Todd Battistelli makes the case for humanists turning to words other than ‘spirituality’ to describe feelings of wonder and awe.
We all feel wonder from time to time. But should we be mindful not to use language with religious connotations? Photo: Trey Ratcliff
I enjoyed reading Saif Rahman and Jeremy Rodell’s essays on spirituality. Even though I don’t use the term spirituality myself, I share their appreciation of our deepest experiences. Non-humanists can stereotype our worldview as coldly rational, but humanism has long embraced the insight that reason and emotion depend on each other.
The IHEU Amsterdam Declaration describes this interdependence in ‘a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our time.’ Humanism can movingly describe profundities. While some humanists may choose the word spirituality to do so, others do not, and their choice is informed not by negative associations between spirituality and religion but by the positive associations of alternative words.
There is more to be said about spirituality than I can discuss here. Rodell raises several questions worth exploring: Can humanists be spiritual and/or use the term spiritual? Should humanists use the term? Is spirituality ‘the best word’ to describe our sense of deepest meaning? I will focus on the question of why I do not use the word, but I also want to state up front that humanists can use the term spirituality if they find it appropriate. I do not use it for two reasons. First, using other words helps me clearly communicate my humanism to non-humanists. Second, I find other words more moving.
I approach language from a descriptivist perspective where the most common usage of a word defines its meaning. This isn’t to say that meaning doesn’t change or that people can’t intentionally and successfully work to change a word’s meaning. However, if a word carries one set of connotations for most who hear it, then using the word to mean something different poses a challenge.
When religious people call deep feeling spiritual, they connect it to supernatural or transcendent meaning. I could try to change that meaning, describing a purely naturalist usage for spirituality (after all its root traces back to the word for breath), but such usage conflicts with the way most understand the word.
Instead of departing from this widespread connotation of spirituality, I turn to other words more commonly understood to have secular connotations. Looking to other words also helps head off confusion when spirituality is used to refer to multiple distinct ideas that can be discussed separately (e.g. aspiration, respite, wonder, awe, a sense of connection to the universe and others, etc.).
To give one example, I could speak of the frisson that accompanies Carl Sagan’s ‘we are made of star-stuff’ no matter how many times I think of it. Sagan’s idea speaks to humanity’s primal connection to nature. It is a deeply moving idea, but not, I would say, a spiritual one.
Others would disagree. For them the word spirituality does describe that frisson, and yet others would find the idea of an entirely natural existence abhorrent instead of moving. Such disagreements are part of the challenge of talking across worldviews and traditions. We can see this challenge even within a group such as humanists and our different reactions to the word spirituality. Certain words hold powerful meaning for some while ringing hollow for others.
When my audience attaches supernatural connotations to the word spirituality or uses it to ambiguously refer to multiple ideas, I will use alternatives to explore in detail where we agree and disagree. For instance, by the word mystery do we mean some unknown but potentially knowable element of the cosmos or some supernatural aspect to existence that surpasses any possible understanding?
It’s been my experience that many have trouble accepting that I or any humanist could be authentically satisfied with a wholly naturalist understanding of existence (and satisfied with always having more questions than answers about that existence), but we are. Trying to revise the dominant understanding of spirituality adds another layer of potential misunderstanding.
As for whether using the word spirituality would decrease anti-atheist stigma, I suspect that the prejudice of those like Christina Rees will last for some time no matter the words we use. What will decrease stigma, according to social science research, is more personal interaction with people who identify as atheists.
Sociologist Penny Edgell and her colleagues have found that people reflect more on atheists as an abstract group than on their experience with actual atheists, and that the atheist identity is seen to reject a common morality that has been (incorrectly) linked to belief in deity. Psychologist Will M. Gervais discusses [pdf] how stigma for non-obvious characteristics, like atheism, declines when people believe the stigmatized are more common in society.
This research suggests that the more atheists freely identify as such to their fellow citizens, while at the same time demonstrating their commitment to common values, the more they will help lessen stigma. This should hold true whether or not atheists use the term spiritual. Indeed, a greater diversity of atheist and humanist identities could help even more, conveying how similar we are to our religious neighbors in our own disagreements.
Just as using spirituality isn’t a term used by all atheists, it also doesn’t describe how everyone makes meaning. Rodell quotes the NHS language on ‘spiritual care’ where ‘spirituality’ is ‘looking for meaning in your life.’ The Department of Defense in the United States uses similar language, and, yes, nontheists have asked that that language be changed. A term that has religious connotations for many should not be used by government to describe the meaning making of all.
It is certainly possible to qualify the use of the term and to try to revise its definition, but doing so appeals less to me than using alternatives to spirituality that I find much more compelling. This approach is not solely or even primarily a matter of pragmatic communication. As I have developed as a humanist, the language of explicitly naturalist thinkers has moved me more deeply than those who talk of spirituality. These voices include Sagan and early twentieth century Unitarian humanists such as Arthur Wakefield Slaten and Earl F. Cook and others recorded in the 1927 book Humanist Sermons.
My humanism is neither spiritual nor transcendent. My avoiding the term spirituality comes not from pride or distaste for anything that smacks of religion. My motive is something else altogether: a delight in secular language and ideas. I too have had profound experiences of grandeur, of feeling my small place in the seemingly infinite gulf of space, of fellowship with other people of Earth, and of art that speaks to the core of my being.
These emotions spring from my recognition of the deep interconnectedness of all elements of the universe. From my perspective, there is simply nothing to be transcended. Existence is of one piece counterbalanced only by nonexistence. We live for a short time in a place we know little about, a place indifferent to us and where we alone make our lives meaningful. As Cook puts it more poetically:
‘Although the universe cares not particularly about our morality and our ideals, we must care for them. Upon our shoulders is being carried the ark of life through the wilderness. All the virtues, all there is of goodness, kindliness, courtesy is of our own creation and we must sustain them, otherwise they will go out of existence into darkness, as a star goes out.’
This aspiration to virtue, the promise of helping to build a better world for ourselves and those who come after, urges me forward. It is an aspiration I gladly share as common ground with those who, religious or not, describe it as spiritual so long as they allow me to describe it otherwise as Slaten does:
‘Humanism sets before us a great World-Hope…. Humanism may take away some of the old consolations, but it offers others more convincing…. Our sojourn here becomes a wonder-awakening romance, a pilgrimage through mysteries and marvels, and as we walk together our hearts burn within us.’
However we describe the flame of our burning hearts, it lights the way on our brief journey between oblivions, revealing moments of profound feeling and understanding.
Todd Battistelli is an independent scholar in rhetoric and a freelance writer. He runs the blog Humanism Speaks.
Todd, I think you make a convincing critique of the word ‘spiritual’. Like many humanists I have struggled to express my own sense wonder at the non-material aspects of life. If I do use spirituality to describe these feelings and thoughts it has to be explained so you lose the impact of a snappy term. So although you provide a thoughtful counterpoint I’m disappointed that you haven’t helped me come up with a better form of descriptive shorthand. The Slaten quote, while rather beautiful, does not make communicating the concept much easier. For me at least I’ll probably continue to use something like: ‘spiritual, a sense of wonder but without the supernatural’ (and then waffle a bit) as a clumsy work around. I hope that someone cleverer than I can supply a more succinct and eloquent phrase. Thanks for your thoughts.
What about using a word that explains what you are trying to convey at the moment? If you are speaking of awe, who it say “awe”? If you are speaking of connectedness, or sympathy, or goodness, why not say that? It is clearer, and you can avoid the awkward waffling.
I agree with you.
Using the correct wording also avoids conceding animistic and spiritualistic concepts which we know to be essentially bogus.
Amazing, fabulous and awe-inspiring are also further terms we can use without dragging-in religious ideologies.
Thanks for this contribution Todd. I agree completely that we should all be free to use the terms we feel comfortable with. And you’re quite right that changing perceptions among non-atheists is most powerfully done simply by meeting and talking to them as fellow human beings (and the same applied for us in overcoming preconceptions about believers).
There are two points that I’d like to take issue on, in addition to Dermot’s that spirituality is often simply the best word available, imperfect though it is.
1. You say your Humanism is “neither spiritual nor transcendent”. We differ there. As I explained in my piece, what I call “experiential spirituality” is, for me at least, an important part of our humanity. And one of its features is indeed a sense of transcendence, a sense of being part of something bigger than ourselves – and I don’t mean that in the intellectual sense of being part of the universe.
The difference between us and religious people here is simply that we know it’s an outcome of brain chemistry/processes, not external supernatural agency.
By the way, since I wrote that piece I’ve found that Sam Harris is about to launch a book called “Waking up” which sounds like it will be about this point, based on his experiences in Buddhist mediation.
2. The reason for not allowing religious people like Christina Rees to deny us the right to use the term is not in the expectation that they will lose their prejudices, but rather that they will be unsuccessful in arguing that we lack a “spiritual dimension” in order to defend unfair religious privilege to other people – in her case, a BBC policy to ban non-religious people from a daily slot in the middle of the main national morning radio news programme.
Having said all that, personally I usually find it more comfortable to find other terms – such as “sense of transcendence” – if they’re appropriate, while being prepared to claim the right to “spirituality” when religious people- or fellow humanists – seek to deny it.
Hi Jeremy. Thanks for the reply. I didn’t mean to say that Humanism has to be “neither spiritual nor transcendent.” I meant to give my own interpretation of Humanism, and others are welcome to disagree, as I think we have to here. I don’t describe a sense of being part of something bigger as transcendence. This sense of deep connection is certainly a powerful sensation, and one that is, I want to stress, not purely “intellectual.” Thinking and feeling, reason and emotion, are bound together in our lives. But for me there’s nothing transcendent about that connection.
As for point 2, describing atheists as spiritual might be a sound persuasive tactic for the specific context you describe, though I wonder, hypothetically, if it were to succeed would Thought For The Day or similar programs then be able to bar those like myself who don’t describe themselves as spiritual?
Again, I’m all for people using whatever terms they find appropriate for describing their lifestance. I just wanted to offer a my description of a non-spiritual Humanism, even if others would describe it as spiritual, as well as point to some historical antecedents to today’s Humanism that merit wider attention.
Hi Todd – I think we’re not too far apart here.
To me, accepting the non-intellectual, “connected” aspect of our human experience that you describe is more important that arguing about terminology.
All we need to do is find a way of describing it to others that avoids the difficulties of the S word but takes less than a paragraph of explanation.
I agree that use of the term spiritual – or anything derived from it – is unhelpful and is basically intellectually lazy. It may well be that our limited vocabularies struggle to find suitable alternative terms but that is no excuse for not trying to.
I think the use of terms like wonder/ful and awe/some are fit for our purpose and others can be added to this very short list.
Using terms such as spiritual cedes ground to religionists which we should not do as it only serves to authenticate their irrational beliefs which we do not share.
We should also deny them the ground when it comes to other conceptual terms such as morality. They have – in my opinion – misrepresented this particular concept in order to monopolise it. As I understand the concept, it is derived from the word mores, which is used much more in the US than over here.
When I researched the word in a dictionary, it used the definition of folk-ways to describe it, which suggests to me that morals are commonly-held values between people in a society. As such, they end up becoming average values which are equally shared by a majority in a society. I do not agree with the use of the death penalty, even though I know a majority in our society does favour it.
Morals, then, are bottom-up values which all in a society would usually – but not necessarily – subscribe to. Religionists have no monopoly on them.
Where people such as humanists do have a leading – top-down, if you like – role to play is in the formulation of ethical standards in a society, particularly where new values arise or are required for new situations, and can become the kinds of values that eventually become reflected in the moralist standards of the society.
While common morality can remain fixed – as in the case of the wide level of support for the death penalty – ethical leadership can shift moral attitudes over time.
Examples of ethical leadership changing moral standards over time are public attitudes towards homosexuality and equal marriage, abortion and conscientuous objection, all largely unacceptable in the past but widely accepted today.
On the question of the interplay of emotions which religionists lazily attempt to hijack under the irrational umbrella term of spiritual, I think it is incumbent upon us as humanists to endeavour to understand and explain how these occur.
For example, many of us are emotionally affected when we listen to music.
Instead of lazily saying it is a so-called spiritual experience, we should be trying to understand how the particular set of musical notes combine and progress in sequence. It is an aspect of music studies which could be definitely explained by playing examples from composers who were fully aware as to the emotional effect their compositions would have on the listeners.
Church music relies on combinations of buildings built so as to provide echoes and reverberations which enhance the musical effect emotionally.
In art and aesthetics studies, understanding perspective and understanding concepts such as the golden ratio can aid significant added understanding so that instead of relying on simplistic accounts of so-called spirituality it is possible to consider the role of evolutionary theory in promoting the continuation of particular forms that we experience in the world around us.
Brain chemistry too is very important in understanding emotional reactions to certain stimuli, such as how mothers experience intense emotional feelings when they give birth to babies which, as we nowadays know, are attributable to an increased level of production in their body of particular chemical elements such as serotonin and dopamine.
The accusation – usually made by lazy religionists – is that utilising such rational analysis drives out the mystery and spiritual content of life but the actual truth is that we ought to be investigating all the more those components of life which help to explain why we all experience the feelings we do.
Is that more rational world not a truly much better one to live in?
John’s post is an excellent example of the phenomenon referred to in my piece on Humanism & Spirituality – a reluctance to accept the fact (and it is a fact) that subjective experiences, whether of love, transcendence, hate, wonder… are real to the person experiencing them. I would argue they are one of the defining aspects of the human condition.
To dismiss the reality of subjective human experience as somehow unimportant is to dismiss the major part of almost every form of art, from music to literature to film and painting. When I hear the slow movement of Beethoven’s seventh symphony, I experience what I assume he, as a great artist, wanted me to experience – a powerful, uplifting, transcendent, non-intellectual sense of emotion which some may, reasonably, refer to as a “spiritual” experience.
Yes, of course we can explain that in terms of neuroscience and music as a (probably accidental) product of evolution. But knowledge of neuroscience and evolution tells us nothing about the actual subjective experience. In fact, the experience of anything is not the same as the description of the science behind it. One is subjective, the other objective.
The fact of existence and non-existence or oblivion (end of existence) certainly can not hold or accommodate the term or otherwise a word “spirituality”. And I am 100% in agreement with all humanists and or atheists. However, my own personal belief and trust system hold a special meaning in this term or word Spirituality to be separate and distinct from all the facts of existence and non-existence or definitely beyond reality. And this or my own special meaning may define or describe, for simplification purposes, spirituality as a virtual reality, a personae or encompassing body of all memories, experiences, thoughts, feelings, sensations and intuitions of man. Time and space cannot bind spirituality except the instantaneous oblivion after the last brain signal in human body. Because spirituality is belief and trust system individual to every man oblivion can be permanent or temporary, for some oblivion is permanent, for others, like me, oblivion is temporary- possibility of reawakening is virtually certain (reawakening is the coming back of personae to the memories and experiences of thoughts, sensations, feelings, and intuitions without or away from the wasted physical flesh or body. And that to me distinguishes Spirituality from Humanism.
I attended The Ancestors Trail meeting at Conway Hall yesterday evening, at which Andrew Copson made the very good point – which I paraphrase – that some people seem to think that there is something beyond reality which, Indiana Jones-style, they can find hidden in some long lost cave or chest, containing all there is to know about the real “meaning” of life.
Nonsense, of course.
There is no veiled truth or underlying reality behind reality – only reality.
Sometimes, humanists and others need to explain that asking questions about concepts such as the meaning of life are basically irrational.
There is no inherent meaning to life; only what we make of it.
There is no secondary or tertiary reality – only primary reality.
In the same way as it is wrong to raise questions about the “meaning” of life – which really should be addressed to the value of life and how we can all add value to life – so too it is wrong to talk in terms of spirituality or spiritualism.
Both terms are equally suspect and inherently meaningless nonsense.
By adopting such terms, we as humanists end up endorsing the irrational mind set of religionists, which does not help them, us or anyone else.
Talking about objective and subjective reality is also a cop out too.
There is no particular dividing line or a sign saying “The objective world ends here and begins there” – is there?
We are all interconnected to, in and with the external world in which we exist.
Traditionally, we use concepts such as objective to suggest scientific accuracy and subjective to withdraw analysis and measurement from objective reality – which is wrong and incorrect.
It can be argued that scientific knowledge is a work-in-progress and that there are still large areas where we have yet to establish just what is going on under certain circumstances – but note the relevant term ‘we have yet’ which applies.
In the same way as religion continues to hide as the god of the gaps so too does the claimed subjective world. Given time, we will know much more about the internal processes which take place inside the human body, brain and mind.
When we do, much of the mumbo jumbo surrounding spiritualism and bogus spirituality will be revealed for the wholly nonsensical nonsense it is.
Jeremy – in response to one of my earlier postings – said ‘To dismiss the reality of subjective human experience as somehow unimportant is to dismiss….’
This is basically dishonest because I did not dismiss human experience but simply pointed out that human experience – particularly with regard to the emotions – can be explained scientifically most often and that they can also be manipulated by others for varying reasons of their own.
“Mood” music is employed as background for films, TV and radio programmes, as well as commercials. There is a reason for that which is to influence people’s emotions to the benefit of the influencer. The same is true where other areas including artistic and aesthetic expression are concerned.
The important point is that intelligent people should learn as much as they can about how emotions are manipulated by others in order to avoid falling into the kinds of traps which George Orwell outlined in his 1984 novel.
It is incumbent upon us as humanists and intelligent people to ensure that we do not allow others to manipulate and distort the emotions and actions of others in society if we are to ensure that our quality of life can be made and kept good for ourselves and most others in our local, regional and global society.
John – here’s an analogy to help explain what I mean by the fact that subjective experiences are real. Try shutting your fingers in a drawer. It hurts. The experience of pain is undeniably real. It’s not the same as a description of the neurological processes that are taking place in your body which explain the pain, and which would apply equally to anyone else in the same situation. One is subjective -the pain you feel – the other is objective – the understanding of the underlying processes. They are both real.
That is not suggesting that there is any kind of secondary or tertiary objective reality. I’m with you 100% on that. And that’s where there is a difference between most religious views and the humanist one.
While we should indeed be suspicious of manipulation of emotions for undesirable ends, we should – I think – celebrate the subjective experience of, for example, great art or music, or simply an unexpected set of stimuli, which is often of a profound positive experience, often of peace, connectedness etc. which (like it or not) people often label as “spiritual”. The quote I gave from the French atheist philosopher Andre Comte Sponville is a powerful example. Those who have not had such experiences have, in my view, missed out on something important in life. That does not in any way imply that scientific reality is inferior – on the contrary, it is the only objective reality.
I don’t know if you’ve read my piece on Humanism & Spirituality (not “spiritualism” by the way – no debate about that I hope!). You may disagree with it and still consider the whole thing “nonsensical nonsense”. But I don’t think the analysis is “intellectually lazy” – just a different point of view.
You should probably check out Sam Harris’s new blog post on spirituality, he claims that it is a completely separate area to awe and wonder at the grandeur of the universe. He describes it more as a skill to be practiced.
No one person speaks on behalf of all other humanists.
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have made statements I do not agree with.
Ultimately, what unites us is much much more than that which divides us.
Where we all – I believe – come together is in wanting to be left free from religious dogma to live our lives in the ways we wish to lead them.
It may mean that we are more individualistic than most others in our global society.
That may also explain why we fail to present a completely united front to all others.
Nevertheless, we are – I believe – on the leading edge of the future world to come.
Spirituality, Religion and Humanism
People understand these terms in quite different ways and will probably continue to do so for some time to come. At the same time, we can also recognise that everyone’s understanding does not rest on the same footing, often because some people have greater access to relevant information than others and/or have studied the issues in greater detail. Here are a few of my thoughts that might make a modest contribution to the debate.
Conflicts about definitions of religion usually revolve around issues of scope, that is, issues about what can and cannot be legitimately included within the boundaries of the terms ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality.’ If the boundaries are drawn too tightly or too narrowly then much that is commonly recognised as falling within their scope will be excluded. For example, the Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines religion as ‘the belief in and worship of a god or gods and any such system of belief and worship.’ This would exclude some of what is often regarded as falling within the scope of the term ‘Hinduism,’ most of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism and Confucianism, traditions of belief and practice that are generally recognised as having a ‘religious’ character. If the boundaries are drawn too loosely then it becomes difficult to know exactly what is being referred to when it is employed. Take, for example, the definition offered by Ronald Cavanagh: ‘the varied, symbolic expression of, and appropriate response to, that which people deliberately affirm as being of unrestricted value for them.’ If we render ‘unrestricted value’ as ‘highest value’ or ‘most important,’ which I think we must because of the problems inherent in the very concept of ‘unrestricted’ value, then all kinds of things that people value highly fall within the category of ‘religion,’ e.g. association football, making money, travelling around the world, becoming an opera star.
This does not mean that we cannot define what we mean by ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ in a reasonably precise manner or that all definitions are equal. In my view, we can both delineate the scope of the terms with a workable degree of precision and, on that basis make some judgements about the value of the various definitions that scholars and others have offered over the years. The CIDE definition cited above is an example of an authoritative definition that is nevertheless problematic. The framers of such definitions tend to work with established historical and contemporary usage and distil this into some concise expression. Yet such expressions are ultimately dependent on the quality of the sources from which they are derived. Moreover, contemporary usage is quite varied, including, as it must, the various definitions offered by scholars.
The challenge for anyone who studies religion and spirituality is thus one that involves finding formulations that are at least recognisable to native speakers who use the words whilst at the same time setting the scope of usage as precisely as possible. So, although I find much merit in James Leuba’s claim that ‘religion’ is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and is therefore theirs to define, it cannot be just that. Unlike say, ‘enzyme,’ a word that was created by scientists to label a particular type of cellular catalyst, ‘religion’ is a term that has evolved in meaning over time. Such evolution may and in this case does constrain the uses to which the word can be put, though it does not determine them entirely. Refinement and reformulation can still take place. Consider, for example, the term ‘mammal.’ Before the discovery of Australasia animals placed in the category of ‘mammal’ were all thought to give birth to live young that are attached to a placenta and subsequently nourished on milk secreted from glands on the mother’s body. Then kangaroos and koalas were discovered. They feed their young on milk but those young are not attached to a placenta. Instead, they are born much earlier than the young of placental mammals and nourished whilst protected by a pouch on the mother’s belly. So the placenta requirement for inclusion in the class was dropped and mammals were subsequently deemed to give birth to live young and feed them on milk. Then the platypus was discovered. Platypi do not give birth to live young but lay soft-shelled, pea-sized eggs. When the eggs hatch the young feed on milk from the mammary glands on the mother’s belly. This required a further broadening of the term’s scope. The current agreement on the common features is that mammals are 1) warm blooded; 2) suckle their young and 3) have four-chambered hearts.
This example shows that even when terms have everyday usages as well as more scientific or scholarly ones it is still possible to deploy evidence to support the adoption of some uses over others. Initially, the least tenable scholarly ones will be discarded and, over time, everyday use will be refined as well. ‘Religion,’ it seems to me, is a term that has a number of features in common with the term ‘mammal’.’ It has a range of rather imprecise, everyday uses and a range of technical uses that are currently in competition with each other, though in principle capable of being sorted into a kind of hierarchy of accuracy, with the too broad at one end, the too narrow at the other and the ‘just about right’ in the middle. Some definitions even manage to be both too narrow and too broad at the same time.
There is, I would argue, a core element that all definitions of religion must have. Different scholars have described it in different ways, though Anthony F.C. Wallace put it succinctly back in 1966. He called it ‘the supernatural premise.’ His claim is that ‘It is the premise of every religion – and this premise is religion’s defining characteristic – that souls, supernatural beings, and supernatural forces exist. Furthermore, there are certain minimal categories of behaviour which, in the context of the supernatural premise, are always found in association with one another and which are the substance of religion itself.’ In his 1969 version of his ‘dimensions of religion’ scheme, Ninian Smart echoes Wallace when he writes ‘A religious experience involves some kind of ‘perception’ of the invisible world, or involves a perception that some visible person or thing is a manifestation of the invisible world. The ordinary person in Jerusalem who simply saw Jesus walk by was not having a religious experience, but the disciples who saw him transfigured on the mountain did have such an experience…’ These are not the only writers who make this point, many others could be cited. Moreover, it tends roughly to concur with everyday usage. Not all scholars accept it, however, and that is why I mention it here. Without the ‘supernatural premise, it is well nigh impossible to distinguish, for example, religious rituals from other kinds of ritual, religious stories from other kinds of stories, religious beliefs from other kinds of beliefs and, most pertinent to these reflections, religious behaviour from other behaviour. With that premise, on the other hand, all these distinctions can be made. The challenge for those who deny that premise is, therefore, to identify some robust criterion or set of criteria that can make these distinctions as effectively as the supernatural premise can, and also conform to a similar degree with everyday usage. If definitions omitting the supernatural premise cannot make these distinctions effectively then, like the placental and live young criteria for identifying mammals, they must be abandoned. The same applies to ‘spirituality.’
For me, religion is best defined as ‘any set of beliefs and behaviours that involves the acceptance of a sacred, trans-empirical (beyond the senses) realm that has significance for human life, and actions designed to affect people’s relationship with that realm.’ ‘Spirituality’ is then a subcategory within religion that refers to the behaviours that seek engagement and/or relationship with such a realm. If Humanists think that ‘spirituality’ is a term that can be used in a manner that they can dictate I fear that only confusion can lie ahead. The links between ‘religion’ (as I have defined it) and ‘spirituality’ are too numerous to dismiss and will always work to confound usage that denies any sacred/transcendent/divine/religious element in its meaning. It is probably best, therefore, if one is not religious, to avoid using the term ‘spirituality’ to describe profound experiences.
NOTES
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 1200.
‘Religion as a field of study’ in Hall, T.W. (ed.) Introduction to the Study of Religion Harper & Row, NY, 1978, p. 20.
Cited in Smith, J.Z. Critical Terms for Religious Studies Chicago University Press, 1998 p. 281.
Barnes-Svarney, P. (ed.) The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference Macmillan, NY, 1995, p. 124.
Wallace, A.F.C. Religion: an anthropological view NY, Random House, 1966, p.52.
Smart, R.N. The Religious Experience of Mankind NY, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969,
p. 28.
Connolly, P. (ed.) Approaches to the Study of Religion London and New York, Cassell, 1999, pp. 6-7 (amended slightly).
What a heap of unnecessary pseudo-babble waffle!
Mammals exist; supernatural non-entities do not.
End of debate and discussion.
If this is the best you can do, I’m surprised that you bother writing at all. I have heard more intelligent comments from drunks in pubs.
If drunks in pubs are your routine companions it is little wonder that you end up replicating them. For myself, I avoid such persons – including persons like you.
Note that assertion is not argument and yours, that my comments were pseudo-babble waffle’ is not only that but also backfires. Pseudo-babble = false babble or deceptively resembling waffle, i.e. not babble at all. The more substantive point is that even if you had managed to write what I think you intended, that is not the way to progress our understanding of these issues. I very rarely visit pubs, not least because many of those who frequent them express moronic views like yours. You ought to pop in more often. You will find many like-minded people who are unable to construct reasonable arguments and resort to hurling insults instead. I won’t be replying to any more of your posts. I have better things to do with my time.
You are the pub crawler round here – not me.
You don’t find me in places like that.
You are the one who raised it in the first place.
Why do pubs and drunks preoccupy you so much?
Religion, spirituality and indeed humanism are all terms that have blurred edges. I agree that the common characteristic of “religions”, even non-theistic ones such as Buddhism, is that they involves some sort of supernatural element, such as a belief in divine powers, miracles or karma. As a humanist in the sense that it the term is now used (as opposed to its use in religious humanism) I reject all varieties of supernaturalism as there is zero evidence to support them.
But I don’t agree that spirituality is just a subset of religion. As argued in my article on humanism & spirituality, I think religious spirituality is just one of three categories. Yes, humanists reject it, but – whether they choose to use the term or not – the other two, our inner spirituality (what we’re referring to when we say things like “spiritual care”) and experiential spirituality (whether a full-blown example or the effect of practice such as meditation, or simply the effect of great art or music) are core features of our humanity, whether we’re atheist of religious.
The difference is that the religious may make the mistake of attributing these experiences to imagined supernatural causes.
It seems even the Abrahamic “faiths” are uncertain about the concept of “spirit”.
I did not listen to it all but you might ewant to listen to today’s “Beyond Belief” programme on Radio 4 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fz0wv.
It is clearly evident that while followers of the Jesus cult are happy to use the term “spirit”, neither Jews nor Muslims have the same favourable attitude towards it.
I think I understand what you are seeking to achieve with your distinctions between different types of ‘spirituality.’ Maslow tried something similar in Religion, Values and Peak Experiences. He didn’t succeed. Moreover, other people use ‘spirituality’ in ways that differ from your usage and mine. So my point remains pretty much the same: seeking to gain acceptance for a range of stipulative meanings for ‘spirituality’ is unlikely to to achieve widespread success and likely to contribute to the confusion that surrounds the term; so Humanists are probably best advised to promote different terminology to label the experiences you mention.
Peter.
On your substantive point – that humanists should not use terms like spiritual – I am in full accord (to use a phrase!).
I’m pleased that we reached agreement on this. One of my concerns is that using ‘spirituality’ as a kind of ‘make it mean what you want’ contributes to the supernaturalists’ case for their views being accorded some credence, and even that kind of limited credibility has a detrimental effect on the clarity of the Humanist case.
I am largely sympathetic to what I believe are your motivations in advocating the concept of spirituality but I have to say – very gently – that I think you are mistaken
You – rightly – shy away from any connections with so-called spiritualism, as we all know that most of their beliefs and claims are completely misleading, if not downright fraudulent.
When I was younger – in the 1970s – I practiced transcendental meditation for a while. It was very popular at the time, having been seen being done by members of The Beatles. While I appreciated it from the point of view that it could help to create conditions of inner stillness in an otherwise hectic life, I eventually found that it did not enhance my life in any other way and I found the ritual of having to allocate regular time slots in my day for the practice of meditation was not useful – so I stopped doing it.
I don’t think that not carrying out routine bouts of focused meditation has made any real difference to my life and I now have more time with which to get things done.
Some years ago, the Natural Law Party stood candidates in a general election.
At a rough guess, they must have spent something like £250,000 on lost deposits and – at least – a similar amount on political literature.
Their campaign was a monumental failure and has never been repeated since.
As a life-long sceptic, I have always slightly admired people – like spiritualits and dyed-in-the-wool religionists and meditationists for their apparent ability to completely delude themselves into believing what they want to believe.
For a rationalist, it appears as though they must enjoy such a large degree of absolute certainty in their lives whereas we sceptics, rationalists and humanists have to always be considering our world and our interpretation as being largely provisional at all time.
The one thing which I believe sustains us is the knowledge that however imperfect our world is today it was a whole lot more imperfect in the past.
It seems – along the lines of Steven Pinker – that we are all living in a world which has over time got more kind and a more gentle with the passage of time.
Even though atrocities like the Islamic State arise from time to time, we believe that they are just one more of the minor road bumps on the way to a better humanist world of the future.
Keep the faith – the humanist faith – in a better tomorrow!
Well…I kind of have had a problem as an atheist to use the word ‘spirituality’ as It has become very fashionable it seems and because of its connotations.
What about finding a new word then?
Anyone with ideas?
I like ‘wonderment’ and maybe some made up ones …’wonderspir’ ? ‘spirwonder’ ? hmmm obviously I have had only 2 min. to think about it ahah please HELP? Peacewonder? serenewonder? peaceful serenity? intropeace? intropaz?
anyway i am not feeling too inspired at the moment ahah ‘inspiripaz’?
Anyway i think WE need a word…as I do not like using ‘spirituality’
Uniconnection, ( from connection to the universe) primal connection ( is kind of the idea…no?) human connection…nature connection…’natureconnect’ I had a natureconnect moment?
You raise a most interesting question: “If not spirituality, then what”?
Note the following from the Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease: May 2008 – Volume 196 – Issue 5 – pp 349-355:-
Abstract
Spirituality is increasingly being examined as a construct related to mental and physical health. The definition of spirituality, however, has been changing. Traditionally, spirituality was used to describe the deeply religious person, but it has now expanded to include the superficially religious person, the religious seeker, the seeker of well-being and happiness, and the completely secular person. Instruments used to measure spirituality reflect this trend. These measures are heavily contaminated with questions assessing positive character traits or mental health: optimism, forgiveness, gratitude, meaning and purpose in life, peacefulness, harmony, and general well-being. Spirituality, measured by indicators of good mental health, is found to be correlated with good mental health. This research has been reported in some of the world’s top medical journals. Such associations are meaningless and tautological. Either spirituality should be defined and measured in traditional terms as a unique, uncontaminated construct, or it should be eliminated from use in academic research.
Note: “spirituality” is ‘meaningless and tautological’.
We do, therfore, need to find a new alternative expression for spirituality.
It may be unusual but I have always found the concept of self-actualization as developed by Abraham Maslow in his hierarchy of motivation needs to be useful.
To see more, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization.
Note that more recent commentators have tried to add an additional layer of self-transcendence to Maslow’s hierarchy, though this is clearly questionable.
What is needed is an expert proponent of humanistic psychology to contribute.