture that connotation and tell others about the kind of person we are.

In response to Flynn’s polemic, philosopher and professor Andy Norman stresses that it is important for naturalists to know when ill family members are in “good spirits”—in comparison to something akin to “How’s your mood mom?” He goes on to cite additional phrases such as “team spirit,” “spirit of the law,” the “spirit of fair play,” the “spirit of cooperation,” the “spirit of goodwill,” and the idea of an “untroubled spirit.” When it comes to these uses of the term, he clarifies that “We experience these things quite directly, and often very deeply—but language remains inadequate to them.” Therefore to Norman, the fundamental role of spirit‐talk is “to call attention to depths of experience that are presently inexpressible.”

Ironically, Flynn admitted that his list doesn’t cover all uses of spiritual language. In response to Norman’s refutation, Flynn concedes that “Norman provided examples of more nuanced spirit-talk that my list doesn’t fully address.” Yet, rather than accept that he could not account for all naturalistic uses of the term, he instead proclaimed he must one day expand his list to “125 Ways.” With all respect to Flynn, I think this was an audaciously dishonest take. Surely upon evidence that contradicts our stance, we should change our position, right? Here, Flynn seemed perfectly content in abandoning his skepticism and assuming a dogmatic commitment to linguistic purity.

IV. Spirituality Makes Naturalism Look Unsatisfying
Flynn proceeded to argue that “when we employ “spirit” talk, we encourage our hearers to suspect that we are insecure in our naturalism,” considering such language to be a “hypocritical commitment to the supernatural.” Yet, it is implied in the term “Spiritual Naturalism” that we are undeniably devout in our naturalism. One could also ask if there is any sufficient evidence to assume our use of spiritual language will cause people to think what Flynn claims they will think.

Even if some listeners make this assumption, will this be the case for all listeners? According to Flynn, spirit talk also buttresses the positions of religious apologists that “real atheism” is psychologically impossible. I find this to be rather distasteful on his part to gatekeep atheism from us, as if Spiritual Naturalists can’t be “real atheists.” Who has the authority to claim who is and isn’t a real atheist? Further, most Spiritual Naturalists don’t find issue with atheism, but with nihilism, which many would likely consider Flynn’s worldview to be characteristic of.

Indeed, not only do many Spiritual Naturalists find nihilism dogmatic (it assumes that absence of evidence is evidence of absence), but most people seem to find it repulsive. Contrary to Flynn’s approach, a case could be made that SN makes atheism appear far more psychologically possible to supernaturalists due to its existential and aesthetic appeal.

Similarly, Flynn falsely characterized Spiritual Naturalists as those who cannot live without “woo-woo.” Here, he demonstrated a clear lack of understanding how Spiritual Naturalists actually think, as we are explicit about living without woo-woo. One could say it is this lack of woo-woo that makes SN distinct from other approaches to spirituality. Flynn also implied that only secular naturalists reach beyond this world, but Spiritual Naturalists don’t do that either.

V. Spirituality Pushes People Away from Naturalism
In my view, Flynn’s worst take is his assertion that naturalists shoot themselves in the foot when they use spiritual language. More specifically, he depicted a narrative alleging that spirituality has “squandered a chance to impress scientific naturalism on American culture.” He drew attention to the period between the end of World War II until the mid 1970s, when many expected some form of humanism to dominate the social order:

When we had the chance, we failed as ambassadors of materialism. Instead of making it unmistakable that our worldview rejected every shred of the transcendent, too many of us went on using a comforting archaic vocabulary full of non sequiturs like “the human spirit.” We made room for observers to indulge in the comforting thought that humanists, too, believed in something beyond the physical. We let our hearers nurture false hopes that committing to modernity and the scientific worldview would not demand the difficult, often painful work of setting aside all hope of a realm beyond.

This is a recognizably dogmatic claim. What evidence conclusively links linguistic ambiguity with our failed attempts to impress naturalism on American culture? As far as I’ve looked, no such evidence seems to exist. Flynn also failed to account for the possibility that there could be many other sociopolitical and psychological factors at play. It seems in this case, Flynn was pulling a perceived causal connection out of thin air.

In further support of his assertion, Flynn looked to the LGBTQ+ movement. He pointed to its history, noting how the movement was unsuccessful when it first focused on how members of the gay community were just like everybody else. Because the movement later found mainstream acceptance when they started emphasizing their differences, Flynn concluded that skeptics should do the same. Is this a truly practical or realistic goal for skeptical activists though? Sure, the LGBTQ+ movement stressed their differences, but they did so in ways that were fun, lively, and far from colorless. We see this today in pride parades and drag shows, which are now quite popular among straight, cisgender people.

With sympathy to Flynn, I can understand that we should at the very least emphasize that we are naturalists, but why do it in a cold, dry, colorless fashion? Bewilderingly, Flynn thought that we actually communicate that naturalism is cold and arid when we say we’re spiritual. Why would anyone ever think this though? Flynn also contradicted himself by admitting that his approach risked alienating allies, calling it a “valid concern.” Despite this though, he went on to posit that there are “far-greater benefits we can seize when we model speaking, writing, and living wholly without “the spirit.” What benefits exactly? Flynn didn’t seem to provide any, other than his speculative claim that abandoning spirit talk will somehow strengthen naturalism, Even more ironically, Flynn seemed to subtly acknowledge the pragmatic uses of spirit talk. In particular, he pointed to the notable biologist and ecologist E.O. Wilson, who used spiritual language to get a green message to religious believers. He remarked that “Wilson has made a tremendous contribution towards countering that kind of anti environmental attitude within the churches. And he has done that with some language that’s very appropriate for that audience.” Flynn pivoted to adding that “you don’t need to be spiritual to love the planet,” and that it’s important that this should be expressed too. I agree, but if it’s “very appropriate” to use spiritual language when communicating with a religious audience, then why should we abandon spiritual language? If anything, it almost seems like Flynn was making a pragmatic argument in favor of spiritual language here.

In addition to Wilson, Flynn also criticized Carl Sagan’s use of spiritual language, adding “I’d conclude that if not even a famous scientist could dispense with spiritual security blankets, maybe the apologists were right.” Here, Flynn didn’t seem at all to consider Sagan’s impact, or the fact that he is widely considered to be the greatest science communicator of all time. Would such acclaim be attributed to a scientist who led people to religious apologetics? Probably not. It might have been better for Flynn to have asked what it was about Sagan that made him so successful. Certainly, it wasn’t nihilism, but we can see that many resonated with Sagan’s use of spiritual language to articulate the majesty of the universe revealed by science. Is there any benefit to embracing nihilism then? Steinhart recounts seeing atheists losing the public battle for people’s hearts and minds, adding that while it’s not fair to stereotype atheists as negative and nihilistic (Steinhart himself is an atheist), he saw many as coming off that way.

He expresses the need for there to be positive cultural alternatives to the false dichotomy often posed between theism and nihilism. Though Steinhart concedes that the nihilistic atheist can defend themselves intellectually, he observes that they’ve got nothing to offer, jokingly adding that “the Pastafarians have more to offer than you do.” He further expresses the challenges of nihilistic atheism, calling it “lazy atheism” and “a disaster for atheism.” Why a disaster? Because people generally don’t want to socialize with people who come across as nihilistic. Steinhart adds that such atheists aren’t going to form a group, nor will they be able to mobilize voters and change policy. At the very most, they can argue with people on the internet and go to skeptics conferences, and as far as Steinhart can tell, this has been a strategy of failure and defeat.

Perhaps it's time then for skeptical activists to consider an alternative perspective: that spiritual language might actually help bridge the gap between naturalists and supernaturalists, making naturalism more accessible to a larger audience. After all, words are social tools, and rigidly purging terms associated with past beliefs could alienate those leaving traditional religions. It seems too that spiritual language adds an existential and aesthetic appeal to naturalism, which could increase its appeal. Sagan seemed to have understood this when he declared, “The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”

Lastly, if I haven’t convinced the reader of the pragmatic uses of spiritual language yet, I offer this challenge: instead of undermining the attempts of Spiritual Naturalists to make naturalism more accessible, show me that you can build naturalistic cultures that are meaningful and aesthetically attractive. Show me that you can do this better than any Spiritual Naturalist tradition has ever done, and I will immediately drop spirit-talk from my vocabulary.

VI. Spirituality Leads to Discrimination Against Nonspiritual Patients
Contrary to his previous take, Flynn’s best take was his worry that nonspiritual patients might be deprived of human connection in healthcare settings. He indicated that because for nurses, spirituality often encompasses the entire “human” side of their practice, they might misunderstand nonspiritual patients as “hyper-rational emotional basket cases” who disdain human warmth and resonance, and like it that way. Quite understandably then, he expressed worry that there may have been humanists and atheists that have suffered alone in their hospital beds. I find myself sympathetic to Flynn’s concerns. In my view, the most spiritual response is to acknowledge that secular patients shouldn’t be barred from touch, comfort, and support. This doesn’t entail however, that skeptics should abandon spirituality. Indeed it is not spirituality that precipitates discrimination against nonspiritual patients, but a lack of understanding how they articulate their human needs.

Conclusion
Despite his attempts to depart from supernaturalism, Tom Flynn didn’t escape its shadows. He believed in several theistic dogmas, particularly in the way Christians define meaningful terms, and in the authority of supernaturalists over certain cultural symbols and aesthetics. Yet, Flynn has done a great service for naturalism, and even for SN. Chiefly, he’s provided the best critiques of Spiritual Naturalism as of yet, and this helps us a great deal with honing and refining the ways we can talk about it.

Ultimately, engaging with Flynn’s polemic helps us clarify our uses of spiritual language, avoid the complications that arise from it, and embrace the benefits that come with its use. Through Flynn’s contributions to naturalism, we learn of the many pragmatic uses of spirit-talk; that it can not only promote practices that appear to support human flourishing, but that it may be exactly what naturalism needs to win over people’s hearts and minds. Only time will tell though, and I welcome further discussion on this matter.

__________
Learn about Membership in the Spiritual Naturalist Society

The Spiritual Naturalist Society works to spread awareness of spiritual naturalism as a way of life, develop its thought and practice, and help bring together like-minded practitioners in fellowship.

SNS strives to include diverse voices within the spectrum of naturalistic spirituality. Authors will vary in their opinions, terms, and outlook. The views of no single author therefore necessarily reflect those of all Spiritual Naturalists or of SNS.
__________

Notes:
1 Forrest is no longer a naturalist and has since criticized naturalism. I will continue to refer to his prior
works in the past tense however (in addition to the late thinkers mentioned in this article), as they have
had an influence within the Spiritual Naturalist community.

References:
DiBernardo, S. (2000). The Skeptic Way as a Religious Way: A Meditation on Religion and Pyrrhonian Spirituality (dissertation). The Skeptic way as a religious way: A meditation on religion and Pyrrhonian spirituality. SURFACE.
Edvenson, M. (2020, October 23). Should Atheists Worship the Sun? | Dr. Eric Steinhart on Religious Naturalism & Spirituality. YouTube.
Flynn, T. (2002, Summer). When words won’t die. Free Inquiry, 22(3), 50–51.
Flynn, T. (2009). Taken in the wrong spirit. Free Inquiry, 29(3).
Flynn, T. (2012a). Excrement eventuates! Free Inquiry, 32(2).
Flynn, T. (2012b). Rebuking the foul spirit. Free Inquiry, 32(6).
Forrest, J. N. (2017). Spiritual Naturalism: Spirituality Within the Bounds of Science. Spiritual Naturalist Press.
Mattocks, J. (2014, August 28). Atheism and the “S” Word. The Spiritual Naturalist Society. https://www.snsociety.org/atheism-and-the-s-word-2/
Mooney, C. (2011, March 14). Spirituality: Friend or Foe? – Adam Frank and Tom Flynn. Point of Inquiry. https://pointofinquiry.org/2011/03/spirituality_friend_or_foe_adam_frank_and_tom_flynn/
Norman, A. (2012). Spirited naturalism: a heretical manifesto. Free Inquiry, 32(6).
Sagan, C. (2011). The Demon-Haunted World. Random House Publishing Group.
Schenk, T. (2023, April 22). Is Spiritual Naturalism an Oxymoron?. The Spiritual Naturalist Society. https://www.snsociety.org/is-spiritual-naturalism-an-oxymoron/
Steinhart, E. (2020). Believing in Dawkins: The New Spiritual Atheism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Steinhart, E. (2023). Atheistic Platonism: A Manifesto. Palgrave Macmillan.
Vision Statement. The Spiritual Naturalist Society. (2019, September 4). https://www.snsociety.org/about-sns/vision-statement/