The word spirituality is so connected to religion faith myth and superstition. But there r the non believers the non religious and even atheists agnostics humanists who sometimes say they r non religious but spiritual. The word itself seems to be connected to spirit. Should atheists own this word and give it a deep and impacting meaning that resonates or should atheists just dump it?
I think their attiude toward spirit is misplaced. I can understand the term spirit not as an entity or agent of anything, but in the way it is used in the term Zeitgeist, translated Spirit of the Age. Approaching it observationally and not so much anything that engages us, but rather our take on phenomena and how we engage with events, corporeal and psychic, disregarding the preternatural, and our relationship to it, we can take up that type of definition. Pirsig writes about quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and I found it compelling stuff that helped bring me to my conclusion.
Pour a cuppa joe and spark one up. Enjoy.
Dump it. Whatever else it means, it implies "spirit", i.e., something supernatural. It also implies a "soul", something within humans which is not material.
Neither of these concepts is true or useful. If you want to explore human emotion and the nature of personality, then say so. Labeling things as "spiritual" just muddies the waters and perpetuates mythology.
I think the term has the connotation that a person is interested in exploring subjective human experience, and that those experiences are valuable to us as humans. It provides a corrective to the "Spock" (all logic and no emotion) atheism. As such, I think it is a term that needs to be kept. Not all of us want to be Spock. Some of us want to be Bones.