The definition for “spiritual,” from a philosophical point of view (you can look this up in a philosophical dictionary to confirm my statement) refers to nonmaterial human values such as beauty, goodness, love, truth, compassion, honesty, and of course holiness too.

I argue that you do not have to believe in something first in order to be spiritual. I am not using the term “spiritual” interchangeably with religion—I think this qualification is necessary. When children discover for the first time the stars in the sky and are amazed by it, they in fact have a spiritual experience. Their innate ability allows them to have this spiritual experience.

We’ve come a long way since ancient times, at least as far as science, technology, and quality of life go. But what about the quality of our beliefs? Have we become any more rational since Socrates? Are we any closer to truth, or at least believe more truth things than we used to?


Let’s look at the question whether or not any amount of argumentation could convince a really religious person to believe in God, or vice versa. Instead isn’t it the case that reason plays little role in the choice to believe? When talking to people who discuss their spiritual experiences and reasons for believing in God, does it feel like they think rationality and empirical evidence factor into their decision, how believing and believers effect the world, and whether life can be complete without some spiritual entity.