John Kerry thinks atheists are “spiritual.”

Posted by Les on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 at 11:21 AM. Read 1618 times. Tags:
{name} pic

Now this is interesting. A New Zealand website called Deep Fried devoted to wind surfing caught up with Presidential hopeful John Kerry to discuss with him his passion for the sport. During the course of the interview Kerry talks about spirituality in relation to wind surfing and describes how he’s a Catholic himself and how he’s fascinated with learning more about how people of other religions and cultures view their spirituality when he springs the following comment out of left field:

I find that even - even atheists and agnostics wind up with some kind of spirituality, maybe begrudgingly acknowledging it here and there, but it’s there. I think it’s really intriguing.

Kerry then goes on to talk about China and how they don’t have a “theory of Creationism” (which isn’t entirely true in as much as Creationism isn’t a theory, but a myth) and he never really explains why it is he seems to think that atheists and agnostics would end up grudgingly acknowledging some form of spirituality. For that matter, it’s difficult to say just what he means by the word “spirituality,” though the interview seems to imply he’s suggesting some form of higher power.

The word “spiritual” often means different things to different people, but the common usage relates it to matters of the spirit or soul foremost as well as to the concept of gods and the supernatural. In a strictly definitive sense then I don’t know of any atheists, myself included, who could be considered spiritual or who acknowledge spirituality in the way that Kerry suggests.

If, however, you consider spirituality to be that sense of awe and reverence for some event or situation such as witnessing the awesome power of Niagara Falls or marveling over the birth of a child then atheists and agnostics are probably as spiritual as anyone else you know. The power of nature is amazing. The mind-bogglingly immense size of the universe is overwhelming. We’re as capable of appreciating these amazing things as the next person. The key difference being that we don’t think there’s some ultimate being working behind the curtains orchestrating everything.

I’m quite capable of getting wrapped up in all the emotion that can come from contemplating the wonders of reality. I’ve expressed such giddiness here and there on this blog often when talking about some cool new scientific discovery related to Cosmology, but even something as mundane as a good thunderstorm can get me going on occasion. I’ve been told by one of my friends who is very much a believer in a higher power that I was one of the most spiritual people she knows despite the fact that I’m an atheist.

So what should we make of Kerry’s comment? Not much in the long run as it’s just another example of a believer who has a hard time coming to grips with the idea of someone not believing in a supreme being. If I had a dime for every time someone tried to tell me that I know deep down in my heart that god really exists and that I just don’t want to admit it, well, I’d be a very wealthy man by now. I’ve gotten to the point where I pretty much expect that any more.

Comments:

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

GeekMom United States Posted on 03/17/2004 at 01:49 PM

GeekMom pic

Nicely said, Les.  Remember that article in Time or Newsweek way back when researchers said they could identify specific areas of the brain that showed activity when people had “religious” or “spiritual” experiences?  I know just what they were talking about; I can trigger that “feeling of awe and oneness with the universe” at will.  I think we’re all biologically capable of feeling it; you don’t need a particular belief system for it.

Spiritual?  Yeah, that’s a slippery word.  I’ve been known to hug a tree or two in my time.  Doesn’t mean I think it’s about to talk to me, though.

Kilgore Trout United States Posted on 03/17/2004 at 04:51 PM

Kilgore Trout pic

Well put, Les.  I’ve always thought of myself as a deeply spiritual person, despite being an atheist.

I think I’m going to start telling theists that I know that deep down inside, they really don’t believe in God.  We’ll see how they like it.

JethricOne United States Posted on 03/17/2004 at 05:19 PM

JethricOne pic

One comment to your post, Les. I think I’d have to say that while the “Theory of Creation” is based on a mythological story, it is ALSO a perfectly legitimate theory. It’s an explanation to explain a phenomena.

Certainly it’s a theory that is based on faith, rather than hard fact. It’s also a theory that many people do not accept. And of course, it’s a theory that different people believe to different extents (or maybe it’s a name for a group of related theories.) But it does offer an explanation to the question of why we’re all here, and some people accept it as the right answer.

(Personally, I’ve never seen any conflict between it and evolutionary theory. Something went *pop* and things moved around, and eventually the gasses became creatures who could debate their origins. Why not God as the catalyst for the process?)

As for the comment on spiritual atheists, I think your final comment is spot on...that his comment doesn’t mean much. If he is saying that atheists believe in things greater than themselves, then it’s an obvious comment not worth much dicussion. If he means that atheists all believe in God secretly, then he’s wrong and his comment isn’t worth much discussion. Either way…

Ron United States Posted on 03/17/2004 at 07:57 PM

Ron pic

Les,
As a poet with some license on discourse, I have addressed the dichotomy of spirituality within those seemingly not willing to acknowledge it. Among some verse are these shorter homilies:

Our brain is not who we are.
It’s function is to enjoin us
To a journey that points us
To our spirit.

There are never endings, only altered beginnings.
Neither problems, but solutions yet unfound.
Bitterness is the absence of understanding.
Move forward ... live life profound.

One must constantly
Be reanimated
To prevent evil
From taking lodging.

My heart chooses
My eventual path,
Not my mind.

All the best, my friend, throughout your search.

Brandi United States Posted on 03/17/2004 at 08:20 PM

Brandi pic

Les. I think I’d have to say that while the “Theory of Creation” is based on a mythological story, it is ALSO a perfectly legitimate theory. It’s an explanation to explain a phenomena.

It is not a perfectly legitimate theory, since it defies most of the laws of nature, and is in direct contradiction to things we know to be true with a good level of scientific certainty.

It’s no more valid that the Toothfairy Theory for explaining the quarter under my pillow.

Just pulling a story out of one’s ass to explain a phenomenon does not a legitimate theory make.

Paddington Canada Posted on 03/18/2004 at 01:19 AM

Paddington pic

Out of one’s ass?

Brandi United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 03:39 AM

Brandi pic

Yes, out of one’s ass...or bible or whatever. Or more specifically out of the ass of whoever dreamt that story up in the first place. Maybe Moses, maybe various writers, or a compilation. There’s nothing in the content OR the origin of the creation story that gives it an ounce of credence. Nothing.

Someone pulled it out of their ass long, long ago. And then it was probably mangled, morphed, and merged with other bullshit legends to eventually appear as it is in the Bible.

No one knows for sure. And it couldn’t matter any less.

ThaClown Netherlands Posted on 03/18/2004 at 04:38 AM

ThaClown pic

I agree Brandi,
In my (modest) opinion there is nothing legitimate about the Theory of Creation.
Ok I must admit I have not really read the bible in depth or did alot of research abouth faith, but I seem to realize that the more things in life we discover and understand the harder it is for people who believe in a godlike power or a theory of creation.
I really don’t understand how some faiths can sustain many of their views when mothern science proves it wrong.....

P.S. Les my compliments on this site I just recently found it and I really enjoy reading the articles… a very nice balance between humor and serious discussion…

Greeting,
Menno (from Holland)

Les United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 05:50 AM

Les pic

J1 is right that it’s a legitimate theory in the most generous definition of the word. I should have clarified my statement to say that it’s not a scientific theory, which it isn’t. From a science standpoint Creationism could be considered a hypothesis, but not a theory based on the lack of evidence outside of the Bible to support it.

That said, I agree with J1 in that I’ve never really understood why Christians have a problem with either the Big Bang theory or the theory of Evolution.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 07:41 AM

elwedriddsche pic

I’ve never really understood why Christians have a problem with either the Big Bang theory or the theory of Evolution.

Certain modern scientific theories strike at the heart of the Christian faith - the belief that the Christian god created the world. If a Christian starts to question that god created the world precisely as told by the Bible, he or she may next question the rest of the Christian dogma. In a nutshell, it’s a control issue.

If you can, watch the Penn & Teller episode of Bullshit: Creationism.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

JoshMan3D United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 01:08 PM

JoshMan3D pic

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the day that “God” supposedly created plants come before the sun and the moon were both established as astral bodies (I think it was the third and fourth day, I’m not quite sure)?  Even if people were to consider god as the starter of the “big bang”, and that the days of creation were to be stretched out into more of an abstraction of ages rather than the rising and setting of the sun, plants could never come before the creation of the sun - photosynthesis, duh.

And if you consider the first bacteria on earth to be plants, who were fueled by chemical reactions rather than photosynthesis, they were from the Kingdom Monera, and were not plants.

Creation is a story written before science, so that people could find an explanation of why we were here.  So if that’s not true, how can one even believe the REST of the stuff the Bible says?  Jeez, Lord of the Rings had less plot flaws than the Old and New Testaments.  Maybe the Bible should have gone with a single author instead.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 01:56 PM

elwedriddsche pic

Or to be terse: Because it makes their book all wrong.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

randall United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 03:10 PM

randall pic

joshman3D

i may be reading your post about creation wrong, but i think you are saying that plants could not have been created before the sun.  the light at the time was provided by God Himself.  He is light.  According to the bible, He is the only light in Heaven also.  (i know you may believe its all a myth, and thats fine.  i am not trying to prove creation to you or the existance of God, just saying your sun/plant theory can not refute creation.) ( nor am i saying mine proves it)

randall United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 03:20 PM

randall pic

i am sure some of you are aware of it, but there are some very interesting facts about creation/origin of our planet by a guy name Dr. Carl Baugh.

His stuff is actually much too scientific for me, but he kinda lays out the model of creation on his web-site.  http://www.creationevidence.org

I also have a set of his videos that i would loan out to a select FEW of you if you were interested. (not in an attempt to convert, but just providing info)

Les United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 04:02 PM

Les pic

God is made up of photons? Who woulda thunk it? Here’s a question, can God travel faster than himself? And if he can, does he experience the time dilation effect? Maybe God is a lot younger than the universe? Truly mind boggling!

i am sure some of you are aware of it, but there are some very interesting facts about creation/origin of our planet by a guy name Dr. Carl Baugh.

I’ve read some of his stuff. It’s almost as funny as some of “Dr.” Kent Hovind’s work. Almost.

His stuff is actually much too scientific for me, but he kinda lays out the model of creation on his web-site.

That comment actually made me laugh. Randall, give yourself some credit, man. Even I think you’re more than intelligent enough to at least understand this guy’s claims. Why you’d buy into them is another issue altogether.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

GeekMom United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 04:31 PM

GeekMom pic

God is a wave AND a particle.  That’s cool.

Spocko United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 05:38 PM

Spocko pic

“Dr” Baugh is a total nutjob (or just another scammer)…

ftp://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/degrees.htm

http://www.ntskeptics.org/2000/2000january/january2000.htm

As for spirituality - all I need is a little sun, a warm breeze, the smell of fresh cut grass, and I’m there! Spirituality is nothing more than another emotion.

VernR United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 06:05 PM

VernR pic

i am sure some of you are aware of it, but there are some very interesting facts about creation/origin of our planet by a guy name Dr. Carl Baugh.

Dr. Baugh is the dinosaur guy. Here is a blurb from Who Are The Creations “Scientists”? at Creation “Science” Debunked.

[list]Another small organization which gets some press occasionally is the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas. The Museum is run by the Rev Carl Baugh, who has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. The primary attractions of the Museum are the so-called “man tracks” from nearby Dinosaur Valley State Park, along the Paluxy River. According to the creationists, the state park contains dinosaur tracks alongside those of modern humans, proving that the two lived together. Baugh has also claimed to have found a fossil human tooth buried among the dinosaur bones. Ever since his major claims (including the footprints and the “human tooth") have been debunked, Baugh is viewed as somewhat of an oddball by the major creationist groups.[/list]

Ragman United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 06:06 PM

Ragman pic

God is a wave AND a particle.

The Holy Duality?  I thought it was supposed to be a Trinity… hmmm, maybe we’re still missing a piece?

randall United States Posted on 03/18/2004 at 09:48 PM

randall pic

to the gang…
thanks for commenting on carl baugh.  there are some creation christian types that dont believe him, but they wont really come out and bust him.  you cant really get anything from him either or those close to him.  i figured as much that you guys that have you game on would have come across him.  i think he is protected by the fact that he has a program on tbn and that he has done a series with the great kenneth copeland.

les i have not bought into them, i just think that some of his stuff is interesting.  i guess i am more interested in how if he is a nut job and a lot of his ideas are in error how he gets away with it.

heebob United States Posted on 03/24/2004 at 02:44 PM

heebob pic

Hi All…
Nice website Les!! Found it today...enjoyably entertaining. Funny how Kerry’s statement sparked a creational/evolutional debate on this forum.  Anyhow, I just wanted to add, with total sincerity, that it is extremely tragic that we as humans often confuse cynicism with having an open mind. Its so easy to ‘debunk’ any theology/philosophy by amplifying doubt and ignorance.  A ‘true’ open mind requires an acceptance of ALL options, followed by earnest effort to educate oneself about the issue/view/philosophy/etc.
Cynicism and ‘Open-Mindness” are in direct conflict, but so many of us do not know the difference; i.e. Brandi and The Clown(sorry guys..just trying to help). This attitude is dangerous because it breeds ingorance, intolerance, amd misinformation.  Most importantly, it robs the individual of opportunities for higher understanding and self improvement; things which all of us should strive for regardless of ‘spiritual beliefs’.
Having an ‘open mind’ is not easy.  It can be very painful and requires EFFORT.  That is why I believe so many of us are proffesional cynics...its the easy way out.  All you have to do is cast a shadow of doubt on something and then you dont have to actually THINK FOR YOURSELF. 
As an Environmental Scientist/Geolgist I can tell you that “Scientific Intellectualism” and the Bible jive quite well together depending on your interpretation.  The version we read(English)can differ significantly from the original texts in meaning due to transaltion and semantics.  For example, the name ADAM in Genesis is taken directly from the Hebrew word for MAN...meaning not one man, but ALL men.  The Hebrew word for day(yom) does not specifically denote a 24-hour solar period, but just some indetermined period of time.  Genesis also refers to other dimensions(at least 19)interacting with our own 4(space-time).  Also, keep in mind that ‘Science’ is just the accumulation of observable processes that we notice and have studied.  ‘Science’ was not aware of things such as gamma,x,uv-rays until recently(respectively), does that mean they did not exist 400 years ago?  Did we not have things(phenomena) outside of the visible light spectrum during the Revolutionary War?  Based on some people’s ‘intellectual’ reliance on science...I’m afraid to hear their answer.  Basically, what I’m saying is the science cannot and never will be able to disprove the existence of a intelligent designer or ‘religous’ documents.  So quit using “Science” as an excuse for a lazy or ill-equipped brain.  You have confused cynicism for an open mind.
Sorry to rant...this wasn’t directed at you Les.  I was just urked by some people making definitive claims without research or serious thought.

Les United States Posted on 03/24/2004 at 05:17 PM

Les pic

I’ll own up to my fair share of cynicism, but is that the same as being closed minded? I don’t think so. I’m willing to consider any claim you want to put forth, but if you can’t back that claim up with much beyond anecdotes then I’m going to let my cynicism kick in. In short, give me good reason to believe your claim and I’ll probably believe it.

There’s a common misconception that having an open mind = believing everything that has even the flimsiest of evidence. That’s not an open mind, that’s unending gullibility. Contrary to your assertion, being cynical isn’t merely an act of casting a shadow of a doubt and then writing off the subject nor is it equivalent to not thinking for yourself. I’m cynical because I do think for myself and end up being chastised repeatedly for coming to the conclusion of not accepting every ridiculous claim that’s presented to me.

With regards to your examples of Biblical interpretation all I can say is I’ve probably heard several hundred different ways of interpreting the Bible some of which are compatible with a scientific viewpoint and many that aren’t. The fact that it can be interpreted in a way that is more or less compatible with science isn’t really an argument in support of believing any of it as true. In fact, I would argue that all the different ways of interpreting the Bible is more of an argument against it than for it.

Yes, there are many things that science didn’t know about for hundreds of years. That are, as you say, relatively recent discoveries. That doesn’t mean we should blindly accept every claim presented before us without good reason to do so.

I agree that science will never be able to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, but then most definitions of an intelligent designer make him/her/it to be super-natural and thusly beyond science’s concern in the first place. By it’s very definition it is an unfalsifiable claim and science doesn’t deal in unfalsifiable claims. Again, however, that doesn’t mean we should believe in an intelligent designer without good reason to do so.

As for using science as an excuse for a lazy or ill-equipped brain… funny, I’ve said the same thing about religion.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

heebob United States Posted on 03/24/2004 at 07:49 PM

heebob pic

Dear Les…
Thanks for proving my point.

Les United States Posted on 03/24/2004 at 07:59 PM

Les pic

And you call cynics lazy and ill-equipped…

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 03/24/2004 at 08:15 PM

elwedriddsche pic

Les, prove your point he did.

I guess he’s not keeping an open mind, aye?

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main