Agnostic Mom

There is an on-going debate among secularists, regarding the use of the word, “spiritual.” Long ago, Israel abandoned efforts to vanquish it from my vocabulary. I insist the word is appropriate, even though I don’t believe in spirits.

Recently, my good friend, Larry Keim, posted an entry on his blog. (Hi, Larry!). He titled the entry, “I’m A Spiritual Person, . . .Really.” He gave more criticism of the secular use of the word. He wrote it right after I left a comment on his previous post, “Finding God On The Way To Work.” Since Larry moved his site, my comment is no longer present, but it contained the arguably appropriate word, “spiritual.” I now realize his post may have been a reaction to a bonehead he met at a party, who made the very statement, but I am taking it as a challenge, anyway.

Larry says that secularists should not use this word because, according to Dictionary.com, the definition of “spiritual” is:

“Adj.
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 relating to God; deific.
4 Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5 Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.”

I would agree, that according to the first, and last three definitions, the word “spiritual” is meaningless from a secular viewpoint. On the other hand, the word may be of great value in regard to the second definition, “Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.”

It would depend on the word “soul.” Using Larry’s same source, I went to Dictionary.com and found that three of the possible definitions of “soul” are:

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this network… may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin Kalb).
3. A person’s emotional or moral nature: “An actor is… often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not” (Alec Guinness).

I need to qualify definition number one: It says the soul is “often conceived as an immaterial entity.” This implies that it is also NOT always conceived as such.

As the Agnostic Mom, I declare that the word “spiritual” is an appropriate word. I define it as:

“Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul, which is the animated and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotions; also a person’s vital core, or moral nature.”

As the Agnostic Mom, I also declare that secularists should have as much interest in their spirituality as a religious person, as I believe it is vital to our well-being and happiness, God or no God.

So, in the “Keim ‘N’ Hyman” tradition of playful banter, I challenge you, Larry, to a “spiritual” debate! I welcome arguments from anyone else who thinks they have a strong case.