Yaacov, my understanding from recentish archaeological and anthropological literature is that this concept has been undermined since the suggestion is that while ancient peoples, and modern pre industrial ones, have plenty of spirituality they do not possess what is recognised as religion, I cannot for the life of me remember these sources although I think the following has some relevant information

The prehistory of the mind : a search for the origins of art, religion and science

Steven J Mithen

London : Phoenix 1998

the main sources I am thinking of relate to developments of religion in the MBA, although I cannot find my notes at present, this argued that what we would understand as religion only developed at this time,

of course the difference between a follower of religion and say an animist may not be as great as between either of them and an extreme secular humanist, since the former are linked by a belief in something beyond the mundane world,

perhaps the closest secular humanists can come to spirituality is via devotion to a secular cause, this was shown by both the PFLP and the Tamil Tigers whose members despite being Marxist/atheist were quite willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause, which seems to fit the definitions of spirituality

Great question for the eve of Yom Kipper!

Of course, it all depends on the definition of spirituality. However, in general, the literature can be divided into three periods.

1. Religiousness and spirituality are essentially the same thing.

2. Religiousness is external, formalistic, and non-personal whereas spirituality is internal and personal.

3. (Today) - religiousness and spiritualty are associated but independent constructs where an individual can be religious but not spiritual, spiritual but not religious, both religious and spiritual and of course neither religious nor spiritual.

Most researchers also seem to agree that while religiousness and spirituality are independent, much of the spirituality in the world can be found in the realm of the formal religions.

Some scholars, like Elkins, have developed multidimensional conceptualizations of spirituality that are humanistic and do not mention a deity. Others, e.g., MacDonald, also do not include religiousness per say in their definitions of spirituality but do agree that an expression of spirituality thru religion should be a part of the model of spirituality.

I have a published a number of studies on spirituality that have included groups of secular Jews in Israel, i.e., those that define themselves as being not religious (in contrast to the traditional group). So these non-religious individuals do respond to spirituality measures and some do demonstrate high levels of spirituality. That being true, I have always found high correlations between religiousness (however that was defined or measured)  and spirituality ((however that was defined or measured).

I hope I am not being offensive here but can you really, in academic terms, have such a thing as a secular Jew since surely being Jewish implies some form of spiritual identity, although I admit that in my country we do sometimes have a similar confusion over terms such as Catholic and Protestant as is summed up by a famous job advertisement from Northern Ireland, specifying that the applicant must be a Protestant, Christian preferred,

any way my question is if some one who identifies themselves as a secular Jew exhibits a strong degree of spirituality is that surprising given that they already identify themselves as part of a community, Jewish, that is in part spiritually defined?

My feeling is that the very concept of 'spirituality' has become too vague to be useful - people use it to refer to everything from heightened aesthetic experience to empathetic compassionate personality and doing yoga exercises (and then there is Spiritualism, which is almost something else entirely - belief in a non-material immortal self). Sorry to sound so downbeat!

Many thanks to Timothy and Aryeh for their erudite responses. In the literature I have seen a very clear attempt to move from the traditional understanding that religiosity and spirituality are significantly related to a suggestion that spirituality and secular humanism can also be significantly linked. My problem is that the concepts used to define secular humanism are invariably found in measures of religiosity. This seemingly indicates that religiosity and secular humanism are similar or even identical concepts! Following are a couple of papers on the subject:

Crisp, B.R. (2008). Social Work and Spirituality in a Secular Society. Journal of Social Work, 8(4), 363-375.

Crossman, J.  (2003). Secular Spiritual Development in Education from International and Global Perspectives. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 503-520.

Many thanks Graham. It certainly appears that we are dealing with a concept that is not clearly defined yet important in many areas of therapy and support.

I find it unsurprising that you are getting these results since the titles of these papers, especially Crossman', indicates that this is the result that they were looking for, I have no idea of Crossman's background but I do frequently find that the religious believers characterise humanists in this way.

indeed that is why some people adopted the term to avoid the label of atheist, which prioritises religious belief by defining the non religious by what they are not rather than what they are, under such circumstances it is unsurprising that linkages are still being made with humanism and religious spirituality,

for a truly different view I suggest reading Richard Dawkin's works,

of course as I said earlier atheistic traditions can develop a pseudo spirituality that adopts all the trappings of religious spirituality, good examples can be found in China where young couples have Communist Party weddings that too all intents and purposes look and feel like the religious ones derided by the party

I believe Graham Richards said it best about the diffusion of the meaning of spirituality. On its face, spirituality presupposes the existence of a transcendent, non-material reality that doesn't necessarily lend itself to direct empirical observation. Inasmuch as secular humanism presupposes the lack of any such transcendent reality, spirituality would be incompatible with secular humanism. This is not to say that secular humanism isn't concerned with human flourishing. Quite the contrary. It is concerned with human flourishing apart from any reliance on the spiritual. What Timothy Edward Jones refers in his post about pseudo-spirituality is something touched on by James Fowler in his Stages of Faith. For Fowler, faith is no synonymous with spirituality or religion but with things of ultimate concern. 

I believe Charles Taylor has accurately characterized how spirituality and secularism can co-exist. Taylor contends that our present zeitgeist involves what he calls the "immanent frame" which excludes belief in the transcendent. However, Taylor presupposes the reality of the transcendent and contends that reality impinges itself on the immanent frame, creating what he calls cross-pressure. The clash of these two incompatible worldviews produces what he calls the nova effect, wherein a variety of belief systems may be explored in response to the need for meaning-making. As such, spirituality in whatever way makes sense to those who embrace may co-exist with naturalism. 

C. S. Lewis presciently described a state wherein one could be both a materialist and a magician in The Scewtape Letters. Paraphrasing here, the senior tempter in the novel is describing how to resolve the dilemma of whether to induce humans to believe in the spiritual realm or not. He says in effect that the goal is to "emotinalize and mythologize" science to such an extent that belief in the spiritual will exist while belief in God will not. 

Speaking as the senior tempter, Lewis writes,"The 'Life Force,' the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshiping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits”—then the end of the war will be in sight.".

It is perhaps worth adding to Kevin Eames's response that the history of psychotherapy since c.1900 to the present displays a thorough mixture of the religious and secular, the spiritual and the materialist, both theoretically and institutionally. I explored this a little superficially I now think in my Psychology, Religion and the Nature of the Soul (2010), but as an example, the popularisation in Britain of psychoanalysis and other 'New Psychology' schools in the 1920s & 1930s owed a huge amount to the Methodist Leslie Weatherhead's popular books and journalism, plus his establishing of the City Temple Psychological Clinic - add to this the founding of the Tavistock Institute by the devout Crichton-Miller, and the role played by these in eventually establishing the British Counseling Association and the ironies & paradoxes abound. If ever a psychotherapy school was secular and anti-religious is was Freud's, but the religious happily co-opted his ideas from the outset (especially 'sublimation').  But I am rambling!  My point is really only that Psychology is perhaps the key locus of the entire issue in the 20th century.  I must confess myself at a loss at this stage to know what a 'spiritual value' actually is. And scales to measure 'spirituality' which can apply across Catholics Lutherans Muslims Buddhists, Judaists, Humanists et al are surely impossible to devise, most US research uses scales clearly aimed at WASPs.  Rather than 'more research is needed' perhaps we should just drop it and reframe the terms of the entire enquiry! 

Thank you, Professor Richards. I learned a lot from your post, and I agree with you that psychology/psychotherapy has indeed been instrumental in attempting either rapprochement or irreconcilable separation with religion. I have always been at a loss to understand how Christians could find such compatibility with psychoanalysis. There appears to be a resurgence of such interest with a group dedicated to the integration of psychoanalysis and Christianity in the Christian Association of Psychology Studies (CAPS). While I am a Kuyperian in believing that truth may found through all kinds of venues and vehicles, Freud's naturalism, religious antagonism, and questionable scientific methods and claims extend far beyond my comfort zone.

I will be looking for your book. 

Dear Yaacov and Aryeh,

thanks for the interesting question and answer which i can consent.

Spirituality was sth discovered in the paleolithic times before homo sapiens already most probabely. It is proven if you can prove sth like this by the funeral customs of the Neanderthal man and even before finding the first "graveyard" in Sima de los huesos in Spain dating about 400.000 years back.

Religion needs an Institution thus starting only in neolithic times.

And nowadays many People resenting institutions as they do not like governmental organisations and churches they still like thinking of politics and spirituality.

Besides there is an inherent Problem: Many churches ask you to believe. But in other religious ways you can make yourself experiences of another Kind so that you must not believe any more as you know.

Spirituality is separate from religious.

When someone tells me they are religious I hear them saying they do not understand what religious is and they have no idea where there spirit is... If I hear someone tell me they are spiritual I here them saying I am trying to understand what it is all about.

I have a deep respect for religious and spiritual people.  I do not understand how people that are either or both can defend ideas that are counter to both.  This is what I see in the world that we live in.

These two things should bring the world peace and harmony yet most wars are had over religious differences and hate.  These things are counter to the survival of the human race.

George

Some people claim that Buddhism is not a religion, but indeed very spiritual?

Look at the definition of a religion. 

I think that by definition Science is a religion.

Thanks for sharing, Dear Thomas. Perhaps spirituality is related with everything.

See “What Is Spirituality?” in the link below. An excerpt:

“Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all. People may describe a spiritual experience as sacred or transcendent or simply a deep sense of aliveness and interconnectedness.

Some may find that their spiritual life is intricately linked to their association with a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue. Others may pray or find comfort in a personal relationship with God or a higher power. Still others seek meaning through their connections to nature or art. Like your sense of purpose, your personal definition of spirituality may change throughout your life, adapting to your own experiences and relationships.”

http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-your-wellbeing/purpose/spirituality/what-spirituality

Dear Yaacov:

In my view, if we understand "religiosity" as "organized religion", then I would say that spirituality is not necessarily related to religiosity. "Secular humanism", as well as other forms of relationships between human beings and aspects of our existence that reason cannot discern, would belong then to the spiritual dimension. But if we conceive "religiosity" in a more general way, then I would consider "religiosity" and "spirituality" synonymous.

“spirituality” is problematic and is a “fuzzy” concept, meaning it is difficult to provide a clear definition

- Zinnbauer, Pargament, and Scott (1999), The Emerging Meanings of Religiousness and Spirituality: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Personality 67: 889–919, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00077

I think Ken Wilber has the best answers to these sorts of questions.

I found a very good phrase by Jacques Philippe: "God is delivered in the humanity of Christ." In God and in Jesus Christ there is the same spirit of love and mercy.

Humanity without God would not be spiritual securely. But in Jesus Christ the Christian people find the intersection of God and humanity.

George in no way can science and religion be equated, the two are separated by a fundamental difference, a scientist accepts the concept that he could be wrong and indeed a good hypothesis will actually set out the falsification conditions for the hypothesis.

I do not accept the existence of God because as a scientist, archaeology and geology, I consider that when tested against evidence the hypothesis of the existence, or even necessity for, a divine creator fails to sustain itself, therefore at best it remains a hypothesis, not even to be advanced to theory, and then only if we allow the God of the Gaps to be promulgated.  So far this sounds as dogmatic as any religious zealot.  However, if I encounter the Arch Angel Gabriel who informs me that I am wrong then, once I have verified that this was neither hallucination nor hoax, I will adjust my world view accordingly.  This should illustrate why science and religion are not the same, no religious person will set out the falsification conditions under which they would accept that their faith is a falsehood or indeed even entertain the possibility that it may be so.

However, I do need to set out a caveat here, there is a difference between how science is practiced and how it is used by the layman.  In the latter case science and religion are functionally the same because the pronouncements of both are used to justify viewpoints by people who have no understanding of how either work

Research defines religious individuals as more traditional, more conservatve, more rigid and more cautious than secular himanists who are defined as more liberal, more flexible and more willing to take risks. A conservatism questionnaire was compiled and extensively used by Wilson and Patterson who expained the differences between conservatives and liberals and clearly indicated that religious individuals are very close to the conservative end of the spectrum whereas secular humanists are close to the liberal end of the spectrum [see Wilson, G.D. & Patterson, J.R. (1968) A new measure of conservatism, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 264-269.]. What I find is that both religious and secularists have similarly strong, stable and coherent but very different beliefs about life and this makes it is possible to define secular humanism as a "religion". Thus spirituality could well be related to both conventional religion and to secular humanistic "religion" pehaps because of the similar structure in the belief constructs of both sets of individuals. 

Timothy,

You do not have to believe in something unreal to think there is a higher power or a higher order to the Universe.

I can show you how given only two scientific facts 1) Mass exists  2) Gravity works as we see it work in the universe, to prove without a doubt that there is a higher order in the Universe.

Not Religion but just plan science.  This is not the existence of magic or tricks but I can show how we had to be here as the science is behind the work. 

Too many people try to say things that are not true to prove religion but it does not have to be that way at all.  If you give me just those two science facts I can show you why.....

We are suppose to be here.  It was going to happen and if my way of thinking is correct as it is logical then it will happen over and over again to the end of time.

If you want to talk and not bother this thread my email is [email protected]

George

Is spirituality directly related to religiosity or can it be related to secular humanism?

It can be related to both. Some people however see secular humanism as a religion in itself. Those who embrace it usual do not.

Dear researcher,  Yaacov J Katz

Peace be upon you

It seems that Yes!

All persons that  God believers and monotheistic, define the spirituality under religion. This believes expand the religion to all things in the world because The God says in Holy Quran  (The Honorable verse 156 of The Blessed chapter of AL-ARAF)   

I've not yet carefully read all the responses here, but I'm immediately struck by how outlooks that are mondernist, and largely Western, appear to be structuring much of the discussion. In the spirit of Prof. Lazar's call to be mindful of our definitions, I would like to suggest that we benefit from starting with examinations of actual behaviors (for example, prayer and meditation practices) and of the different uses of religious and spiritual language, rather than beginning with constructs such as "spiritual" or "religious," and then working backward in order to fit phenomena into those conceptual categories.

Old School (Theravadin) Buddhists, for example, encourage doubting one's assumptions regarding spiritual authority and metaphysical propositions (e.g., The Kalama Sutta); they do not espouse a belief in a supreme being; and they place a great emphasis on practical ethical actions (e.g., The Eightfold Path). Much of that can look a lot like a modernist conception of "humanism." 

And the Zen school, as another example, frequently up-ends conventional relations to ordinary language, where, for instance, in koan literature the performative effect of language acts is much more the salient "point" than is their propositional content. 

(As a quick example of the latter: Zen teacher Zhaozhou was once asked by a student whether a dog has "Buddha-nature." Buddha-nature is effectively the kind of sentience that's capable of awakening to its own nature, and traditional Mahayana Buddhist teaching was well known to hold that "All sentient beings without exception have Buddha-nature." But Zhaozhou replied, "No." His apparent intent was to encourage his student to stop conceptualizing so much and, instead, to engage directly and intimately with his experience of the matter-of-factly miraculous nature of the present moment. On another occasion, however, another student asked him the very same question, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature," to which Zhaozhou replied "Yes." Commentarial suggestions are that in the latter case, Zhaozhou was encouraging the questioner to open up faithfully to his own always-already present and awakening truth.) 

As with poetic discourse, the literal content of much of spiritual and religious language matters less than its effect. And thus, to put it in a somewhat exaggerated idiom here, one could maintain that many of our current-day attempts to invest ourselves in constructed conceptions of what is "religious" or "spiritual," and "secular" or "humanist," constitute a type of modernist idolatry.

yes David I agree this particular thread is heavily dominated by western modernist views, in part this is dictated by Yaacov's initial question which did ask us to consider spirituality in relation to secular humanism rather than variant religious traditions,

with apologies to Yaacov if I seem to be diverting attention from his thread, there is a related thread here on RG which participants might like to consider as complementary to this one called 'Humanity; what is it's purpose?' this has been far more wide ranging in geographical and chronological scope

In addition to what Y J Katz has said, which is very reasonable and seems to be historically correct, as far as I can tell, if we define spiritual experiences or needs as existential (in e.g., M. Bubers’s, V. E. Frankl’s and P. Ricoeur’s sense), it is possible for any human individual to have existential experience as that of discovering or struggling with the question of meaning in/of life and suffering. A religious person usually interprets his/her existential experiences or existential needs in religious terms. See for instance King David in Psalm 51, where we find his interpretation of his guilt experience as sin before God.

Ii think Timothy's recommendation is spot on. The temptation to broaden "spirituality" into an existential construct without reference to the supernatural is to render the construct meaningless. Spirituality presupposes the existence of a non-material reality. What Antonio describes is certainly common to the human experience and eloquently documented by the thinkers he identified. Spirituality may encompass such existential crises (e.g., Kierkegaard) but existential crisis and spirituality are not the same. David's acknowledgment of sin in Psalm 51 must be understand not as a reinterpretation of a guilt experience, but as authentic guilt for the very real wrongs of adultery and murder that offended a very real God - a spiritual being - that David worshiped and otherwise obeyed. To reinterpret it in postmodern terms is to do violence to the integrity of the narrative.   .

As I mentioned previously, I believe this tendency is elegantly explained by Charles Taylor's notion of cross-pressures that are characteristic of an immanent frame  His framework explains why a secular humanist could consider him- or herself to be spiritual. A nice summary of Taylor's work is found in Jamie Smith's How (Not) To Be Secular.

Do not discount the idea that there can be an existence beyond the life we live.  It does not have to be a dream or fantasy if you can understand the quantum realm as real.   We already think that the quantum has a separation from time as we know it and this leads me to think, is there more to that than we know?

I am pointing to science for the answer not religion.  Religion for the most part wants us to believe that there are "Super Natural "People"" that are what would be called God's.  In my thinking the existence of our energies after we are not living on the earth is still possible and from a science stand point that may look like something super natural but could be real.  If there is a chance that this is real then the spirituality that we may have is not just something to dismiss as irrelevant.    This spirituality may be the individual being able to understand and communicate with their Soul...or their energy that grows over the life time of a human.  It does not make it fantasy or fiction but only possible and as a scientist I like the idea of possible.

George

Dear Kalvin, if David was not a religious person, and if he had committed adultery, would he not experience any guilt (guilt feeling)? I think that he would because he is a human being. I don’t say that David would call his guilt feeling an existential experience. But Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Buber, Frankl, etc. could call his experience an existential guilt. However, for Kierkegaard, Buber and Frankl, as religious thinkers, the experience is of course that of sin. Here we are in agreement.

Another question: Was it wrong of Jesus to choose a Samaritan to represent (express) a true compassion and goodness? As Jew (and a Christian) should Jesus choose a Jew or a Christian to express true goodness (compassion)? If he chose a Samaritan (he could have chosen, e.g., a Greek), it is because any human individual (religious or not) can experience and show goodness and compassion. If this create new problem for you, please play attention to what I say about David, Kierkegaard, etc., above.

All living beings have a soul, that represents God. This is the unbreakable bond we have with God, irrespective of the protoplasmic clothing the souls may wear. This makes all living beings as one grand family, described in ancient scriptures as 'Vasudev kutumbkam'. Thus, spirituality unites not only the whole mankind, but also all beings and identities including earthlings, aliens, angels, et al. The concept of God and His family has been vividly exemplified in ancient scriptures. You may visit my blog, for more details, if interested @ Rakesh_speak.

http://rakeshyashroy.blogspot.in/2011/05/un-breakable-link.html?spref=tw

Hi Antonio - yes, it seems we are in agreement about much. I was trying to differentiate between guilt as an objective, legal status and guilt feelings, which are subjective experiences. David was always guilty but only experienced guilt feelings when he was confronted by Nathan. As to your question about Jesus, as a Christian I'm afraid I can't agree that Jesus did anything wrong. All of Christian theology is founded on he who knew no sin became sin for us; he exchanged his righteousness for our sinfulness and took away our guilt. The doctrine of common grace, however, would indeed allow for any person to show goodness and compassion regardless of their religion or lack thereof. This is what one Christian theologian called civic righteousness. 

Thank your, Kalvin, for your answer. I have a comment only to your statement: “I can't agree that Jesus did anything wrong”. It is good that you cannot agree about this.  So do I. But I have not said that Jesus did anything wrong. My example about the goodness of the Samaritan in the context, in which it occurred, serves only the purpose of showing or indicating that there are universal experiences, like guilt and compassion, regardless of what we call them. When we call them existential and/or religious, it is the result of our interpretation, for which we use different conceptual frameworks. You differentiate between “an objective, legal status and guilt feelings» I agree with you. But there is also the ethical or moral guiltiness or fault.

Dear Yaacov J Katz, indeed your question is an important one and it requires the right knowledge of both in order to give the right answer. According to my humble understanding as a Muslim, Islam clams in the light of its Book - Quran that God has created man with his dual nature - the inner aspect / soul or spirit or unseen and the outer aspect - the physical body, the outer aspect or the seen. Regardless of his/her choice in this world, the truth is that that the human body comprises innate or embedded knowledge according to his/her creation and therefore, the ability to differentiate between his/her inner aspect and outer aspect of life. 

I have to acknowledge the fact claimed by Islam and other world religions - Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on that religion gives a clear explanation about these two parts of human being. For instance, Islam promotes an ideal way of life that satisfies both parts of a human being. Thus, spiritual and material compliment each other and cannot be separated, when it is related to the life on man in his earthly world. 

Secular Humanism which was introduced during the renaissance period from 13 to 16th century in Europe created a separation between religion and state as well as religion and spiritually.  The pioneers of this movement came from religious background and therefore, it was very difficult for them from the very beginning to disconnect themselves from their religious origin. Latter on the study of religion from a scientific approach was developed and thus, religion was studied according to science and not religion. Science does not accept unseen. So it was scientific development that affected the perception of secular humanists who left their religious worldview and created a worldview with values taken from religion and science. In the Muslim community also you will find Muslims who do not have a clear Islamic world as well as a clear scientific or secular worldview. They claim to be Muslims as well as secular at the same time. It is this kind of people who study religion separately by considering spirituality another ideology far away from religion.  

Note: If we look at any religion portrayed rightly by its followers will not separate two aspects of life - inner / spirituality and outer/ religiosity. Religion will present them as a set. On the other hand when we look at science or pure secularism it does not promote spirituality as it does believe in it and it focus only on the seen.

I hope I have given somehow an answer to your question. 

a very interesting answer Fatmir that does provide an excellent synopsis of the spiritual in religiosity, however, it does contain an error, science and pure secularism are not interchangeable terms, they often appear so but only because the rationalist approach of science generally produces data that is more supportive of the views of pure secularism than those of the religious,

science does not promote spirituality not because it does not believe in it but because spirituality has failed any test suggested for it, scientists are prepared to entertain the unseen, e.g. current debates on the existence of a multi verse, but it needs to be testable even if only in a thought experiment and of course both sides need to set out the falsification conditions for their respective hypotheses

Jesus presented to us a message in the context of a religion but which has to do with us people, thus it is humanistic.

Yes  think so but what  are your findings please?

.....It took years of engagement to reach a comfort level in the community high enough to allow one another to put up the information about other religions on the wall, display it in a more open way rather than just keep it in the drawers............

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/06/21/singapore-muslims-play-big-role-in-promoting-religious-harmony/

Spirituality and religion are not the same. Human are mind, body and spirit. Thus one's spirituality is how the spirit reacts internally and externally. One's religious beliefs are rooted in how the spirit finds definition. One can reject religion as an extension of their spiritual undersanding, but one can't separate themselves from their spiritual component.  From Plato:  "The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot be separated."  Medical studies by physicians, nurses, social workers and chaplains have confirmed the spiritual element of both pain and healing.

Charles, this sounds like one of those examples of taking an ancient thinker too far in applying his ideas to the modern world, Plato was undoubtedly one of the greatest thinkers the world has known, however, I must question citing him as an authority on medical procedure wrt modern world, our technology is far too advanced compared to what he knew to permit this,

I think we also need to question whether any medical study genuinely concludes that there is a spiritual element to healing, as opposed to a psychological element, the former requires a belief in a world beyond the material the latter does not imply any such beliefs

Religiosity is short sightedness. https://in.pinterest.com/pin/218495019401436174/

Over the last 20 years there have been over 1000 studies published in hundreds of medical journals that conclude that spiritual care is beneficial and assists in promoting holistic care. The modern practice of patient centered care is rooted in caring for body, mind and spirit. The World Health Organization (not affiliated with any religion) counts as an important part of the interdisciplinary team the spiritual care practitioner - sometimes called chaplains. I take it that there is some doubt about my comments. Go to Google Scholar and enter "Spiritual Care, Medicine" or "Medical Care, spiritual care"  Be prepared to read hundreds of abstracts that confirm the benefits of spiritual care by physicians, nurses, social workers and chaplains.  These practices are evidence based practice.  I trust you find the answers you are looking for. You asked a question I supplied an answer from my years of practice.

Dear Yaacov,

I dare say that the question is not well set, because ii is built with a either/ or structure, whereas it should be built as an and/and question. 

As far as I know,  on the one hand, 'spirituality' many times is nothing but a side or aspect or moment of Christian (probably Muslim, Jewish, etc also) religion. Which side or aspect? That one related to the psychology of feelings of the individual when this individual is concerned not with particular issues of his/her life, but with his/her world view. Therefore spirituality is just an aspect of religion, an aspect  different from that one of  the 'Truth' of the beliefs (dogmas, etc) and  that one of the 'Morality' of individual and social action (the so called 'good works' of the New Testament). 

But also, on the other hand, 'spirituality' cannot been relegated at all within the narrow borders of institutional traditional religions. If it is true what I said previously (spirituality concerns the world of a set of  human feelings: the feelings related to the world views), then every human being has somehow a world view , every human being has feelings, and so every human being has feelings related to his/her world view,   and therefore every human being has a spirituality.

Bye!

Charles please do not take umbrage when you are challenged, this is part of a research forum, my question was are these genuinely linked to spirituality, i.e. something that requires the existence of a spirit, or to psychology which 'merely' requires the existence of  mental processes, just because something is labelled as spiritual does not mean that it validates spirituality, any more than Communist dictatorships calling themselves democratic republics makes them democracies

Dear All

There are views of religious spirituality and non-religious spirituality. In both cases it has got to be connected with the unseen or transcendent beings such as God or non-Gods.  Non-Gods may include one's inner self, soul. A ghost is also a spirit. Religious spirituality is the association of oneself with God or deity in one form or another. Again there are views as to whether Buddhism for instance is a religion of God. If it is then the spiritual practices are Godly or religiously spiritual. If not then the practices are perceived to be humanly spiritual.

Cheers

Religiosity is humanism clearly. Spiritualism is in relation with a spiritual God who can be the base of a religion, and then of many human beings. I do not know more humanism that the one taught in my Catholic religion, for the well of the human beings.

I note that Jesus Christ was descendent of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, etc. and he did not talk bad of Abraham but all the contrary, he dedicated very good words to his ascendents.

Religiosity consists of religious practices during our life. Spirituality means we exist for ever, with death and birth acting just as change of our role. This keeps happening till the individual discovers eternal bliss.

I do not encourage the popular analogical dualism: 'religion is to institutions as spirituality is to some sort of inwardness'.  In my approach, using my revised version of the Andre-Weil-Claude Levi-Strauss 'canonical formula', I have published a trans-species definition of religion and a demonstration of chimpanzee religion. I have this year submitted two papers rigorously defining the concept of religion versus the concept of spirituality (actually spirituality as a subset or cross-concept of religion), both rejected by journals for being too long and also using a no longer trending structuralism, which my revised formula is not, since it is post-structuralist.  The religion paper is a 'project' at my ResearchGate webpage.  Basically I have made a paradigm shift in defining 'spirituality' by defining it in terms of animacy (aliveness), which co-activates the animacy and biomotion neural network. The animacy network might be named the 'animacy Theory of Mind network' (one of the six basic theory of mind networks, i.e., 'mind' networks, including cognitive ToM, affective ToM, moral ToM, etc.).  Hopefully I will find time to address the peer review critiques over the next year or so and resubmit the two articles.

Religiousity is fundamentally pertaining to religious beliefs and faith while spirituality transcends religious conceptual framework. A religious person rarely is spiritual. Great mystics are good examples of spiritual stalwarts. They have transcended religious precepts and concepts. It is is for this reason they preach universality and oneness. And this it is universal standards that bids us to see the fundamental similarities of spiritual heights of Adi Shankara, Meister Ekhart and Ibnu Al-Arabi although the trio come from Hindu, Christian Muslim backgrounds. They transcended religiosity and touched the heights os spirituality. This is my humble opinion. Hope this helps.

Radhakrishnan I think that may be why it has been argued that religion is a relatively recent, MBA?, concept, humanity has long been spiritual but when societies become 'sophisticated' enough they codify spirituality through ritual and books and turn it into a religion, if true then spirituality can be separated from religion, this complicates Yaacov's original question since it may mean that we also have to separate religiosity, i.e. belief, from religion

Sprituality is beautifully demarcated from religiosity in the over 5000-year old scripture, Srimad Bhagvad Gita.

First we should ask what is religion and what is spirituality. I think that our understandings of these terms, especially of religion and religiosity, are so diverse that it is impossible  to answer this question. 

Dear Yaacov,

The question "Is spirituality directly related to religiosity or can it be related to secular humanism?" is an interesting one. It seems in the modern context, "spirituality" seems to be a quality of thought which is 'bound' to some aspect or activity, i.e., pertains to the seeking of information. Understood in this way, the word may apply to both religious and secular domains. It is interesting to see how the Jewish writer, Saul/Paul of Tarsus uses the word "spiritual" (Gk: "pneumatokos/v) in his letters. Among the twenty-one uses of "pneumatikos/v In Paul, "spiritual" is used to speak of a person who has been 'enlightened' by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:13)--even, one in whom the Spirit dwells. In this regard, would not "spirituality" be understood differently in both religious and secular domains, as it relates to both approach and end result?

Religion is more or less like a political wing of universal spirituality.

John,

in those cases where we can check it seems that most societies have always been more concerned with doctrine and ritual than connecting with the divine, e.g. Trajan's reply to Pliny wrt how genuine Christians were who participated in the correct rituals, the emperor didn't care what they believed privately so long as they participated in the rituals all was well, a similar compromise was reached with Judaism prior to 66 CE and a similar thread underpins the tragedy Hippolytus, this was also usually the doctrine of the papacy whereby it was accepted that it was legitimate for Catholics to follow Protestant customs if their prince was Protestant until such time as the Pope formally declared said prince excommunicate

The term 'secular humanism' is a right-wing ideological political slogan.  Therefore it cannot be used for humanities or science research, other than to be examined for what it is.  It has little if any application to the question of the relations between the concept of religion and the concept of spirituality as such.

really James, I have always associated it with the political left, the majority of right wing movements being determinedly religious based, the one possible exception I can think of is the Nazi party under Adolf Hitler, and even this is contentious on two grounds since it is questionable whether we should characterise the National Socialist German Workers Party as a right wing one rather than a left wing and also the ideology was regarded as compatible enough with Catholicism for many prominent, well educated Catholics to join the SS

this might suggest that secular humanism is more a feature of left wing dictators such as Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot, assuming it really can be labelled as belonging to an ideology which is a concept that I also reject since it is followed by many academics who would be horrified by any association with right-wing political ideologies

To clarify:  With respect to the USA the term secular humanism is a political ideological term used by the right-wing, and especially Christian right-wing, to demonize and scapegoat their left-wing opponents.  I have been the victim of such a smear-campaign when I once had a position of philosopher-in-residence at a state government social services agency. At the time, this position was funded by the federal National Endowment for the Humanities. A right-wing zealot believed that the term Humanities was a case of "secular humanism" and ran a media campaign which led to the abolition of the position. Apparently the zealots did not like to see intelligence in government.

ok James, sorry completely misunderstood the reference, possibly a cultural difference since in the UK  the religious right is pretty fringe so I do sometimes forget that it is more influential in the US, over here it definitely refers to a philosophical approach to life rather than being used as a term of abuse and as such is more likely to be used as a self referent than an ascribed label, I do sometimes find this on RG we don't always understand entirely those on the other side of the pond

Thanks. I did not know of that the term was used differently on your side of the pond.

Timothy Edward Jones is not exactly wrong about UK usage but it does nevertheless carry connotations of Creationism, hostility to Gay marriage and women clergy (in C of E), and in some cases belief in demonic possession etc. But I guess if Christian fundamentalism is a 'philosophy of life' then what he says is correct. I do though suspect it is not quite so fringe these days as one would like to believe!

Thanks to Timothy and James for their constuctive comments. In research studies on spirituality there are some that broadly use the term 'secular humanism' as a philosophical approach and not as an insult or smear [see Crisp, Journal of Social Work, 2008, 8(4); Crossman, Oxford Review of Education, 2003, 29(4); Du Toit, HTS Theological Studies 2006, 62(4); Fraser & Grootenboer, International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 2004, 9(3)]. My feeling is that the traditional relationship between religion and spirituality is now being replaced by a similar relationship between secular humanism and spirituality, where secular humanism takes on the belief role of what used to be religion. 

In one respect you are almost certainly correct Yaacov, secular humanism is taking on the belief role formerly occupied by religion, the classic example of this is the drunk in the pub who announces that Einstein proves there is no God, and similar, the person stating this, and I have personal experience of this, has no more understanding of the principles of relativity than his religious equivalent has of the arguments of his faith, in both cases they are just blindly following the pronouncements of their respective high priests, the major difference is that the 'high priests' of science denounce this blind faith as not being how they want people to behave whereas 'high priests' of religions usually encourage this approach

Einstein on God!

Religiosity can be private and public. Private religiosity which often identified with spirituality usually refers to the vertical relationship of the individual with his or her God or anything considered "sacred" or "supernatural", be it an ideology or a belief in the supreme being. It is usually measured in terms of frequency of personal prayers, belief in God, etc. Public religiosity is the communal or horizontal aspect of religiosity; it refers to participation in public rituals, sacraments, religious organizations, etc. A person can be privately religious with strong religious beliefs and spirituality but publicly non-religious if he or she is not active in religious rituals and activities of a Church or any religion, be it secular or supernatural. Urban poor women in the Philippines, for instance, are generally privately religious or with strong spirituality and relationship with God, but not publicly religious since they are preoccupied with their informal jobs and trade to overcome poverty and, thus, neglect attending church rituals and be active in communal worship. The ideal religiosity is to be both privately and publicly religious since a sound religiosity must have a vertical and horizontal dimensions.Thanks for allowing me to share my insights and best regards to all!

OK from an extroverted sensate personality type's 'objective' definitions. It lacks any account of subjective content of religion or spirituality, and relies on a Christian biased account of religion and spirituality. It is irrelevant for any attempts to study the origin or evolution of religion in the human species over the last two million years, and privileges the Christian cult, which is only one among many religious and spiritual transformation processes.

Jordan Peterson has a lot to say about this. For a critical exploration of his views, you might enjoy Book MYTH, MEANING, AND ANTIFRAGILE INDIVIDUALISM: ON THE IDEAS O...

Dear Yaacov ,

Notice that spirituality usually refer to an individual while religiosity refer to religion which is unconceivable as uniquely a personal affair, it is necessarily involving a communal dimention. So spirituality which is more an individual affair that may or not may not be related to a communal religion. Notice that the notion of secularisation is part of an socio-cultural process of the European civilisation wich began to take place after the renaissance in the humanist era. So there is an historical connection between humanism which was first a christian revival of the greco roman heritage which will gradually been transformed in a reformation into a massive rejection of the rooted aspect of the European christianity, the cults of the saint, a massive iconoclastic but a moving of gravity of politics towards the educated city merchant class. A move from the cathedral to the printed book as the central cultural medium of diffusion. Secularisation is absolutly instrumental to passage of the cathedral politics to the book politic, the creation of the European nation and capitalism, i.e. the rule of money, the privilege instrument of power of the merchant class. So the dissociation of spirituality from religion is instrumental to the new politics. Whatever weaken the collective , re-inforce the individualism will promote the money power. If you read the different humanist manifesto, they are less and less religious and become anti-religious. The power of money require a weakening of the communal , the social solidarity, the religere. And this what secular humanist is about. It kind of wear the clothes of the religiosity but it is essentially a weapon for its demise.

Regards,

- Louis

Both spirituality and religion can be defined as experience of the transcendent dimension of reality. So defined, there is no religion without spirituality but there is spirituality without religion. Religion can be defined as an institutionalized form of spirituality.

Many thanks Marc. I had a look at the book and see that there are references to the question I posed. I am not sure that Peterson provided a direct response to the question I asked mainly because the monopoly of religion over spirituality has become significantly weakened sincesecular humanists adopted the concept of spirituality as being part and parcel of current humanist philosophy. However, there are those who convincingly declare that the motivations and ideas behind the relationship between religion and spirituality on the one hand and between secular humanism and spirituality on the other are essentialy the same except that the language and terminology used by religionists and humanists are different.

The gradual dissociation of spirituality (private affair) from the communal religion affair began in the West with the reformation with the sola fife doctrine. Here the private affair of individual relation to God is given priority over the public affair of primacy of good deeds.

''Justificatio sola fide (or simply sola fide), meaning justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine commonly held to distinguish many Protestant denominations from the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches. The doctrine asserts that it is on the basis of their faith that believers are forgiven their transgressions of the law of God rather than on the basis of good works which they have done. This forgiveness is known as "justification". In classical Lutheran and Reformed theologies, good works are seen to be evidence of faith, but the good works themselves do not determine salvation.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

Dear colleagues

Peace be upon you.

It is a fact that individuals characterized by low levels of religiosity will typically have low levels of spirituality

It is a fact that secular humanists could not having a high level of spirituality.

please, see also my view onspirituality in the fololowing article:

Article: Tiburtius Koslander, António Barbosa da Silva, and Åsa Roxberg Existential and Spiritual Needs in Mental Health Care: An Ethical and Holistic Perspective

Mr. Yaacov, this is a good question that requires a study. However, I would like to raise the following questions:

1. Does secularism or humanism believe in spirituality?

2. In what kind of spirituality do they believe?

3. What are the sources people should refer to know about spirituality?

4. Should these sources be from God or man?

If we understand the above questions, then, it will be perhaps more easy to know about this topic.

Hi Fatmir,

Your questions are certainly valid. I believe from empirical research that secularists andd humanists certainly embrace the concept of spirituality. The spirituality that they embrace is linked to values, ethics and morals accepted in secular and humanist circles. Secularists and humanists do not view spirituality as having religious connotations, thus their perception of spirituality is not one that has any relationship to religion. They feel that secularist and humanist values are a solid basis for spirtuality. In my opinion, their spirituality is very similar to ythat oif religious sprirituality except that they have replaced religious background and concepts with modern and secular concepts.

Yaacov.

Thank you for your question. This is in accordance with one of themes of my research on the level of religiosity and spirituality.