Should Atheists in Alcoholics Anonymous Use the Word “Spiritual”?

Within the atheist community, there is a debate regarding whether or not atheists should use the word “spiritual.” On the one side are atheists who think the word fills a linguistic gap and should be reclaimed. On the other side are those atheists who either find the word meaningless or who find the word irredeemably bound up with notions of souls, god(s) and other supernatural (i.e. nonexistent) phenomena.

The relevance to atheistic members of Alcoholics Anonymous should be apparent. The word “spirit” appears more than 220 times in the “Big Book” alone (not to mention the other AA Conference Approved literature) and can be heard ad infinitum during member shares in AA clubhouses and church basements from coast to coast.[1]

Any discussion of whether to jettison the word “spirit” necessarily requires clarity of the word’s meaning. The word “’spirit’ comes from the Latin spiritus, which in turn is a translation of the Greek pneuma, meaning ‘breath.’ Around the 13th century, the term became bound up with notions of immaterial souls, supernatural beings, ghosts, etc.”[2]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, spirit is defined as 1) an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms, 2) a supernatural being or essence, 3) temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated (i.e. in high spirits), 4) the immaterial, intelligent or sentient part of a person.[3]

Despite the fact that the origin of the word is secular, it is clear that three of the four forms of current usage (as defined by Merriam-Webster) have metaphysical or supernatural characteristics.

This essay will be broken into three parts. In the first part, while keeping the historical and current usages of “spirit” in mind, I’d like to present both sides of the debate by vocal atheists inside and outside the Twelve Step movement.

In Part II, I present a critique of the arguments and ultimately side with those atheists who advocate against using the term “spirit.”

In Part III, I look at the issue in terms of its relevance to recovering alcoholics. The most common usage of the word “spirit” in Alcoholics Anonymous is within the context of the “Spiritual Experience.” Given that I will advocate that atheistic members of AA abandon their usage of the term, I discuss a naturalistic interpretation of the poorly-worded “Spiritual Experience” and offer alternatives to the phrase.

As always, I am open to your comments and criticisms in the “Comments Section” below.

Part I – Common arguments for and against the use of the word “spiritual” by atheists

Marya Hornbacher, author of the insightful book Waiting: A Non-Believer’s Higher Power, uses the words “spirit” and “spiritual” throughout. Cognizant of the baggage conveyed by the conventional use of “spirit” and perhaps, of the aversion to which many atheists have of the word, she defines and defends her use of “spirit” in the Preface to her book.

She writes

Throughout this book, I use the words spirit and spiritual often, and that may seem strange when I state my own lack of belief in a Higher Power or God. And some days it seems strange to me as well, that I am so certain of an ineffable force within me and within all of us when I doubt the presence of a metaphysical power without. But really, it isn’t contradictory. I am not speaking of metaphysics. I am speaking of the thing in ourselves that stirs.

The origin of the word spirit is Greek. It means “breath.” That which stirs within, slows or quickens, goes deep or dies out. When I speak of spirit, I am not speaking of something related to or given by a force outside ourselves. I am speaking of the force that is ourselves. The experience of living in this world, bound by a body, space, and time, woven into the fabric of human history, human connection, and human life. This is the force that feels and thinks and gives us consciousness at all; it is our awareness of presence in the world. It is the deepest, most elemental, most integral part of who we are; it is who we are.

So when I speak of spirit, I’m speaking of something that frustratingly defies articulation, because we have few words for spiritual beyond those that refer back to a God. But not believing in a God is not opposed to a belief in an aspect of the self that can be called spiritual. Hornbacher is using the word “spirit” as shorthand for those parts of the human experience which defy articulation. [4]

There are many problems with Hornbacher’s explanation which I address in Part II of this essay. For now, I’ll simply comment that it was Hornbacher’s use of the word “spirit” throughout her book that led me to investigate arguments for and against using the word, as I find her explanation and usage problematic.

My opinion notwithstanding, by taking the opinion that there is a part of the human experience or human condition that can be defined as “spiritual”, Hornbacher finds herself in good company among the ranks of non-believers who support (or at least tolerate out of supposed necessity) the use of the word “spirit.”

Joining her on this side of the debate are atheists such as the late Christopher Hitchens, [5] who “believed that ‘spiritual’ was a term we could not do without,” and who “repeatedly plucked it from the mire of supernaturalism in which it has languished for nearly a thousand years.” [6]

Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation (among others), was in agreement with Hitchens, and argued that atheists must reclaim the word.

In a blog post titled “In Defense of ‘Spiritual,’” Harris wrote

We must reclaim good words and put them to good use—and this is what I intend to do with “spiritual.” I have no quarrel with Hitch’s general use of it to mean something like “beauty or significance that provokes awe,” but I believe that we can also use it in a narrower and, indeed, more transcendent sense. [7]

Harris’ central point is that the word spiritual is a word that we cannot do without.  It is a necessary word (with an unfortunate history) to discuss

the deliberate efforts some people make to overcome their feeling of separateness – through meditation, psychedelics, or other means of inducing non-ordinary states of consciousness. [7]

On the other side of the debate are atheists who reject the use of the word.

Matt Dillahunty, of the Atheist Community of Austin, asserts that the word has so many definitions that it is basically bereft of meaning. In an episode of The Atheist Experience, a public access television series advocating for “positive atheism,” Dillahunty made his position clear, saying

Spirituality… is a word I absolutely abhor. It doesn’t even tell me anything… [8]  I hate the word. I despise it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns… [9]

There’s nothing I do that I would label spiritual. Not only because I do not know what the hell the definition of the word is, but because I have words for the things that I do…

People keep using this word spiritual. And I am completely convinced that it is a nonsense word that they use to try to find some middle ground between being religious and non-religious. I think it is a misuse of language to use this ill-defined term in the hopes that other people won’t call you on it. And I’ll call you on it. I want to know what it means.[10]

I take Dillahunty’s point to be that, if you were to ask a thousand people what “spirit” or “spirituality” meant to them, you’d get a thousand different answers. The word is so ill defined and so ill understood, as to be ultimately meaningless.

Indeed, Dillahunty finds the use of the term to be intellectually lazy and a substitute for clear thinking.

Simplification is the hallmark of intelligence. And when you have this muddied term that doesn’t mean anything, it is lazy. It says ‘I really don’t want to think about this too hard. I really don’t want to investigate this too hard . I really don’t want to dig into why I think what I think. I just want to kinda go and enjoy it.’

Well that’s fine. Everybody is entitled to do that. But don’t pretend that you’re getting some kind of enlightenment from it then put a label on it that people should ‘oooh and awwww’ over it. It drives me crazy. [11]

I think Dillahunty makes two very important points. First, the word “spirit” is used by people in an attempt to find a middle ground between the religious and atheistic world views. This is especially prevalent in Alcoholics Anonymous where traditional religions are abandoned for the less dogmatic “spirituality.”

This attempt to maintain a belief in a higher power absent religion leads to the second important point, namely that the labeling of belief in some higher power as “spiritual” ultimately results in intellectual laziness. It provides cover to the believer so that they don’t have to think too hard about their own beliefs. They don’t have to define what they mean.

Yet, while the word is meaningless, it comes with supernatural baggage. This leads to the next objection, namely that because the word “spirit” is irredeemably bound up with supernatural phenomena, use of it by atheists gives others the wrong impression about our beliefs.

Consider the following quote by Albert Einstein:

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. [12]

Theists have seized upon this quote and others by the late, famous physicist, as evidence that Einstein believed in god(s). Yet, Einstein rejected a belief in god(s) as he made clear in a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind dated January 3, 1954:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. [13]

Even though Einstein was, at most, a deist (in the philosophical tradition of Spinoza), theists have misrepresented his statements to assert that he was a theist.

Tracie Harris, co-host with Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience, rejects the use of the word “spirit” for this very reason. She refuses to provide theists with “any more ridiculous ammo than they already think they have.”[14]

In a blog post entitled “What’s Wrong With the Term ‘Spiritual,’” she writes

I avoid borrowing their terminology whenever possible–when I’m aware and thoughtful enough to understand “There are theists who are going to misappropriate this term.” Why use language that has clear supernatural definitions if there are other terms I can use that do not invite unwanted, but very legitimate misunderstandings? [15]

Harris’ claim is that it is legitimate for believers to misunderstand atheists when we use terms like “spirit” that have been used for a millennia to denote the supernatural. The question is, should we try, like those advocates above, to take the word back and restore it to its Greco-Roman roots? Or should we, like Dillahunty and Harris argue, jettison the term?

In Part II of this essay, I critique the two positions more closely, ultimately siding with Dillahunty, et al.

What do you think? Is there another argument for or against the use of the word “spirit” that you’d like to discuss? Whose side are you on? Leave a comment below!

Notes:

[1] A cursory search of the Fourth Edition of the Big Book revealed 221 instances of various forms of “spirit,” such as “spiritual” or “Spirit of the Universe.”

[2] Sam Harris, “In Defense of ‘Spiritual,’” SamHarris.org, http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality, (accessed Nov. 25, 2012).

[3] Merriam Webster, M-W.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit, (accessed November 29, 2012).

[4] Marya Hornbacher, Waiting: A Nonbeliever’s Higher Power, (Center City: Hazelden, 2011), xiii – xiv. This is an incredibly useful book for non-believers who have problems with the religious language in the Twelve Steps.

[5] Hitchens, a major advocate of so-called “New Atheism,” was a British American author and journalist writing for The Nation, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, etc.. He also wrote the book God is Not Great.

[6] Sam Harris, “In Defense of ‘Spiritual,’” SamHarris.org, http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality, (accessed Nov. 25, 2012).

[7] Sam Harris, “In Defense of ‘Spiritual.’”

[8] Matt Dillahunty, The Atheist Experience, #574, “Religion, Buddhism & Spirituality,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9lubjT0yoE, (accessed Nov 26, 2012).

[9] Matt Dillahunty, The Atheist Experience, #661, “Islam’s tender nerves,” http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-661-islam-s-tender-nerves-3773017, (accessed Nov 28, 2012).

[10] Dillahunty, “Islam’s tender nerves.”

[11] Dillahunty, “Islam’s tender nerves.”

[12] Albert Einstein, Simple to Remember: Judaism Online, http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/, (accessed Nov. 26, 2012).

[13] Albert Einstein, About.com: Agnosticism / Atheism, http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm

[14] Tracie Harris, “What’s Wrong with the Term ‘Spiritual’?” The Atheist Experience Blog, http://www.atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-wrong-with-term-spiritual.html, (accessed Nov. 25, 2012).

[15] Harris, “What’s Wrong with the Term ‘Spiritual’?”