8/20/2005

Defining Religion

In recent years many people have come to distinguish between "religious" and "spiritual". When describing their views, people may say something along the lines of "I am not religious, I'm spiritual" to convey their ongoing engagement with spirituality despite their disaffection with organized religion. This distinction brings up the issue of just what we mean by the term "religion" and how broadly or narrowly we use it. Does religion refer any attempt to engage existential questions? Or does it refer only to organized, institutional expressions of spirituality? This question was the focus of a vote by the Psychology of Religion division (Division 36) of the American Psychological Association, when its members voted on changing its name to explicitly include spirituality. The vote was close, with the membership almost evenly divided. Although the vote fell short of the 2/3rds majority needed to change the name, the fact that a majority voted in favor of the change suggests that many psychologists agree with others who see spirituality as distinct from religion.

Another way that the issue arises comes in the form of groups such as The Brights, who are interested in existential questions but find naturalistic answers more compelling than traditional religious ones. Go to this link where you can read a statement by The Brights and consider whether you would include brights as relevant to the psychology of religion. Do you think that psychologists have something to gain by studying individuals who take the brights' viewpoint? If so, what? If not, why not?

2 comments:

Michael Nielsen said...

A friend who visited was kind enough to tell me that the comment function wasn't working properly- he tried twice to comment on this post but without success. I think that I've found the problem and this is my test to see if it works.

My friend wondered how I define spirituality. Good question!

As I read and talk with people, there are 3 common threads uniting their visions of spirituality. The first has to do with connection. It might be connection with a divine being they see like a Heavenly Father; it might be a deep sense of connection they feel with the world's beauty and mystery; it might be a sense of connection they feel with a spouse or lover. Whatever form it takes, spirituality is about connection with something/one else.

The second is a sense of awe and wonder that touches one's emotional core. It is moving and profound. We lose our sense of self, being caught up in something larger than ourselves.

The third is ineffability. Even though they may be beautiful themselves, words simply come up short in describing spiritual experience.

The things that seem to affect people this way are broader than traditional, institutional religions, but these do seem to be common traits of spirituality. I'm not sure I could ever come up with a satisfactory definition, but in my attempts I'd include these 3 things.

What do you think? How would you define spirituality?

Or to bring it more to the topic at hand, in your opinion, what might be the consequences of including The Brights in the psychological study of religion? How does it help or does it hinder the field?

Looking forward to your comments....

Anonymous said...

I think it is important to note that when the vote to change the name of Division 36 occurred, only 150 people voted. Thus it may be a bit hasty to talk about the interests of "psychologists" in spirituality on the basis of such a turnout.