almost every level and in almost all Christian churches, the idea of
spirituality is a given. But what does it mean? And should it be part of
daily life? Perhaps spirituality isn't that simple a matter. Here
and Mick try to reach common ground.
Mick: Spirituality is the opium of those who cannot fully face the
challenges of a world in which humanity has come of age. Just as some seek
refuge in drink and drugs, so also do some religious people shelter from reality
in spiritual practices.
Now, Rick, you may shrink from this judgement because it is too harsh, too
over-the-top. Be that as it may, I intend to argue it to the limit.
So let me kick off by suggesting first that the spiritual cannot be described
except in subjective terms. I can only be told about it. And what is absolutely
subjective cannot be verified by an observer.
I conclude that a spiritual experience is a mental state. Practices which
produce such states are pursued by some because they prove rewarding in some
way. I don't deny that. But in the final resort that is all that so-called
spirituality is. No more, no less.
Rick: Definitions of spirituality
are numerous, variable and personal. There are common elements. Before
specifically addressing your introductory comments I want to digress to
provide a framework for my understanding of spirituality based on my
theories of consciousness.
For billions of years following the "big bang" the cosmos expanded and
evolved, essentially unobserved. Then suddenly (figuratively speaking) all
changed with the rise of conscious Homo sapiens. A fork in the
evolutionary path was reached.
The cosmos now came under scrutiny by the rational human mind. Data
gathered from past experience could be marshalled to control the present and
help predict the future thereby lending a desirable measure of stability to
life. The principle of cause and effect was recognized.
Why had all this happened and who or what was the agent, the ultimate
cause of the effect?
The human mind, by its very nature, divided into a rational material
compartment and, for lack of a better term, a spiritual aesthetic or
non-material one. It is the conscious individual operating in the spiritual
aesthetic mode contemplating the ultimate cause or God or first cause,
whatever term you wish to use, that constitutes the basic framework of
religion and spirituality however it is defined.
Many adornments can be hung on the frame such as solitude and retreat,
incense, yoga, meditation, prayer or whatever you wish. But when stripped
bare, the fundamental framework should appear, namely an individual standing
in conscious relation to the ultimate cause.
I return to your comments. In the course of my practice I gave a lot of
opium drugs to my patients who were in pain. It was the right thing to do.
If spiritual practices provide respite from the material world, why
shouldn�t they be used? From time to time, most of us need temporary shelter
from reality. A glass or two of wine may even do the trick.
All these spiritual thoughts are, of course, a subjective mental state.
The very fact we are discussing this matter belies our belief that
subjective experience is real and meaningful. It is just more difficult to
measure than material experiences.
Mick: I'd like first to identify points of agreement. You agree
that a "spiritual" event is by definition subjective. It cannot be shared or
confirmed, but only reported. You also agree that a "spiritual practice" which
enhances human experience is legitimate. That is, it doesn't have to be
specifically Christian to, in your words, stand in "conscious relation to an
So far, so good.
What I find hard to understand is that there are two fundamental
dimensions. There is the universe and there is an ultimate cause. You
think that we humans likewise comprise two compartments. One is material and
another is spiritual/aesthetic.
Can you explain how you reached those conclusions?
Rick: I have previously suggested that the
very nature of the conscious human mind leads not only to the recognition and
evaluation of material reality, but also raises questions about what possibly
lies behind and beyond the concrete world. This is simply cause and effect logic
inherent in cognition. I am neither affirming nor denying an other-world
reality. I am only suggesting how I understand the function of the mind.
My conclusions about the spiritual/esthetic compartment of the mind are based
in part on the following evidence:
- Prehistoric and archeological evidence of human artistic and religious
- Manifestations of artistic and spiritual/esthetic behavior in modern man;
- My personal spiritual/esthetic experience;
- Scientific evidence of faith inclinations encoded in the human genome.
I suppose the hard question is, if a person does not experience or practice
"spirituality", can that person still be considered a person of faith?
Mick: Drug addicts may be free of some pain, but the price is
high. Part is loss of contact with life itself. Similarly, spirituality is used
to "provide respite" (to quote you) from life in the round. I maintain that the
price is loss of integration.
My world is a unity. It may be viewed from many angles. The
spiritual/aesthetic is only one. As it happens, it's not particularly important
in my life. I don't pray, for example.
Let me illustrate: Some doctors are beginning to understand the unity of the
human organism. When they ask, "What are the defining characteristics of healthy
living systems?" the answer comes back, "Before all else, unity."
So, by all means talk about and practice prayer, meditation and the like. But
there is no need for the "spiritual". We divide the whole only to help our
understanding. The resulting parts do not exist. We should not reify them.
Rick: Cloth is made of threads. Tissues are made of cells. The
whole is best understood by analyzing the constituents. Were I to advise my
patients on how to best lead a happy and fruitful life I would advise "balance."
To balance all the elements, the material, the spiritual/aesthetic or whatever,
is often difficult requiring maturity and experience. If one concentrates on one
particular "compartment" over others, "imbalance", or as you might say,
"disunity", is created.
Addressing the word "spirituality" has, I fear, caused us to talk around each
other. I suspect "spirituality" is really a cipher for the debate concerning the
existence of an immaterial reality. In this regard I would ask, where does Pi
reside? It must come before the drawn circle. Where do the principles governing
the cosmos lie? Do they exist beyond their concrete manifestations? Where does
"Radical Faith" exist, somewhere in mid-air? I guess I haven�t progressed in my
thinking beyond Aristotle.
I return again to the idea of personal choice. Given all the arguments that
can and have been mustered for or against the concept of reality beyond the
material, I see no way to settle the dispute. Considering the millions of years
of human kind�s evolution, the miniscule fragment I have thus far enjoyed can
mean little except to me, my friends and my family. If I haven�t already done
it, I had better get about making personal choices in order to make sense out of
the small spot I occupy in the universe.
Mick: I agree. There is no obvious way of settling the dispute. I
suppose conceiving a reality beyond the material is one way of making sense of
life. But it doesn't work for me.
Perhaps a way ahead might be to recognise an error of language. Certain words
describe groupings or classes. A particular chair is an instance of the class
"chairs". A particular circle is one of the class "circles". Circles are
instances of a larger class "abstractions" and so on.
Similarly, I think "spiritual" is not a class "beyond the material" but a
class "behaviours which assist us to achieve personal integration". If you can
abandon what seems to me to be a category mistake, I might withdraw my charge of
spirituality being a psychological opiate. Perhaps common ground might then be
Rick: You have introduced an interesting and creative method to
analyze our discussion. I think it is appropriate that we have finally arrived
at a matter of linguistics, "taxonomy of thought", as it were. In the domain of
biology, class implies an ordering of categories based on features that point to
a common ancestry or lineage. If this analogy is apt in our discussion, we might
start by dividing reality into two kingdoms, the material and the non-material.
Proceeding downward we pass through phylum, class and so forth. We can skip
phylum and go directly to "class" for our purposes.
What are the features of "spirituality" that place it in the appropriate
kingdom? From my perspective they are decidedly non-material. You have argued
that spirituality should be in the material kingdom of the class "behaviours
which assist us to achieve personal integration." Whereas spirituality may
affect something on the material side, it has no material characteristics. There
is no question but that spiritual exercises can result in physical changes in
people. Spirituality, nonetheless, fits best in the non-material kingdom.
I share some of your suspicion of "spirituality." Its manifold expressions
can range all the way from distasteful exhibitionism to secret prayer. As I
previously asserted, definitions are numerous and varied. For me, I repeat, the
core is a conscious person contemplating the ultimate cause. I am sure many will
disagree and that is the problem. A firm definition cannot be reached and thus
our taxonomy is fraught with potential error.
Language with its inherent weaknesses can be the source of disagreement and
misunderstanding. As I look around my office I recognize all my apparatus, books
and furniture without uttering or thinking a single word. Then my wife enters
and asks to use the computer or have a piece of paper and an envelope. Suddenly
everything I see has a label and I speak words. Propositional language is one of
the wonders of human consciousness but it is still evolving. We continue to
struggle with words in an effort to better understand our world be it material
Mick: I had hoped to avoid our contretemps. But there it is! I
remain unconvinced about spirituality as a "non-material kingdom".
As it happens, I do accept the non-material in a way which I suppose I
could call "spiritual". But I prefer not to because of the connotations the word
carries - of an alternative reality to the material universe. Perhaps my
exposure in Africa to a spirit-infested world has tipped the balance.
The way in which you describe perceiving your office is something like what I
To take one instance: most of us would attribute the word "immaterial" to the
concept of "mind". So do I. But what I mean is that "mind" is the way you and I
describe what it's like being "inside" the fantastic electro-chemical system we
call the "brain" (or, more correctly, the body - since we are each a total,
integrated system). When we're "outside" ourselves we use a wholly different
terminology for a wholly different experience of the same entity.
The same can be said, for example, about a nation. It consists entirely of
physical entities. But those entities can be perceived in many non-material
ways. A nation has buildings and architecture, traditions and
ceremonies. Its laws are much more than words printed on paper.
In the case of both brain and nation, the whole is greater than the sum of
I think that unless the Church finds ways of relating to the world without
so-called "spirituality", the Church will continue to shrink and die.