I just wish that people who think of things as spiritual would use something more eloquent and specific in their description of those things or experiences, like saying instead that they feel a sense of peace or derive great contentment of fulfillment from something, rather than place a religious connotation on their feelings.

@Eric_in_bham But, I for one, get a great sense of fulfillment, etc, from something as simple as completing an artwork, poem or seeing seeds I have planted sprout and become plants in my gardens.
I also get the same feelings when I hear that my nephew has achieved 'accolades' from his Teacher for rising above the 'milestones' of his educational processes.
I see NO religious/spiritual connections in any of those things.

I don't think it means you have to believe in actual "spirits," does it?

Eric_in_bham: Thank you. We will take from this post the idea of "believer but not practicing" as one of the meanings of "spiritual but not religious". We will also consider the ideas of "a sense of peace" and of "contentment of (or?) fulfillment from something".

If you want to join on the effort for the Third Definition, you can join the group: SPIRITUALITY: The Third Definition.

@Triphid I believe that what you are saying about having NO religious/spiritual connections, is precisely what Eric_in_bahm expressed toward the end of his second comment.

@Seeker3CO Oh for chrissake. A little excessive with the pedantry, there. You know what I meant.

@Shawno1972 who is this chis you refer to.....?

@Seeker3CO - The solution? Better jokes. Work on it some more.

I hear you. The thing is that, people already use it and they do so contrary to its original intended meaning. Now, it looks like the word was given the meaning related to religion and religious beliefs and related to the spirit and the soul; however, considering its etymology, that was not the original intended meaning either. So, again, since many people use it already, then we better establish a Third Definition to promote a clearer and more precise understanding and its more conscious use.

Indeed the definition should and will be tested against the real world usage. That is why the idea is to have a number of people contributing toward a good solid and inclusive definition. Thank you for your wishes of good luck, even though in the context of your response is more of a sarcastic nature. : ) But, no harm, no foul. However, I want to think that this is not a matter of luck but of intelligent deliberation and serious cooperative work.

And speaking of which, seriously, I would really appreciate if you could let me know what parts of the definition seem 'flowery' to you and why. And please, could you also confirm that by 'flowery' you mean "(of a style of speech or writing) full of elaborate or literary words and phrases"?

I created a group named: SPIRITUALITY: The Third Definition, in which you can contribute your ideas. Otherwise, please just answer to this post.

Thank you.

@Rodatheist As an agnostic Humanist trying to make sense of all shades and types of religion I find that I make the best satisfying progress in my thinking by taking forward into relious settings BASIC science processes [See my group on "Non Religious science teachers any age"] From my science teacher career I have learned, in the world where definitions are everything, that the true working defininition EVOLVES. When one definition appears not to work a pioneer scientst has to suggest another definition that encompasses both an old example and a completely new one. The perfect definition fits all possible existing definitions and all future ones.

I cannot see how spirituality will ever be defined scientifically - not an impossility but will it be to do with anything external to the human body or will it to be with the psychologocal flow of emotions based on the subjects previous experiences and beliefs within the subjects body?

My preferred attitude to sprituality is contained within Carl Sagan' photo elsewhere in this topic. So I do not think I will join the group. But I am not being sarcastic when I wish you luck because this genuinely needs fully talked out. In my opinion (not a fact note) it will go round in lots of circles and end up being destroyed by talking past any possiblity of agreement.

HOWEVER I will look at the group without joining and try to follow any progress. You might think of messaging me when you think there is exceptional progress . So once again good luck, I look forward to reading your group as you seem genuinely to think it very important. Each to their own methods.

True. I cannot take away the enigma if people want to be so, and for those whose purpose for using the word would be ruined, they are welcomed to use another term. The Third Definition is for those who want to use the term to convey something specific and clear about themselves.

Well, perhaps someone feeling that same awe that you have experienced would have an easier time referring to it as spiritual if the word had the Third Definition ascribed to it and such definition was of generalized use. So, if some were to use the adjective spiritual to describe themselves, I could ask "in what sense?" and if they refer to the Third Definition then I now I can relate to them. Otherwise, I would find a way to excuse myself from the conversation.

Actually, the dismissal of people calling themselves spiritual is as much a product of our willingness to think in black and white terms as it is a failure of the term to convey a clear message or meaning.

@Rodatheist I do not "dismiss" them, I never notice them at all

I hear you. That sounds precisely like the meanings that are right now in the dictionary for the word. But for those who do not refer to anything religious, but to some identification/connection with nature and a great feeling of belonging and admiration for the material universe and adherence to science and reason, for those, is that we want the Third Definition.

t1nick, perhaps you missed part of my explanation about this effort. I started with a proposed definition and I am asking for the input of all those interested so that a better definition can be elaborated and proposed. So, I can hardly say that it will end up being my definition, and I fail to see anything arrogant about it. Moreover, I never mentioned anything about demanding anyone to conform to this or any other definition. The idea is to create a definition that is acceptable to the many and that, through their acceptance and use, it becomes popular enough to get it into the dictionary. Does this clarify for you what this effort entails?

But WHAT exactly and precisely DOES this 'spirit' that you mention truly consist of, can it be detected and proven by empirically accepted means and measures OR is it just yet another hypothesis?

Count me in as a fool then. The only essence that I am completely satisfied with comes in cologne. And the only spirits contain alcohol. Of this I am 100% sure. I don't provaricate or hedge bets.

Nice, just charming of you to say so, Austin.......I am sure we all appreciate your sweeping & ridiculous, nasty ASSertion

@AnneWimsey Brutal and rude comment, I may be an ASS in your opinion but I am an open minded ASS in mine!

@Austin-Cambridge really? "Fools with closed minds"?

@AnneWimsey 100% was the message, your interpretation of that is yours, mine is that anyone who is absolute in their opinions has stopped searching for the truth, Catholics and the likes....

@Austin-Cambridge Anne, Anne, Anne! You know what you sound like, don't you? I won't say it; I'm asking you.

@Storm1752 I sound like smeobody who got gratuitously insulted, and all her compadres too.....

Thank you. Could you please clarify what do you mean by saying that this definition is circular? I do mean it since all opinions and points of view would be helpful in the integration of the Third Definition. And the idea is not to get it into wikipedia. The idea is to make it universal and useful enough that it becomes used by many many people and then get it into a formal dictionary.

Actually, that is an excellent idea, which did not escaped my mind. I think I took on getting a Third Definition because many people already use the word Spiritual. But coining another term does not sound bat at all.

Would you like to join our group: SPIRITUALITY: The Third Definition ?

We could then discuss alternatives and decide on the best way to proceed.

Thank you.

Lots do. Good for you BTW.

Excellent. in any case, if the Third Definition were to become officially a definition in the dictionary, it would not be for you to use if you don't want to, but it would be for you and all of us to better understand those who consider themselves spiritual but do not believe in the existence of a god or of a spirit or of a soul.

Well, for those who want to use the word in terms of their notion of god and the supernatural, they already have two definitions of the word at their disposal. The definition I am proposing, which in no way I want to be referred as to my definition, is one that I want many people to work on so as to come up with a solid definition that can be used by non-believers and not having to say "spiritual but not religious".

I will have to apologize for my ignorance. Who is Dr. Johnson?

@Rodatheist Samuel Johnson who compiled the first English dictionary published in 1755.

William, just not sure which definition you are talking about but that is because the computer separated your comment away from what you are talking about. Am I right that there is no one dictionary authority which says this definition is RIGHT above all others. Each just tries to help the reader understand but does not proclaim divine right. IMO it is better not to get too into one definition.
In my science teaching I used to enjoy illustrating the evolution of definitions . any scientist here should be able to trace the evolution of the definition of oxidation to one that does have no apparent connection to the substance oxygen, to which it was originally attacched

@Mcflewster Rodatheist proposed adding this third definition to dictionaries:

“Spirituality: A feeling of being in awe and harmony with the universe, including all processes of nature and all manifestations of life.”

I am all for it—that’s how I think of spirituality. If enough people requested it I’m thinking the dictionary people would feel obliged to comply. They could be requested to do their own survey to determine if such an additional definition is warranted.

You’ve gotten me interested in “oxidation”. I’m going to look that up right now.

Well, eventually, that is the idea. However, I believe that it first has to become more widely accepted and used by many, hopefully by writers or even in a movie (knowing how things are in our culture) so that when presented it can be considered as a serious definition. I started a group: SPIRITUAITY: The Third Definition, so that we can collectively come up with a solid and acceptable definition. The one I have is a start. Your participation in the group would be welcomed.

Pardon my ignorance. What is "the OP"?

If your meaning is that we are thinking that this will be an easy thing to do, then, no, we don't think this is easy. But difficulty should not be a deterrent.

And please don't frown at us if we don't use your suggestion of catnip. : )

@Rodatheist - Howdy! "OP" is Original Post, to differentiate my comment from other comments. Perhaps an anachronism in today's internet terms.

Certainly I wasn't suggesting ease, or even difficulty - I was suggesting it would be impossible!!

No offense was meant (or intended now), I just get mildly amused when someone posts a "consensus" proposal.

The UK government once asked the internet to name a new polar research vessel. The winner, by consensus was Boaty McBoatface. So, I try to keep a straight face. I really do.

No frowns on anyone. Some use the 'nip, some abuse the 'nip, some avoid the 'nip and world keeps turning. Non-judgmental cat doesn't judge.

@Bobby9 somebody wants to call themselves spiritual I don't care what the definition is, to me it matters not.

@Bobby9 and you misspelled perhaps