I'd say that key is to find what "secular moralities" and "spiritualities" have in common with "faith-based approaches."  I put these terms in quotations, because I think some of this language is unhelpful for finding and articulating what these realms of human experience and action in common. In the first place, let's stop using "faith" as a synonym for religion.   History-of-religions scholars have been protesting against such usage for more than half a century now, and it's about time the general public listens to them. "Faith", while a key terms for some religions is an especially Christian term. Not that it is absent in other religions but it does not have the same central position; hence to use it as a synonym for religion is prejudicial. Once we adopt this position, we can easily see that "secular moralities" and "spiritualities" have a faith element, by which I mean that they don't base themselves on reason any more purely than religions do. E.g., most secular moralists, when questioned about the basis of the hope that informs their actions will admit something like the following: 'Yes, we live in a world of injustice where brutal power and mendacious seems to rule the day, but against all odds I will align myself in action with others who have the same hope of a transformation, which we hope for more based on our emotions than our reason.' We should also dispense with language that suggest that "religion" and "spirituality" are somehow inherently different things.  What people call 'spiritualities' are generally secularized descendants of forms of contemplative praxis developed in the religions, e.g., in Hinduism (think yoga), Islam (think people who claim to be Sufi without being Muslim!), Judaism (think of those interested in Kabbalah with only the most remote connection to any established form of Judaism). So let's talk instead of 'secular spiritualities' and 'religious spiritualities' and invite practitioners of both to discuss what they do, how it effects their lives, what is revealed in their practice, etc. To answer the question simply, let's begin by admitting the many secular people and many religious people acknowledge something like the inherent dignity of all people—and perhaps of all sentient beings—no matter how they ground that faith, whether in secular experience or in relation to a specific religious tradition. Then I suggest we talk about how our own experience opens us up to understanding the goodness and integrity of other people from whatever religion or secular spirituality.

As a Christian practical theologian, I sense a responsibility, in speaking to Christians regarding the challenge of morality and spirituality, to emphasize systemic justice as well as individual righteousness--and to emphasize that justice and righteousness are quite synonymous in both the Hebrew and Greek. Christian morality is based on fair, or just, relationships patterned after a relational God who reveals morality and spirituality both in nature and more specifically in Jesus Christ.

I find no difficult transition in fostering morality and spirituality among students in the secular environment. Morality and spirituality must be seen, first of all, as relational. Students are especially sensitive to fair and unfair relationships. And I find the best method of fostering morality and spirituality is through stories of relationships. I have used films like Forgiving Dr. Mengele and Hotel Rwanda to foster powerful discussions about morality, evil and forgiveness.

Powerful films by Lee Mun Wah, not a Christian, such as The Color of Fear and Last Chance for Eden (StirFry Seminars) are powerful aids to diversity training. We sense immorality and morality as we hear the powerful stories of those who have been racially oppressed. As students struggle with the systemic and individual moral crises of our day, a desire for spirituality often arises. I would, in a secular school, approach spirituality, not in the abstract, but from the lives of spiritual heroes of different faiths or non-faith.

Above all, students today are not wildly receptive to our ideas, truth and morality. They don't respond to preaching or teaching as much as a collaborative effort of discovery. They do want us to enter into a process of candid and challenging discovery of truth, morality and spirituality.

I like your question because it raises the issue of morality and spirituality in education. Currently, there is a resurgence of focus on both in education as the spirit of individualism continues to plunge the world into chaos. What one considers to be ideal sources, I think, will depend on how he/she defines spirituality and morality, and what he/she thinks should be the result of the two.  The definitions are still up for debate so I gather that the opinions on sources or methods will also vary.  Personally, I prefer to consider the results of both, not for the individual but for the society in which we all live.  

I think sooner or later the ideas of rationality and autonomy will come under serious scrutiny in relation to their societal value. The down side of autonomy, in particular, has been the proliferation of graduates from institutions of education who seem to only think of themselves and their small circles when making decisions that will have serious impact on the lives of many others.  Just consider the corruption and avarice that is practiced by educated people in almost every area of society. Wherever there is spirituality and morality, whether religious or secular, this would not be, in my understanding of the two. 

As an educator and researcher, therefore, my approach to a methodology in fostering spirituality and morality is to endeavor to learn from those who see themselves as both spiritual and moral, across religious and secular lines.  I am in the process of doing a research study to examine the perceptions of college students on spirituality and moral development, with a view to developing programs that will promote both spirituality and morality.  The objective is to have more responsible (not just ambitious) graduates leaving our institutions of higher education, who will seek to live fulfilled lives while contributing to the development of society.

Putting aside the superficial question of whether one can be moral without being “religious,” whatever is “secular morality” and “secular spirituality”? You are using “secular” as a category in opposition to “faith-based.” So what is “secular”?

      Why would you call certain forms of Buddhism (such as Vipassana, I assume) “secular”?  Do you mean “non-theistic”? And what kind of education that would teach the “spiritual” would be “secular”? Why would Vipassana Buddhism be suitable and not other  approaches?

     You are asking for a “secular morality” that presumes “rationality” and “autonomy.” Again, what do you mean? Why is the Buddhism of the type you are thinking of “rational” while religions are not?

      I find your question to be laden with assumptions that are uninformed and unconsidered. A final thought. Speaking of “pluralism” you want to foster "morality" and "spirituality," but the implication of your remarks dismissed the religions that teach morality and spirituality. I don’t call that desire pluralism but the presumed hegemony of the secular.

Buddhism is by definition 'non-theistic' so, certainly, I would see this as an improvement on faith-based approaches (faith being belief without evidence).  Mindfulness is rational because it has publicly accessible evidence and reasons to support its efficacy whereas faith/religion has only private revelation.  I have nothing against this but it really should not be part of publicly-funded education systems.  These arguments are all in my paper attached.

I enjoyed your chapter more than your questions. I am certainly not against studying and teaching Buddhist ethics, especially the “socially engaged” development of Buddhism. In fact, I am interested in the articulation of the claim that Buddhism offers “rationally justifiable basis for morality.”

     But now to the question of evidence. Your view of Buddhism is that it claims that mindfulness is way to the end of suffering. That presumes an understanding of suffering--I assume, as the Buddha taught. And it presumes an understanding of “mind”--again I presume the Buddha taught or at least the Pali Canon teaches. Further, you quote Segal, Williams, and Teasdeale (2002), to say that “Mindfulness lies at the core of Buddhist meditative practices, yet its essence is universal.” OK, I’ll take the advice of your article and ask, “What is the empirical evidence for these claims to universal truth? By empirical evidence, I mean data and verification that will meet the standards of scientific and observable proof.

     Buddhism, even its current Westernized versions, is based on a worldview, a worldview that its “noble truths” teach. Mindfulness meditation (e.g. Vipasssana ) is taught and practiced in a Buddhist context within this worldview. I refer you to the teachings of S. N. Goeka. I don’t have a problem with teaching Buddhist ethics but I question privileging it over other worldviews because it seems more compatible with Western secularism.

Many thanks for these excellent searching comments, Basil.   I would not want to offer a view of Buddhist ethics which privileges it over other world views.  The idea of offering mindfulness in schools would be establish an emotional context in which to discuss all world views. Moral philosophy does incorporate much emprical support for the idea that the universality of the human condition leads to a universal consensus on basic values (non-harming, trust, truth-telling, etc.; Sam Harris's Moral Landscape is good on this).  I think this is what Kabat-Zinn is getting at when he argues that mindfulness is essentially underpinned by the universal dharma and that compassion and lovingkindness flow naturally from the 'inner knowing' that mindfulness meditation can bring.  On the evidence that it does so, the neuroscientific and psychological literature is currently full of it.

Buddhism may be "by definition 'non-theistic'" but that is a definition that derives from considering only the most philosophical aspect of the religion and the one that tends to appeals to those schooled in Western traditions of rationalism. But if you look beyond this to the forms of Buddhism practiced by tens of millions of Asian Buddhists, you'll see the worshipping of many being who are conceived—and related to—as divine beings.  Let's resist the temptation to reshape religions according to our own tastes, let's be willing to admit a diversity and respect those who practice and believe otherwise than ourselves.

Thanks for the original question and the ensuing debate.  This is indeed important.  In my recent book Unsafe Gods: Security, Secularism and Schooling (2014) I touch on many of these issues - including the misunderstandings of  secularism.  I have a section on the 9 myths of secularism, one of which is that it has no spirituality.  But also there is the myth that it is antithetical to religion, when in fact a dynamic secularism in governance or schooling is a friend to religion,in not privileging one religion over another.  Even though I would agree that it is possible to be a secular Buddhist (as one can be a secular Jew, or secular Muslim or secular Christian), I have problems with advocating Buddhism as a solution to moral teaching in school, as it can be individualistic, with the assumption that if we all had 'inner peace' then this would solve the world's problems.  (It has been used in countries like Sri Lanka to divert attention away from wider government actions and promote Buddhist ethno-nationalism)  I prefer an approach which cuts across and is inclusive of all religions, such as human rights.  A value system of human and children's rights enables critical analysis of religions and religious messaging.  As a secular, 'man-made' system, rights themselves can be critiqued, debated and argued about in   in ways which are more difficult to do with regard to religion, which are seen to be divinely inspired.  UNICEF's Rights Respecting Schools enable all children to know rights (and what is not a right) and to respect the rights of others - to learn and to be treated with dignity.  A rights-based approach also enables wider considerations of justice at local, national and international levels, and understanding of rights violations.  This is more likely to produce an active citizen who will challenge injustice - an active morality.    

Simply taking moral principles from various religions won't be the best alternative approach.  I would say (off the top of my head) you would be better off attempting to construct one with the free use of selective sources: Virtue Ethics to challenge the mind (you could start largely with Aristotle, take advantage of the revival of this form of ethics and the literature it has recently produced while avoiding any of it that's too religious for your purpose and challenging people to think about the telos of their life), the study of role models (whether ancient or modern) who have lived worth of imitation to win over the imagination, and personal relationships and group interaction/sharing to win over the heart and help flesh out ethics in daily living.  I would especially be careful in making any explicit connection to politics, lest the students think you are just trying to indoctrinate them after a political agenda.  Read atheists and humanists who have written on the subject, focus on areas of continuity and agreement from secular sources, challenging the students to be critical of these sources just like you would religious sources.  You can use secular sources even if only in a single overview chapter, like here: http://theophilogue.com/2013/08/13/atheist-ethics-book-review-of-julian-bagginis-book-atheism-a-very-short-introduction/

Sincerely hope that helps.

I enjoyed reading the chapter and the comments here. First, I teach at a non- traditional (Wiccan) seminary. Part of our studies in training clergy is to help to foster diversity without religious dogma. Wicca by its own profession is a non-confessional faith based on the principles of balance and harmony with all of nature. Ethical studies is a major component of the training of individuals who attend our seminary. Utilizing one of your citations: 

The difference between a spiritual life and every other life comes down to this. In spirituality, you find out what the mind really is. Consciousness explores itself, and far from reaching a dead end, the mystery unravels. Then and only then does wisdom blossom ... The mind has looked deeply into itself and discovered its source. (Chopra and Mlodinow 2011, 225)

Education without religious bias is the key to an informed and moral public. I think that any concentration on one spirituality whether theist or non - theist leads students in a direction of the instructors or institutions bias and while many reformed christian theologians would state that we operate within a pre-suppositional ethic of acceptance of God as omnipresent, etc, I do not feel that it belongs in public institutions as the "only" way. I agree that some of the non-theistic practices of Buddhism is one direction to take but would add other faith based practices as well.

In the research for my article and subsequent published abstract in popular media - Gossip Craft - A Destructive part of any Community - I take pains to show multiple views across different religions both traditional western and other "alternative" faiths within the context of the practice of Gossip.

In the seminary we utilize this research as a spring board at both the Undergraduate and Graduate level for two purposes.

1. Foster tolerance and diversity

2. Demonstrate that destructive behavior ( such as Gossip) is ethically incorrect no matter what the faith or religion of the individual.

I contend that ethical behavior is part of the Jungian collective unconsciousness.

It is the repository of all the religious, spiritual, and mythological symbols and experiences. Its primary structures - the deep structures of the psyche, in other words - Jung called "Archetypes"; a later-Hellenistic Platonic and Augustinian Christian term that referred to the spiritual forms which are the pre-existent prototypes of the things of the material world. Interpreting this idea psychologically, Jung stated that these archetypes were the conceptual matrixes or patterns behind all our religious and mythological concepts, and indeed, our thinking processes in general. [Calvin S. Hall & Vernon J. Nordby, A primer of Jungian Psychology, p.34 (1973, New American Library)].( bold mine) 

This being said, in a state supported school my opinion is to utilize a multiple of faith-based tools to teach and reinforce your concepts or utilize none of them.

If you leave God out of any discussion on spirituality you are dispensing with the most important component thereof. Secular spirituality, positive psychology, mindfulness, etc can partially contribute to spiritual well-being, but they all are limited in that they rely on human effort. Just as with resilience, if a person fails with their own efforts, they can become dejected, whereas in trusting a Transcendent source for the inspiration of one's spirituality, we only need to receive and appropriate the gift of spiritual life.

If you would like to see some empirical evidence that supports my contention here, have look at:

Fisher, J.W. (2014) Comparing the influence of God and other Transcendents on spiritual well-being. Religious Education Journal of Australia, 30(2):9-15 (in press)

Fisher, J.W. (2013) Assessing spiritual well-being: Relating with God explains greatest variance in spiritual well-being among Australian youth. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 18(4):306-317.

Fisher, J.W. (2013) You can’t beat relating with God for spiritual well-being: Comparing a generic version with the original spiritual well-being questionnaire called SHALOM. Religions, 4(3):325-335.

John - many thanks for your interesting comments and publications. As I argue in the paper, I am proposing a secular spirituality specifically for publicly funded education which, it is suggested, should be informed by the same conditions of knowledge and rationality which support all curriculum subjects.  Such conditions preclude the appeal to supernatural powers and agencies since these are self-evidently not open to publicly verifiable evidence which would be accessible to all people, not just those who happen to be members of faith communities.  In a free, democratic society, I would naturally not wish to prohibit faith schools - my point is that these should not be supported by public funds of taxpayers who (increasingly so in the UK) do not share the faith of religious groups. I hope this makes some sense.

Best wishes. Terry

Thanks Terry for this and I absolutely agree.  As I think I said in an earlier part of this discussion, in my book I outline the nine myths of secularism, one of which is that secularism has no spirituality.  Clearly, much depends on definitions of 'the spiritual' - but your point about this being available to all, not just those who believe in the supernatural, is a crucial one.  In these days of religious extremism, we cannot afford to let claims about interpretations of 'the divine' drive they way people relate to each others, and be an excuse for war and violence.  If the transcendental is seen as an inspiration for spirituality, it can equally be (and is) seen as an inspiration for brutality.  It is imperative that we give young people skills to critically challenge religious precepts where appropriate and promote the ability to think independently.    

Lynn Davies (2104) Unsafe Gods: Security, Secularism and Schooling.  IOE/Trentham

Everyone's worldview is based on their belliefs, some of which can be substantiated by empirical evidence, but much of which is based on perceptions of experience. I maintain that secular education is limited in its capacity to help young people come to an understanding of the richness of many cultures that comprise the human race. Sure you can use religion as a scapegoat for wars, but what causes wars is a more fundamemtal human failing - self-centredness, which fails to allow alternative views to be expressed. Secular education does not reflect the majority view reported on most countries' census figures relating to religion. Most parents pay taxes, so why shouldn't they be able to choose what type of school their children go to, based on their beliefs? By focusing on secularity, such schools are limiting education of students, by imposing humanism as a default philosophy underpinning the school. Does this pervading philosophy encourage students to think independently? If so, independently of what?  It is much better to have open, informed discussion of a variety of worldviews in all types of schools, whether secular or religious, so we can reduce the tension in our communities that are caused by ignorance. The previous comment that I made was based on empirical evidence that shows that relating with God (theistic Transcendent) is of significant benefit for people relating with themselves and other people, which is not shown by other Transcendent influences such as higher self, fate, universal spirit or impersonal Transcendents. I maintain that unless students are given the opportunity of exploring areas such as relating with God, that can significantly improve their spiritual well-being/quality of life, then they are being short-changed by their schooling. As Andrew Wright stated, 'Critical awareness, and the possibility of establishing intelligent ownership of our spiritual beliefs in the light of alternative options, opens up the possibility of both personal and political formation and change.' (Spirituality & Education, Routledge Falmer, 2000, p. 133.)

Thanks, Joe, I like Kant too especially married to the form of utilitarianism exemplified in R M Hare's writings.  However, all this is rather abstruse and needs to be reduced to a teaching/learning programme.  That's the challenge for educators!

As a follower of Jesus, an Episcopal priest and a professor of Social Ethics, i realize our need for collaboration. I learn and profit from Buddhists (like Lee Mun Wah of Stirfry Seminars... around the issue of racism), from Wiccans, Agnostics and even from the morality of New Atheists who strongly protest our/my Christian faith. Preferential option for the poor demands gracious collaboration, despite striking differences in beliefs, from faith-based, community, educational, medical, business and governmental agencies.

I understand your perplexity but I'm pretty sure that this statement (faith-based education encourage fundamentalist leanings) has no scientific evidences. If there are such evidences, I would like to know about them. Many times people react on intuitions, not on evidences. And this is not rational.

Many thanks for your comments. Obviously, I am not opposed to people following their own chosen spiritual paths. However, children need the space to choose for themselves and publicly-funded schools should provide such a space. Very best wishes!

I agree with you Terry that publicly-funded schools SHOULD provide a space for children to CHOOSE their spiritual path but when only one viewpoint is pushed (i.e., secular humanistic one) where are the options for choice?

Thanks, John, though my secular humanism is extremely liberal and allows me to embrace Buddhist ethical principles and the golden rule of Christianity. I would envisage such scope for school students if they are introduced to a broad range of spiritual traditions in a non-confessional and undogmatic manner. Good luck with all the work!

I'm not sure why this debate has opened up again since 2014 (!) but just to reiterate the point I made then that secularism is not a singular or exclusive belief system but a political system which simply does not privilege one belief over another nor permit any one religion to control the workings of government. Secularism is not the same as atheism. A secular education, as Terry points out, can include learning about any faith or none; and, as with secular governance, it would need to include learning about non-supernatural value systems which underpin the rule of law such as human rights.

Thanks, Lynn, just the point I am trying to make about secularism. Some debates will never die, especially ones in which fundamentalist faith is involved!