I'm troubled by the way the term "spirituality" is thrown around.
The word "god" (I don't capitalize on purpose) means different things to different people. At the extreme end of things, you could be a devoted Muslim or Christian. Closer to the middle you would be Buddhist. Somewhere on the continuum you might be Hindu (and then god would be plural).
About a century ago, I would describe god like this:
We knew almost nothing, and everything was tied to tradition and superstition.
We were frightened of the things we didn't know, and created stories to fill the gap. The stories provided answers - and continued to provide answers until science started to eat away at the questions themselves.
The way I would describe things today are more like this:
Science has provided answers to almost every question we've had. Sure, there are some we may never know (but science has even provided an answer to that as well. It's called "I don't know").
I started this by saying that you're probably more of an atheist than you think - and here's the logic. This is derived from Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probabliliy (note that when I say "god", I mean any supernatural diety).
The word "god" (I don't capitalize on purpose) means different things to different people. At the extreme end of things, you could be a devoted Muslim or Christian. Closer to the middle you would be Buddhist. Somewhere on the continuum you might be Hindu (and then god would be plural).
About a century ago, I would describe god like this:
We knew almost nothing, and everything was tied to tradition and superstition.
We were frightened of the things we didn't know, and created stories to fill the gap. The stories provided answers - and continued to provide answers until science started to eat away at the questions themselves.
The way I would describe things today are more like this:
Science has provided answers to almost every question we've had. Sure, there are some we may never know (but science has even provided an answer to that as well. It's called "I don't know").
The Continuum
I started this by saying that you're probably more of an atheist than you think - and here's the logic. This is derived from Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probabliliy (note that when I say "god", I mean any supernatural diety).
- God exists. No doubt about it. He is involved in my life on a daily basis, answers our prayers, and there is a purpose behind everything. This is called theism.
- Strongly assume that god exists, but short of 100%.
- Lean towards god. More than 50%, but not very high.
- Absolutely impartial. The existence of god (theism) and the absence of god (atheism) have the same probability.
- Belief in god is lower than 50%, but well short of zero. Inclination is that he doesn't exist.
- A very low probability that god exists, but still short of zero. Live life with the assumption that he doesn't exist.
- Absolutely believe there is no god. This is called atheism.
I suspect that most of us fall somewhere between 3-6 on this scale. I'd probably consider myself a 6.99 - the reason being is that I cannot ever discount something absolutely. Science taught me that.
My Argument
The one question that's always plagued me is this:
We live our lives in a scientific world. Almost everything you do, every day, involves science. Your alarm clock. Your blender for the morning smoothie. Television and radio. Your car. The lights in the office where you work. Your smartphone. They all exist because of science.
And yet many of us, scientists and engineers included, put that belief in science on hold whenever it comes to god.
If your car failed to start 50% of the time, you would have no faith in the car. But we have faith in a god where the failure rate far exceeds 50%.
So why the incongruity?
Why do we base our lives on things that work (science), but when we don't understand something we run to the supernatural?
Our lives are based on proof. There is no proof that god exists. Nothing.