Another response to the ‘spirituality’ debate, this time from Alan Rogers.
All religions of whatever variety try to find words which imply virtue and special qualities and which are accepted without question. Politicians do the same. American politicians use ‘America’ and ‘the American people’ in this way, as does Tony Blair use ‘family values’. The word ‘spiritual’ might once have meant simply ‘relationship to God’ but now it is a Humpy Dumpty word which means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Thus, whenever someone uses the word ‘spiritual’ to me I have to ask, ‘What do you mean by “spiritual”?’
—Dorothy Rowe, world-renowned psychologist and writer
Jeremy Rodell of the British Humanist Association wrote an article in August defending the use of the term ‘spiritual’ by an atheist for describing emotional response to a variety of circumstances. I disagree.
Jeremy Rodell cites the experiences of looking at the night sky, seeing a superb mountain vista, being moved by great music and serving an ace in tennis as examples of spiritual experience. I struggle to see what these experiences have in common that requires an umbrella term and, if one must be used, why it should be the highly inappropriate word ‘spiritual’.
I am well aware of these experiences. I live in rural West Wales. We may not have many gin-clear nights but we are spared the far too prevalent phenomenon of light pollution. Looking up into that awe inspiring sight I am acutely aware of a sense of privilege. To be alive and aware at this time and place, to be the beneficiary of over 3 billion years of evolving life, to have received an education which allowed me to read the science which established the scale in space and time of the observable universe, such that I can see and understand what this spectacle means, is a privilege which I have done little or nothing to deserve. Where I live I am surrounded by beautiful scenery and have been fortunate enough to visit some of the greatest landscapes our planet has to offer. I enjoy music. The constructions in the syntax of melody, harmony and orchestration created by the greatest talents of my fellow man are pleasurable, joyous and often moving. To link these disparate experiences seems to me to be an artificial and unnecessary device. They each affect the senses and the mind in different ways. To name all these experiences with a word like ‘spiritual’ conveys the impression that they are outside human mental processes. In fact there is little evidence of permanence or universality in these things. The night sky was once the source of superstitious fear. Some still follow the idiotic utterances of astrologers. Mountain scenery was, a few centuries ago, regarded as oppressive and ugly. Not until the Romantic movement was established did the appreciation of such landscapes develop. Music too has its fashions. I know this myself since I appreciate virtually nothing written after Elgar and Holst. I simply do not understand the language, the syntax of modern composition.
So I think the need for a universal term is not demonstrated. Worse by far is the choice of ‘spiritual’ for this unnecessary purpose. Let us firstly dispose of the homographs.
The phrase over the pub door ‘licensed to sell wine and spirits’ does not mean that you will necessarily receive spiritual guidance within. The root of the word spiritual is ‘spirit’ with the meaning of a supernatural presence within or without the human body. Inside it is a soul. Outside it is a free soul or a ghost. The concept of material body and supernatural soul (spirit) is called Cartesian Dualism by philosophers. In 1949 Cartesian Dualism was put to the intellectual sword by the Oxford philosopher Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind. He proved methodically that Cartesian Dualism was bunkum. Subsequent research in neuroscience completely vindicates Ryle. The computational theory of mind has removed the need for a supernatural explanation of mind every bit as much as the theory of evolution has removed the need for a supernatural creation of the species. A modern scientific view of mankind is that we have a body including a brain and nervous system and that the mind emerges from the working of these physical components. The mind is what the brain does. We see the placebo effect and the possible benefits of holistic medicine because the body and mind are one integrated system – necessarily, since they evolved together.
The followers of received religion which affirms the possibility of an after-life have no alternative but to suspend disbelief and visualize an immaterial soul which can escape the physical body upon death. They need the concept of spirit and the word ‘spiritual’ in order to sustain this self deception. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines spiritual as: Of spirit as opposed to matter; of the soul especially as acted upon by God, holy, divine, inspired…. It has recently become very noticeable that religious leaders find the word “religious” inadequate. They refer pompously to “the Religious and Spiritual Life of the Nation”. I think it would be unkind to steal this word from them at a time of their greatest need.
Jeremy Rodell admits that the word is ambiguous. I think that this is due to its use being stretched to breaking point. I will give what I think is an important example later. He quotes the Church of England opposing an atheist or humanist contribution to Thought for the Day and seems to think that, if we can convince the C of E and the BBC that we have ‘spiritual’ experiences, they will graciously allow us to contribute; that we must present our beliefs as quasi-religious. I think that is too high a price to pay for five minutes of air-time. Personally, I would rather we concentrated on getting Thought for the Day renamed as Religious Platitude for the Day.
But the most dangerous result of the use of ‘spiritual’ from my own experience is its use in the NHS. Remarkably Jeremy Rodell quotes the NHS use of this term as a justification for the non-religious use.
The ambiguous use of the word ‘spiritual’ has been seized upon by the College of Health Care Chaplains. Despite the impressive academic name the CHCC is a branch of UNITE the union. This is an example of the trick I mentioned previously of using Religious and Spiritual as a cover, a smoke screen, for justifying the extension of religious interference into a wider sphere than that of the dwindling number of Christian adherents.
As I mentioned earlier I live in Wales. In 2010 the Welsh Government produced a set of documents called Standards for Spiritual Care in the NHS Wales. In fact the documents were written by the CHCC (in fact mostly copied from the CHCC sister organisation in Scotland) and signed off by the Minister for Health in Wales. These documents contain the following ‘definition’ of spiritual care. From the Standards for Spiritual Care in the NHS Wales 2010 we have an attempt at a definition of spiritual care.
Spiritual Care and Religious Care
The document Service Development for Spiritual Care in the NHS in Wales (2010) differentiated between spiritual care and religious care:
Spiritual Care in usually given in a one to one relationship, is completely person centred and makes no assumptions about personal conviction or life orientation.
Religious Care is given in the context of shared religious beliefs, values, liturgies and life style of a faith community.
Spiritual care is often used as the overall term and is relevant for all. For some the spiritual needs are met by religious care, the visits, prayers, worship, rites and sacraments often provided by a faith leader or representative of the faith community or belief group.
Spiritual care can be provided by all health care staff, by carers, families and other patients. When a person is treated with respect, when they are listened to in a meaningful way, when they are seen and treated as a whole person within the context of their life, values and beliefs, then they are receiving spiritual care. Chaplains are the specialist spiritual care providers.
Notice the sentence within the definition of Religious Care: Spiritual care is often used as the overall term and is relevant for all.
From this point on there is total confusion about these terms Religious Care and Spiritual Care. When we use one do we mean both? In the end there is a further definition following ‘Spiritual care can be provided by all… ‘and the whole thing simply becomes a requirement to be kind and empathetic. This should be in the job description of every health care worker in contact with the public and doesn’t need to be labelled ‘spiritual care’.
If we had only the definition of Religious Care ‘…shared religious beliefs, values, liturgies and life style of a faith community’ and an expression of the need to treat patients with humanity and with empathy then a great deal of the nonsense about ‘spiritual care’ could be eliminated.
In the past four financial years every chaplaincy post funded in the NHS Wales has been held by clerics. Of these 97.4% were for Christian clerics.
The care delivered in this time, at a total cost of over £5 million, has been religious care. I hope the chaplains are kind and empathetic towards all patients that is, or should be, a responsibility for all NHS staff in contact with patients. The chaplains are trained clerics and are in hospitals to provide religious care. The use of the word ‘spiritual’ is obfuscation. We really must not allow ourselves to be a party to this deception.
In the Standards for Spiritual Care Guidance document (2010) the Acknowledgements section is as follows (my comment in square brackets):-
Rosemary Kennedy, Chief Nursing Officer [A political appointee]
Rev. Peter Sedgewick
Rev. Alan Tyler
Rev. Chris Lewinson
Rev. Peter Gilbert
Rev. Cliff Chonka
Rev. Wynne Roberts
Rev. Edward Lewis
Rev. Robert Lloyd-Richards
Rev. Lance Clark
Imam Farid Khan
Carol English UNITE [The College of Health Care Chaplains is a branch of UNITE the union]
Steve Sloan UNITE
You will notice that the Standards for Spiritual Care Guidance have been prepared by clerics (as it happens, exclusively male clerics), their trade union officials and a political appointee of the Welsh Government. I can find no reference to a consultation with the public or with hospital patients. I understand that a letter was sent to the Royal College of Nursing which received a brief, formal reply.
Could it be any clearer that hospital chaplaincy is about delivering religious care and the use of the word ‘spiritual’ is an attempt to justify the use of tax payers’ money for this purpose? That’s what I personally think is going on.
In Wales, we have a Charitable Chaplaincy Campaign intended to save £1.3 million of NHS Wales budget for nursing and medical use by encouraging organised religion to set up a charity to fund this service. I contend that the use of the Humpy Dumpty word ‘spiritual’ by the non-religious muddies the waters, allows it to be used unchallenged by organised religion and obstructs our campaign.
Ramen! Spirituality means maximum arbitariness!
Therefore, I have invented alternative spirituality!
The Flying Spaghetti Monster may bless you!
Ramen
Let’s not all gang up upon Jeremy.
He was involved in a campaign to stop the creation of a religious school in his local area and found that he had to try to make common cause with local parents and some religionists who – for their own reasons – also opposed the opening of a particular brand of religious school in the area.
There is a fundamental division between the BHA and organisations like the NSS.
While the BHA pursues a strategy of working with religious groups and individuals in order to diminish religious privilege in our society, I believe organisations like the NSS refuse to support such a strategy.
Ultimately, it is a matter of political choice: do we collabarate with people with whom we do not share certain beliefs – or not?
I think Jeremy uses the concept of spirituality as a bridge towards creating an alliance with religionists in order to achieve secular goals.
Organisations like the NSS – and others – refuse to collabarate with religionists and are determined to achieve change in Britain without religionist collusion.
Politics has been described as the art of the possible, which is – I think – Jeremy’s approach as a secular humanist towards working with people he conceives of as being religious humanists.
Others – like the NSS – consider that there is only one real form of humanist, which is a secular humanist, free from any religionist entanglements.
Their preferred approach is to use the existing laws and to pursue the creation of new laws, designed to remove all religious privilege from our society.
The overall end goals of the BHA and NSS are largely identical but their strategic approaches towards achieving those goals are different.
Which approach is better is something each individual must decide.
My final point is that I believe that while it is possible to conceive of a wholly secular society this would be but a starting point for the ongoing development of a philosophy and ideology of humanism, which – I think – has much more need to develop itself for future purposes.
Historically, world socialism has been viewed by Marxists as a stage towards the emergence of a global communistic society.
So, too, could secularism be perceived as a staging point in the emergence of a humanistic world society.
The topic of the original post is the usage of the word spirituality but, you are off on a completely different topic, unless you think the christian requires the reverent use of the word spirituality before they will work with others. Maybe you have some relevant insight about the usage of the word spirituality but that isn’t evident within the text of your comment.
The article isn’t “ganging up on Jeremy” it is a critique of the usage of the word spirituality when the intent is to describe natural events and emotions. As opposed to the way the christian uses spirituality, as a way to infuse unnatural causes into natural events and emotions.
John -suggest take a look at the aims of both the NSS and BHA.
The NSS does not campaign for Humanism/atheism, but for a secular society, where there is freedom of religion and belief, no religious privilege and state neutrality. That’s why a prominent liberal Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, has recently become a supporter – good news I think. There is no mention of atheism or Humanism in the NSS Charter http://www.secularism.org.uk/secularcharter.html
The BHA also campaigns for a secular society, and in defence of human rights, but it also promotes Humanism as an ethical approach to life and for humanists to be able to express those values and beliefs in their lives. https://humanism.org.uk/about/our-aims/
I never once used the word atheism in my September 2, 2014 at 1:44 pm comment – so why are you introducing this concept into this debate?
This is tantamount to a misrepresentation of what I actually said.
Please stop accommodating mendacious religionists!
It does you – and us – no good at all.
John – I don’t believe I have misrepresented you, as you said: “…others, such as the NSS, consider that there is only one real form of humanist, which is a secular humanist, free from religious entanglements”. All I did was point out that the NSS charter says nothing about humanists/atheists, only secularism, (agree you only used the word humanist, not the word atheist). That is why they have recently acquired a prominent liberal Muslim among their supporters. I leave it to you whether this amounts to “accommodating mendacious religionists”. I thought it was a welcome development, and also appreciated the powerful speech Maajid made at a session of the recent World Humanist Congress about the fight against the global jihadist insurgency.
I think the key underlying issue here is that some fellow humanists are not only opposed to religious privilege and bad things done in the name of religion – we have 100% alignment on that – but are also opposed to dealing constructively with religious people, even when they are good people working towards objectives that we share. Although I profoundly disagree with such “anti theism”, and have too often seen that it leads to false generalisations about fellow human beings who are religious, I respect good humanists/atheists who hold that view, who I know share my own views on many other things.
If it makes some of them feel better to use terms like “accommodationist” to describe people like me, that’s up to them. Like Prof Jim Al-Khalili, the President of the BHA, it’s a badge I am more than happy to wear.
I am aware that the NSS does not commit itself formally to atheism because – as a Life NSS Member – I was one of those who argued against including atheism in the goals of the NSS at an AGM some years ago.
Along with the principal officers of the NSS, most members present voted against including atheism as one of the NSS goals and largely restricting their principal goal towards achieving a secular society.
This also explains why Atheism UK was set up separately following that meeting.
My experience of most religionists is that they are invariably mendacious to some degree or another. No doubt, they convince – or delude – themselves into believing it is for the best of possible reasons but the fact remains that they basically refuse to confront reality as it is; and how can it be otherwise when their principal rationale is to be intentionally irrational in terms of their beliefs?
One may as well try work with lunatics in a lunatic asylum as work with them.
Having said that, no doubt many people with mental health issues are probably a lot more rational than religionists – if the truth is told.
Is it possible to deal constructively with religious people, even when they are seemingly good people working towards objectives that we seemingly share?
I don ‘t think so.
Because we are never working towards the same objectives.
They may ostensibly share some objective with us but they are far more committed to their own objectives.
They have dual loyalties and we do not.
While our overall commitment is towards achieving a secular society as a preparatory stage towards achieving a fully humanist society, they are committed to achieving a fully religious society in preparation for a messianic visitation, following which the Thousand Year White Throne Earth will follow.
In our case, we believe in achievable things, whereas they do not.
We are different – them and us – and we should not kid ourselves on that point.
If you choose to use these people for your own purposes – that is up to you.
I prefer not to.
It’s good to see the interest in this.
First some factual corrections to the above:
1. I wrote the article on humanism & spirituality in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the BHA.
2. I did not give “serving an ace in tennis” as an example of a spiritual experience. Personally I don’t think it is. The principal examples were of nature music and art engaging profound emotions (including an atheist photographer who refers to his work as “spiritual”) and a powerful “spiritual” experience cited by Andre Comte Sponville in his “book of Atheist spirituality”. All these examples had characteristics in common.
I think Dorothy Rowe is entirely correct in saying that “spiritual” is a term which is ambiguous and therefore it’s important to understand what is meant when it’s used. If it were clear we would not be having this debate.
Words mean what people use them to mean, etymology notwithstanding. Quoting the word “spirit” above a pub door only makes the point – it is nothing to do with what we’re talking about here, and gets closer to the original “animating or vital principle”.
Personally I tend not to use “spiritual” if another word seems clearer. But I don’t think humanists should either be excluded from using it if we feel it’s the best word for what we mean, or be denied the right to use it by the religious, especially when they do so to imply we are somehow lesser human beings.
The health care example is interesting. Maybe someone involved in the BHA’s pastoral care initiative in hospitals and prisons will comment here.
Reading Alan’s piece makes me think that maybe there are some differences in personality type here. Maybe what I thought was a relatively common (if not frequent) type of human experience isn’t as widely recognised as I supposed.
Having said that, when Stephen Fry came out as a humanist a couple of years ago, he said that didn’t mean “a turning away from mystery or a cold rational dispute with the numinous and spiritual in life….it is an acceptance of the awesome and splendid responsibility we each have for our own destinies, ethics and morals.” I think he’s right.
This is interesting!
It seems that we have very different views on what it means to be an accommodationist.
Jeremy describes those of us who dislike it as “not only opposed to religious privilege and bad things done in the name of religion….but also opposed to dealing constructively with religious people, even when they are good people working towards objectives that we share.”
John unfortunately fits Jeremy’s description, saying “One may as well try (to) work with lunatics in a lunatic asylum as work with them.”
By Jeremy’s definition, many of us who criticize accommodationists would actually be guilty of accommodation! But this is not the case, since we mean something very different by the term.
We are referring to those
who make *unnecessary concessions*,
who counsel against speaking out too harshly in condemnation of religion,
who fear offending when we “hardliners” speak openly,
who sugarcoat or dumb down their message (“Don’t worry! You can have your god AND accept evolution!”) lest the poor believer retreat to the fainting couch, or worse, actually gets miffed,
who accuse fellow atheists of “militant atheism” in much the same way members of other minorities were accused of militancy by their own people, as when American blacks who grew tired of politely waiting for equality began to force the issue.
Just as with the gay, women’s and civil rights movements, atheists have made progress precisely because they have become more outspoken and willing to challenge religious privilege, even as some continue to blush at how uppity their fellow atheists are behaving!
As a hardline and lifelong atheist, I have no problem whatsoever with working alongside anyone towards the achievement of a mutual goal; there are enormous numbers of things we can all do together which do not require that we check credentials beforehand. (This does not, however, preclude choosing to focus solely upon advancing the cause of humanism/atheism at other times, or even most of the time.)
What I will not do is remain silent if religion is invoked in the carrying out of those mutual goals, nor will I be particularly softspoken or polite in the broader public discussion. Atheists have been quiet for too long, and the results have been all too obvious.
The definition of “accommodationist” I have described is not a badge anyone should be happy to wear!
Perhaps it’s not useful to get into a debate about the definition of “accommodationism” – a term usually used as an insult – when we’re already demonstrating a difficulty in agreeing a definition of “spirituality”. There is clearly a spectrum within Humanism on this issue.
I agree with Denis that the term “militant” atheist is ridiculous: giving a lecture is not comparable with bombing tube trains.
And I think we should be resolute in criticising religious privilege, especially in education, where I am an active campaigner for fair admissions, the most iniquitous example in our otherwise fairly secular society. But even here there are religious people who share the humanist position. For example, Rabbi Jonathan Romain is the head of the Accord Coalition of which the BHA is a founder member. I’d rather work with them than against them. Starting the conversation by telling them they’re idiots for building their lives around a non-existent deity isn’t going to help.
Frankly, I don’t care how a Christian or a Muslim reconciles acceptance of the fact of evolution with their faith. What matters is that they accept it. But I do care if someone tries to present Creationism as science. That’s where the battle lies.
There are of course, areas where no compromise is possible, and people with whom dialogue is unlikely to be productive. Anyone who says that a Muslim who renounces her or his faith should be punished by death is an example. They, and that idea, simply have to be fought against. Equally, I think humanists should defend the right to freedom of thought and expression when it is religious people who are being victimised, for example, Ahmadis in Pakistan, just as we do when it is atheists who are victims – as is the case in so many parts of the world, including the US.
Black and white thinking in such a complex area as religion and belief is, in my view, unlikely to help make the world a better place. It too easily leads to dangerous generalisations about groups of people which – as we’re demonstrating here in the case of atheists – are invariably inaccurate.
So then, it’s “perhaps” not useful to debate a definition, even as you continue to get it wrong? In my view, misunderstandings call for further discussion. There may well be a spectrum within Humanism, but that’s no argument against nipping clearly erroneous views in the higher branches.
I don’t know that I’d call the term “accommodationism” an insult so much as a description of a position others think you are mistaken to hold, though you could argue it is insulting to be told this. In any case, the claim that one is insulted should not be allowed to be a conversation stopper; you’re aware, I’m sure, that theists very often use just this approach to protect their beliefs from criticism.
“Starting the conversation by telling them they’re idiots for building their lives around a non-existent deity isn’t going to help.”
See what we’re dealing with here!? The presumption is that those who criticize accommodationists actually do this! The hardliners “start conversations” with insults! Certainly, many discussions devolve into insults, but there is virtually always a context in which these insults begin – which is far from starting a conversation that way – and by no means is it the anti-theist who always initiates it.
Anti-theism, however, does not entail rudeness, except, inescapably, to the extent theists *perceive it* when hearing their cherished beliefs dismissed. Furthermore, there is a big difference between stating an opinion about the inanity of a belief generally, and directing it toward an individual, particularly in a discussion which may not have centered around the validity of belief to begin with. Your suggestion that such things happen as typical of anti-theism is an example of the accommodationist approach we criticize; it is a needless and inaccurate concession that plays into the hands of chronically offended theists who are insulted by the very existence of unapologetic and outspoken critics.
Frankly, I DO care how ideas are reconciled, and don’t mind saying so. Your emphasis on social work and active campaigning is all well and good, but this implication that there is no place for the art of argumentation is nonsense. I won’t be silenced or persuaded to softpedal in such discussion for fear that someone might react badly, especially given that theists are not shy about sharing their views.
For a bit more on this, see Dennett’s comments in The Guardian back in 2006. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/04/religion.comment
Black and white thinking? Dangerous generalisations? Let me know when you come across any examples.
Denis. No one is trying to silence you. We just disagree.
I feel compelled to comment on this thread as I have been rather shocked by the level of personal attacks on Jeremy Rodell over his interest in being able to use the term spirituality within a humanist context. As a relatively recent member of the BHA, I turned to humanism as I saw it to be a positive expression of my own type of moral code. Perhaps in my naivety, I understood Humanism to encourage tolerance of other humans and their views. I thought it was about allowing others to hold different views but not in any privileged sense.
I had supposed that this ‘tolerance but not agreement’ might be a principle that would be extended to fellow travellers. Judging from the comments that I have read in this thread, it would seem that some find it hard to make their points without being unpleasant and including personal put-downs.
As it happens, I have heard Jeremy talk on the subject of ‘reclaiming’ the word Spirituality for Humanism. Although I disagree with his line of thought, I found it a most interesting proposition to debate and we were able to do so in a constructive and mutually helpful manner. Perhaps any further contributions to this thread could do likewise as this is a valid topic for debate.
Spiritual illusions are just the products of evolved brain. Just imaginary.