Are You Spiritual?

[Correa Neto]

During personal, face-to-face conversations I've been more than once described as "highly spiritual" or something like that (no alcoholic spirits involved in most of those times) by deists and theists. Usually they become surprised when they find out I'm an atheist. Some do not believe. My wife, for example, believes deep down I believe in some sort of god. I gave up trying to convince her I do not. I guess for many people, humanist values somehow equate with spirituality, religion, whatever. They can't imagine ethics, for example, without a god-like source.

Guess what? I no longer care too much if they call me "spiritual" or not. Good fellow is enough.

 

[Tricky]

I usually decline to use the word "spiritual" simply because there is no clear definition of what it means, any more than there is for "spirit", other than the chemical one. So many things that people describe as "spiritual" can be adequately described by other words. Empathic. Aware. Caring. Observant. As a scientist who is deeply concerned with ecology, I think I am at least as aware of the "interconnectedness" of things as most people.

That said, I sometimes call myself "spiritual" when I meet someone with whom I don't wish to argue about religion. To me, it's a lie, but from what some folks say, including some here, it is an accurate description. I prefer more precision if we're getting down to brass tacks.

 

[Navigator]

I usually decline to use the word "spiritual" simply because there is no clear definition of what it means, any more than there is for "spirit", other than the chemical one. So many things that people describe as "spiritual" can be adequately described by other words. Empathic. Aware. Caring. Observant. As a scientist who is deeply concerned with ecology, I think I am at least as aware of the "interconnectedness" of things as most people.

That said, I sometimes call myself "spiritual" when I meet someone with whom I don't wish to argue about religion. To me, it's a lie, but from what some folks say, including some here, it is an accurate description. I prefer more precision if we're getting down to brass tacks.

Then what is it to be called that can be agreed upon?

 

[fishbob]

I'll drink to that!

Me too.

- - - -

I was up in one of the villages unloading a DC6 - one of the antique airplanes that keep remote Alaska supplied with just about everything. Four of the local kids were hanging around watching. After we got all our stuff unloaded, the pilot asked the kids if they wanted a look around (airport security is not quite the same out in the villages). He helped them climb the ladder, toured them through the cargo bay, let them sit in the pilot and co-pilot seats, showed them the instruments - about a 10 minute tour in all. When they were climbing down the ladder, one of the kids looked at me and said "that was so COOL".

That kind of sense of wonder, I still get that sometimes. Does that count?

 

[gentlehorse]

I'm so spiritual I could just ****.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm atheist (specifically; transtheist or apatheist) and spiritual.
However, in my view, everyone is spiritual in some way.
For some folks, their spirituality is religious; for others, it is not.

Here's my definition of spirituality:
A set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.

A rock concert can be spiritual, so can skydiving, getting married or divorced, looking through a telescope, accomplishing a major milestone in some pursuit, etc...

Objects can be spiritual as well rather easily. Things handed down paternally or maternally through families are spiritual items, a random rock from a beach can be spiritual due to the token of the time at the beach if that experience was remarkable in a sacred way of some kind, etc...


Spirituality is mostly about reverence and the reflections caused by the interaction with revering the given thing, and humans are capable of doing this with pretty much anything in the world.


Religion, on the other hand, is a very organized set of parameters designed to provoke a specific reverential outlook (ontology) through a tool set of methodologies (or ways of thinking), philosophies, moralities, allegories and narratives that are given a tangible experiential representation through religious practices (which differ between religions: prayers, meditations, worship services/sessions/rituals, sigils, etc...) and representative symbols.


Everyone is spiritual in some manner, but that doesn't mean they are religious.
Allot of people state, "spiritual but not religious", but are actually religious. They are, instead, religiously independent - meaning that they do indeed follow a religious construct, but one they have built themselves and not an instituted and organized religion.


Because of the nature of reverence, and the evocative relationship religion has with it; the term of spirituality is very confused and subjective in its use.


I have listed how I see it in this post, but many others will not recognize this as spirituality, and go on to offer vastly different terms tied to concepts of their reverence.
To me, this makes sense. For the individual, I would not expect things without reverence to be recognized as spiritual, and so if the concepts outlined in a proposition to the identified label do not include concepts with which they have reverential response to, then I cannot expect such individuals to accept this description.

Equally, if individuals hold spirituality to be an equal to religion, then I cannot expect them to see spirituality as an inherently secular independent human expression of reverence and evocation thereof that can be attached to a religious paradigm, but is not required to exist as a human expression and experience.

 

[Dissolution]

I think it's a pretty pointless word. It doesn't seem to mean the same thing to any two individuals, so what use does it have?

 

[Navigator]

Me too.

- - - -

I was up in one of the villages unloading a DC6 - one of the antique airplanes that keep remote Alaska supplied with just about everything. Four of the local kids were hanging around watching. After we got all our stuff unloaded, the pilot asked the kids if they wanted a look around (airport security is not quite the same out in the villages). He helped them climb the ladder, toured them through the cargo bay, let them sit in the pilot and co-pilot seats, showed them the instruments - about a 10 minute tour in all. When they were climbing down the ladder, one of the kids looked at me and said "that was so COOL".

That kind of sense of wonder, I still get that sometimes. Does that count?

I think so. I think the nurturing of AWE (that emotion and the ripple effect of that emotion) inspires the Human Consciousness in ways which can benefit the Human Being, even collectively.

EDIT: And by default, every other 'being' on the planet, and the planet too.

If you haven't already heard, their is a person called Jason Silva who speaks about Awe in his short video 'snapshots' as he calls them (I think) - or 'snaps of awe' - anyway check him out if you want to - he is on you-tube.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I usually decline to use the word "spiritual" simply because there is no clear definition of what it means, any more than there is for "spirit", other than the chemical one. So many things that people describe as "spiritual" can be adequately described by other words. Empathic. Aware. Caring. Observant. As a scientist who is deeply concerned with ecology, I think I am at least as aware of the "interconnectedness" of things as most people.

That said, I sometimes call myself "spiritual" when I meet someone with whom I don't wish to argue about religion. To me, it's a lie, but from what some folks say, including some here, it is an accurate description. I prefer more precision if we're getting down to brass tacks.

It sounds like you believe in people and the good they can accomplish.

As an agnostic-atheist, I don't feel the need to decline the use of any word with possible religious connotations. I'll still use blasphemous expletives when I get angry or stub my toe; it's not like there are any gods I'll offend. I don't mind use of the holiday greeting, "Merry Christmas," since I believe Christmas should be for everyone, not just Christians. So I'll use the word "spiritual" to describe myself at times, despite not believing in anything supernatural, because it encompasses the same range of emotions and human experiences as when others use it. I might not share their religious beliefs, but are we really referring to anything all that different?

 

[Navigator]

I'm atheist (specifically; transtheist or apatheist) and spiritual.
However, in my view, everyone is spiritual in some way.
For some folks, their spirituality is religious; for others, it is not.

Here's my definition of spirituality:
A set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.

A rock concert can be spiritual, so can skydiving, getting married or divorced, looking through a telescope, accomplishing a major milestone in some pursuit, etc...

Objects can be spiritual as well rather easily. Things handed down paternally or maternally through families are spiritual items, a random rock from a beach can be spiritual due to the token of the time at the beach if that experience was remarkable in a sacred way of some kind, etc...


Spirituality is mostly about reverence and the reflections caused by the interaction with revering the given thing, and humans are capable of doing this with pretty much anything in the world.


Religion, on the other hand, is a very organized set of parameters designed to provoke a specific reverential outlook (ontology) through a tool set of methodologies (or ways of thinking), philosophies, moralities, allegories and narratives that are given a tangible experiential representation through religious practices (which differ between religions: prayers, meditations, worship services/sessions/rituals, sigils, etc...) and representative symbols.


Everyone is spiritual in some manner, but that doesn't mean they are religious.
Allot of people state, "spiritual but not religious", but are actually religious. They are, instead, religiously independent - meaning that they do indeed follow a religious construct, but one they have built themselves and not an instituted and organized religion.


Because of the nature of reverence, and the evocative relationship religion has with it; the term of spirituality is very confused and subjective in its use.


I have listed how I see it in this post, but many others will not recognize this as spirituality, and go on to offer vastly different terms tied to concepts of their reverence.
To me, this makes sense. For the individual, I would not expect things without reverence to be recognized as spiritual, and so if the concepts outlined in a proposition to the identified label do not include concepts with which they have reverential response to, then I cannot expect such individuals to accept this description.

Equally, if individuals hold spirituality to be an equal to religion, then I cannot expect them to see spirituality as an inherently secular independent human expression of reverence and evocation thereof that can be attached to a religious paradigm, but is not required to exist as a human expression and experience.

Maybe then, spirituality is a process designed to fill in the gaps in the mean time until something more substantial comes along?
Maybe Religion and spiritual being close cousins are reflective of this gradual change of mode - The cross on the alter becomes the beach stone on the mantelpiece...the item replaced but the sentiment the same-ish.

In all instances it is reflection of an aspect of Consciousness while it seeks to sort itself out and come up with a better idea of what it is.

There is a religious and spiritual saying called 'awakening' and these things are reflective of Consciousness in both the individual and the species 'waking up to itself' and at present what can be observed in the species - especially the Human species - is a kind of 'the alarm has gone off, am up and about, flick the kettle on, have a pee stage...not quite awake but no longer simply sleeping.

So vague half sleepy mumbling (spirituality) will suffice as the stirring sounds of awakening...and will dissipate as they are replaced with something more real for Consciousness to attend to.

 

[JaysonR]

Maybe then, spirituality is a process designed to fill in the gaps in the mean time until something more substantial comes along?
Maybe Religion and spiritual being close cousins are reflective of this gradual change of mode - The cross on the alter becomes the beach stone on the mantelpiece...the item replaced but the sentiment the same-ish.

In all instances it is reflection of an aspect of Consciousness while it seeks to sort itself out and come up with a better idea of what it is.

There is a religious and spiritual saying called 'awakening' and these things are reflective of Consciousness in both the individual and the species 'waking up to itself' and at present what can be observed in the species - especially the Human species - is a kind of 'the alarm has gone off, am up and about, flick the kettle on, have a pee stage...not quite awake but no longer simply sleeping.

So vague half sleepy mumbling (spirituality) will suffice as the stirring sounds of awakening...and will dissipate as they are replaced with something more real for Consciousness to attend to.

This is an aspect of the behavioral function, absolutely.
I wouldn't consider it to be the totality of it, but it is a strong aspect of it; quite possibly one of the primary functions.

Spirituality is heavily rooted in subconscious emotions, and the evocation and manipulation of them through various levers.
Spirituality can be thought of like self-psychology, where it's primary function is to give a tangible association to intangible sensations subjectively experienced.

The metaphor I often use is the behavior of tasting something that is familiar, but unknown, and seeking to identify it.
The brain does a similar operation in both experiences; however, with ontology, the subject is considerably more complicated and related to and with, so the expression of "finding it" is much more dramatic than what we see in "finding the taste".

Religion is an enterprise to identify what the familiarity of existing is; that is: it attempts to satisfy the cognition by supplying an articulation that proposes to match the spiritual sense of how existing feels to an individual.

This becomes a bit of a tautology of sorts in that religion then also prescribes experiential interactions with existing that are supposed to collectively evoke a certain sense of how existing feels.

Somewhat like giving labels to unknown tastes, and then giving experiences of unknown tastes that fit the labels of unknown tastes.

As such, religious views can be seen by the adherents as true, while self-referring for their proofs by non-adherents.


Spirituality, on the other hand, doesn't demand any of these actions to be taken.
It's just the emotional impulse from existing; in my view, a byproduct of our neurological method of processing information with our capacity for association and identity. One that can be used effectively, or ineffectively.


My personal conjecture is that religion most likely arose in humans as a means of unifying a sensual understanding of existence and existing within a culture because unification, for most of our early history, was considered a strength and not a weakness (probably because that would be the case very early on; unlike now, where diversity is becoming more in demand than unification).

 

[Pup]

When people say they're "spiritual," the implication seems to be that one should strive to be included in that category, even if the definition of "spiritual" needs to be stretched to fit various atheist non-paranormal philosophies.

Why? Why not just accept the usual paranormal/religious definition and say, "no, I'm not spiritual," if you're not? That's what I do.

If someone asked "are you superstitious?" most people wouldn't try to stretch the meaning so they could claim to be superstitious, even if they never carried a lucky charm or tried to control the outcome of something with a lucky ritual. If a person doesn't consider themselves superstitious by the classic definition, they just say so, with no embarrassment or weasling around or shame.

I see "spiritual" the same way.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I think it's a pretty pointless word. It doesn't seem to mean the same thing to any two individuals, so what use does it have?

FFor those who think that atheists are to be pitied in some way because they do not understand or know God, and who wish to attach to themselves some sort of extra-specialness, however unconsciously this is done, the word 'spiritual' seems to provide just the word to define the extra something they think they have. I'm afraid that sounds a bit woolly too!

fishbob and JaysonR say it better.

 

[Puppycow]

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
― Carl Sagan

“A book is made from a tree. It is an assemblage of flat, flexible parts (still called "leaves") imprinted with dark pigmented squiggles. One glance at it and you hear the voice of another person, perhaps someone dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, the author is speaking, clearly and silently, inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time ― proof that humans can work magic.”
― Carl Sagan

“Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”
― Carl Sagan


“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”
― Carl Sagan

That sort of stuff is about as "spiritual" as I get.

I can feel a sense of awe at the enormity of the universe and the vastness of time, the beauty of music, art and nature. The intricacy and genius of the multitude of lifeforms evolved over eons by a naturally occurring process of evolution. Sometimes I contemplate these things and it fills me with a feeling that is almost like what I imagine a religious experience to be like.

If that counts as spiritual, then I'm spiritual. If not, I'm fine with that too. I don't go around describing myself as spiritual though, as that could be misinterpreted.

 

[Navigator]

This is an aspect of the behavioral function, absolutely.
I wouldn't consider it to be the totality of it, but it is a strong aspect of it; quite possibly one of the primary functions.

Spirituality is heavily rooted in subconscious emotions, and the evocation and manipulation of them through various levers.
Spirituality can be thought of like self-psychology, where it's primary function is to give a tangible association to intangible sensations subjectively experienced.

The metaphor I often use is the behavior of tasting something that is familiar, but unknown, and seeking to identify it.
The brain does a similar operation in both experiences; however, with ontology, the subject is considerably more complicated and related to and with, so the expression of "finding it" is much more dramatic than what we see in "finding the taste".

Religion is an enterprise to identify what the familiarity of existing is; that is: it attempts to satisfy the cognition by supplying an articulation that proposes to match the spiritual sense of how existing feels to an individual.

This becomes a bit of a tautology of sorts in that religion then also prescribes experiential interactions with existing that are supposed to collectively evoke a certain sense of how existing feels.

Somewhat like giving labels to unknown tastes, and then giving experiences of unknown tastes that fit the labels of unknown tastes.

As such, religious views can be seen by the adherents as true, while self-referring for their proofs by non-adherents.


Spirituality, on the other hand, doesn't demand any of these actions to be taken.
It's just the emotional impulse from existing; in my view, a byproduct of our neurological method of processing information with our capacity for association and identity. One that can be used effectively, or ineffectively.


My personal conjecture is that religion most likely arose in humans as a means of unifying a sensual understanding of existence and existing within a culture because unification, for most of our early history, was considered a strength and not a weakness (probably because that would be the case very early on; unlike now, where diversity is becoming more in demand than unification).

Either way it will eventually outgrow itself. The pretense of props (rituals etc) will be seen to be a relic of past ignorance and simply non necessary.

EDIT: The shift will be something more along the lines of being in awe as a participating aspect of Consciousness within the physical universe, (and the natural ripple effect which comes with this) rather than for the visualizing of some imagined afterlife situation or imagined god-concepts which presently prop things up. (for the self named spiritual who believe in and focus more on, over and above their dominant reality in this Physical Universe)

 

[fishbob]

I think so. I think the nurturing of AWE (that emotion and the ripple effect of that emotion) inspires the Human Consciousness in ways which can benefit the Human Being, even collectively.

EDIT: And by default, every other 'being' on the planet, and the planet too.

If you haven't already heard, their is a person called Jason Silva who speaks about Awe in his short video 'snapshots' as he calls them (I think) - or 'snaps of awe' - anyway check him out if you want to - he is on you-tube.

That's it - awe and wonder, stuff that makes kids describe it as "so cool".
If sprituality is supposed to mean anything beyond this, somebody has some major explaining to do.

 

[fishbob]

Religion is an enterprise to identify what the familiarity of existing is; that is: it attempts to satisfy the cognition by supplying an articulation that proposes to match the spiritual sense of how existing feels to an individual.

This becomes a bit of a tautology of sorts in that religion then also prescribes experiential interactions with existing that are supposed to collectively evoke a certain sense of how existing feels.

Somewhat like giving labels to unknown tastes, and then giving experiences of unknown tastes that fit the labels of unknown tastes.

As such, religious views can be seen by the adherents as true, while self-referring for their proofs by non-adherents.

Here is where my inner cynic comes out.
Your words with a few clarifications:
Religion is an enterprise that seeks to cash in on attempts to identify what the familiarity of existing is; it attempts to profit from claimig to satisfy the cognition by supplying an articulation that proposes to match the spiritual sense of how existing feels to an individual.

 

[asydhouse]

Either way it will eventually outgrow itself. The pretense of props (rituals etc) will be seen to be a relic of past ignorance and simply non necessary.

EDIT: The shift will be something more along the lines of being in awe as a participating aspect of Consciousness within the physical universe, (and the natural ripple effect which comes with this) rather than for the visualizing of some imagined afterlife situation or imagined god-concepts which presently prop things up. (for the self named spiritual who believe in and focus more on, over and above their dominant reality in this Physical Universe)

I like your way of approaching these ideas, Navigator.

The trouble with "spiritual" as a concept employed by the common people who use it: as the op says, it becomes a test of your nature, with the implication that you are "less evolved" as a human being if you can't "feel the energy". In my youthful experience, when hanging around at Glastonbury Tor, for instance, people would look wonderingly at you and say "you can feel it! You can feel the energy", no doubt referring to the mysterious earth energy they think runs along the leylines (a concept related to the meridians claimed by acupuncturists for the human body).

Being quite young at the time, I did feel lacking, as I couldn't find in my consciousness this apparently physical sort of sensation of "the energy", and was forced to think of myself as of a faulty or inferior make up.

I've no idea if these people had recently been taking acid, and therefore were tripping on the afterglow and ascribing it to the expectations they had of the mystical holy site of Glastonbury, or whether they were play acting.

The same with my experiences of spiritualists and Mormons. My parents took me to a mormon church when I was 14 (we had had no religion prior to this, so all such thoughts had been nonexistent, I had been totally unaware of religion prior to this) and the president of the branch described me to my father and me as being "very spiritual"... the implication being that the holy spirit had touched me or something. Having no investment in such concepts, I took that as being a bit of bs from him to suck up to my Dad. It worked! Parents converted, I went along, but within two years got myself out of it, after seeing everyone concerned claiming to "know" the church was true etc, through having answers to their prayers. The social pressure was quite intense, but as I'd never had an answer to my prayers asking if the church was true, I couldn't say I had. Made it easy to leave, for me. But for those who claimed to have received such an answer, it would be difficult to turn around and say,"You know what? I don't know after all."

As a decided (as opposed to my early life natural) atheist, having dabbled in that way with both religious and hippy "spirituality", when a member of a spiritualist church looked into my eyes and said "you are a very spiritual person" and invited me to attend his spiritualist church (I was standing in the porch of the public library, and he walked up to me and volunteered this), I had a flashback to the mormon trying to butter me up. I just shrugged him off. I think he was disappointed.

I do find the whole thing an irritation and an imposition. I'm really quite in sympathy with the op. As others have said, since the word is used commonly to imply some sort of ghostly ESP like experience, I think talking of consciousness would be a better rejoinder than trying to usurp the term "spiritual" to refer to "human spirit" as in "spunk" (in the American sense) or poetry, or what have you.

 

[Navigator]

I like your way of approaching these ideas, Navigator.

Thanks asydhouse. It feels good doing it. I guess that's as good a reason as any for the approach but there is a long story regarding the journey from 'feeling not so good' and hard knocks besides, but I am confident that a lot of individuals can say the same.

The trouble with "spiritual" as a concept employed by the common people who use it: as the op says, it becomes a test of your nature, with the implication that you are "less evolved" as a human being if you can't "feel the energy". In my youthful experience, when hanging around at Glastonbury Tor, for instance, people would look wonderingly at you and say "you can feel it! You can feel the energy", no doubt referring to the mysterious earth energy they think runs along the leylines (a concept related to the meridians claimed by acupuncturists for the human body).

Being quite young at the time, I did feel lacking, as I couldn't find in my consciousness this apparently physical sort of sensation of "the energy", and was forced to think of myself as of a faulty or inferior make up.

I've no idea if these people had recently been taking acid, and therefore were tripping on the afterglow and ascribing it to the expectations they had of the mystical holy site of Glastonbury, or whether they were play acting.

The same with my experiences of spiritualists and Mormons. My parents took me to a mormon church when I was 14 (we had had no religion prior to this, so all such thoughts had been nonexistent, I had been totally unaware of religion prior to this) and the president of the branch described me to my father and me as being "very spiritual"... the implication being that the holy spirit had touched me or something. Having no investment in such concepts, I took that as being a bit of bs from him to suck up to my Dad. It worked! Parents converted, I went along, but within two years got myself out of it, after seeing everyone concerned claiming to "know" the church was true etc, through having answers to their prayers. The social pressure was quite intense, but as I'd never had an answer to my prayers asking if the church was true, I couldn't say I had. Made it easy to leave, for me. But for those who claimed to have received such an answer, it would be difficult to turn around and say,"You know what? I don't know after all."

As a decided (as opposed to my early life natural) atheist, having dabbled in that way with both religious and hippy "spirituality", when a member of a spiritualist church looked into my eyes and said "you are a very spiritual person" and invited me to attend his spiritualist church (I was standing in the porch of the public library, and he walked up to me and volunteered this), I had a flashback to the mormon trying to butter me up. I just shrugged him off. I think he was disappointed.

I do find the whole thing an irritation and an imposition. I'm really quite in sympathy with the op. As others have said, since the word is used commonly to imply some sort of ghostly ESP like experience, I think talking of consciousness would be a better rejoinder than trying to usurp the term "spiritual" to refer to "human spirit" as in "spunk" (in the American sense) or poetry, or what have you.

Yes - can you imagine someone trying to attract you through the use of personal compliment that you are "Very Conscious" or "Full of Consciousness"?
It wouldn't have the same desired impact, and would sound too strange.
But it would be more truthful and easily identifiable with.
It would also be a potentially better tool for getting us all on the same page than religion or spirituality.

Consciousness is not mundane although situations can be and can influence how we think and react - often because we are not fully Conscious of how our emotions are allowed to sometime 'rule the roost' - but spirituality is regarded by many as a superior state of being to be in but how can that be?

It is an expression of fantasy. Something the unaware/not so awake Consciousness falls for in its search for identity, but what is wrong with identifying simply with Consciousness and leaving all the sub-titles behind?

Consciousness is provable, is obviously evolving, but it doesn't have to dress itself up in order to impress. What is it impressing anyway - aspects of itself, which are also playing dress-ups?

It is seriously funny.

Call it what it is, drop the labels and charades and lets get honest.

There is no need to think of 'spirituality' as something that was high-jacked by 'religion' and has to be rescued/reclaimed by the 'real spiritual' and waved like a banner in the wind.

 

[zeggman]

I think it's a pretty pointless word. It doesn't seem to mean the same thing to any two individuals, so what use does it have?

One might say the same of happy and sad, or agony and ecstasy.

I take it to mean things like "reflective," "thoughtful," and "reverent." It's useful to me. I don't mind that some people associate it with ghosts and souls, any more than I mind that some people associate the word "American" with shallow and obnoxious. If someone insists that they aren't spiritual, I won't argue with them. If they insist that I'm not, I still probably won't argue with them, but I'll continue to lay claim to the word.