Religious But Not Spiritual, Redux

---

Many people seem to think that science takes the "magic" or "mystery" out of life. I too, like Feynman, have never understood this notion. 

​Each new discovering in science reveals more mystery while uncovering a reality beyond any human imagination. No myth reveals a universe more magnificently awe-inspiring than the universe revealed by scientific investigation. 

Recently, I had the opportunity to have a conversation with J Brown for which I owe him much gratitude as it has helped me see where I could have been clearer in my writing, specifically in my piece entitled “Religious But Not Spiritual.” The first point to be made is that I did call this “as close to a personal manifesto as anything I’ve written” because what I wrote about was my worldview, my metaphysics and self-identification. It is not inherently a criticism of those who identify as “spiritual but not religious” though there is a sub-group of those who do so identify that I question. From my perspective, J’s reaction shows that there are some strong emotions around this issue so I am very grateful that in discussing my piece with J, I see there is more I can elucidate that may help clear any potential mis-reading.
 
First, I think there can be no honest denying that the term “spiritual” has at least something to do with the term and concept spirit. The first definition you find, and the way the word “spirit” has been used historically relates to:

the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
"we seek a harmony between body and spirit"

the characteristics of a person that are considered as being separate from the body, and that many religions believe continue to exist after the body dies:
 
the form of a dead person, similar to a ghost, or the feeling that a dead person is present although you cannot see them:
an evil spirit
The spirits of long-dead warriors seemed to haunt the area.

​As a naturalist, I do not believe there is any such “nonphysical part of a person” that is “separate from the body” and I reject the belief that any such part “continues to exist after the body dies.” And it is obvious to me that the “seat of emotions and character” are in the body, most specifically in the brain.
 
And the term “spirituality” has as its first most common definition:

the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
"the shift in priorities allows us to embrace our spirituality in a more profound way"

​As I do not believe in any such “spirit” or “soul” “opposed to material or physical things” spirituality so defined is irrelevant to my life and practice.
 
And finally, the term “spiritualism” is defined as:

a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, especially through mediums.

IN PHILOSOPHY:
the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

​As is obvious by now, not believing in any kind of spirits or souls, I don't believe anyone is really ​communicating with dead folk.

To be absolutely clear, I have heard many who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” espouse such belief in a soul or spirit that is immaterial and distinct from the physical body. For instance, there are those who say “We are not humans having a spiritual experience; we are spirits having a human experience.” I would say that many – perhaps most – contemporary yogis actually DO hold some belief in a transcendent, non-material, non-natural (supernatural) realm of existence. Such yogis believe they have a soul (a non-material essence) which they may refer to as their “true Self” and generally they distinguish this Self (with a capital S) from self (the small, egoic self). Many of these yogis believe this soul/spirit/essential Self reincarnates which is to say this spirit incarnates (takes up meat/flesh/body) again and again.
 
I have absolutely no issue with such yogis who have this dualistic belief, though I absolutely do not share it. And for such yogis believing in such a non-material entity, it is absolutely coherent and logical to assert that they are “spiritual but not religious.” When these yogis say this, what they are generally really saying is that they are rejecting institutionalized religion and asserting their personal belief in spirit. That’s a coherent position to take and I’ve no criticism of it other than saying I think it’s wrong, but they have every right to hold it.

Now, where I have witnessed some incoherence is in a subset of such “spiritual yogis” who speak of some non-physical aspect of the human while also asserting that they are non-dualists. When questioned, and when I point out the incoherence of asserting they are non-dual while believing in a “spiritual realm” separate from the material body, (the duality of body and spirit) many then move into a form of Idealist monism and say that “everything is spiritual.” Their idealist non-dualism may take Tantra as a model and say that consciousness, which they equate with immaterial spirit or divinity (and not the brain, as is the general consensus among neuro and cognitive scientists) is the ultimate foundation of all reality or even exhaustive of reality. While I do not share in this belief (as I accept the scientific consensus that the mind and consciousness is what the brain does), I have no issue with those who do hold this philosophical position. (By the way, I have no qualms of changing my position if new convincing evidence that changes the consensus of those with expertise)
 
It is truly only in regard to those who use the term “spiritual” to refer to what are simply human values that I question. For instance, Stephen Covey offers a typical definition:  "The spiritual dimension is your center, your commitment to your value system. It draws upon the sources that inspire and uplift you and tie you to timeless truths of humanity."

The wellness community often talks of “spirituality” in this sense as is evident in the University of Iowa’s “Student Wellness Services” website page:
 
“It relates primarily to the quality of personal relationships or love for nature. A basic foundation for spiritual wellness may be the sense that life is meaningful and you have found your place in it. The search for meaning and purpose in human existence leads one to strive for a state of harmony with him/herself and with others while working to balance inner needs with the rest of the world.

Many of the behaviors associated with wellness are key components of a healthy spiritual life. Examples include volunteerism, social responsibility, optimism, contributing to society, connectedness with others, feeling of belonging/being part of a group, and love of self/reason to care for self.
 
It goes on to say that “Signs of Spiritual Health” include:
 
- Insightful and nurturing relationship with self and others
- Strong personal value system; cultivation and fulfillment of purpose in life; hope; positive outlook; acceptance of death; forgiveness, self-acceptance; commitment; meaning and purpose; clear values; sense of worth; peace.”
 
I do not see any need to call these basic human values, attributes, and activities “spiritual” and to do so, in my opinion, tends to de-center their humanity, subtly devaluing the human animal natural realm while insulting millions of atheists and secularists who experience all these values and traits without believing in spirits or souls.

This brings me to what may be my major issue with spiritual thinking. In valuing what are simply core human values as something “sacred” (which literally means to set apart) from the material human realm, there is a devaluation of the material human realm – sometimes grossly so and sometimes more subtly so. Ironically, it was just this that spurred me to write a letter to then Shambhala Sun (now Lion’s Roar) which became the subject of my first Zen Naturalism Blog post in 2008.

The editor of Shambhala Sun, Melvin McLeod wrote: “I don’t think anybody, no matter what they argue intellectually, actually believes their subjective experience doesn’t have some nonmaterial basis.” This is such a condescendingly dismissive statement I was appalled! His inability to imagine the heartfelt understanding of others is a blatant example of religious/spiritual/intellectual intolerance. I wrote at the time (when I was still using the word “spirituality” where now I would write “religious” or “religion”): “My spirituality rejects all forms of supernaturalism. It seems to me that every so-called “spiritual” tradition that valorizes some postulated “non-material” realm ends up devaluing the material! You can hear McLeod’s disdain for the material when he goes on to write: “You don’t have to believe in God to think you’re more than just cells.” I, for one, stand in mute awe as what “just cells” are and do! Of course, we are more than “just cells”; we are aggregates of cells, tissues, organs, bodily systems, brains (made of these “just cells”) and their function gives rise to emotion and thought! How utterly awesomely amazing! Do you really need to postulate some immaterial animating force to make life the amazing thing it is?
 
And there is an even deeper argument against his dismissal of “just cells” that you would think a Buddhist such as him would have thought of! There is no such “thing” as “just cells” according to the Buddha’s central teaching of dependent co-origination! These cells are made of elements birthed in the heart of stars that exploded as nebulae (except for the hydrogen which was created at the Big Bang)! We are literally not just star dust, as Carl Sagan called us; we are star babies and there is some element in my body – and yours! – that is as old as the universe! Happy Continuation Day! This understanding in no way diminishes us as humans. Or as buddhas! In fact, I find it boundlessly expansive in reminding me of my utter non-separation with all that is. I can only think a very outdated concept of “matter” and “material” is behind such a dismissal.
 
McLeod didn’t stop there. He went on to rhetorically ask: “So, is this goodness, this human nature, purely material?” Why wouldn’t it be? There is a comprehensive library of research that shows a completely naturalistic, evolutionary explanation for the origin of morality that actually predates any known religion.
 
J, and many others, criticize science for being “reductionist” and fail to see the forest for the trees. The Buddha was a reductionist. One example is his reducing perception into a chain of discrete events, allowing him to see where the “weak link” in the perceptual chain of events would allow the application of mindfulness to alter one’s conditioned reactivity into a more skillful response.
 
Here I wish to reiterate something I shared with J as well. While fundamentally (that is to say, the very basis or foundation) we are not “just cells” but actually sub-atomic particles, it would be the height of foolishness to try to speak from that level for any meaningful human relationship. There are many “non-fundamental” ways we have to talk about the world that describe higher-level realities. I gave the example of a baseball game. We could describe it from the level of Quantum Physics, or Newtonian Physics, or even the biology of the players but that would miss the point, the reality of the game! And I DO understand the reality of the game (with strikes and balls; walks and home runs etc.) as being “real” and not diminished by my understanding that fundamentally it’s all quarks! Unlike a radical eliminativist who denies the reality of the baseball player and the rules of the game as simply an illusion, I accept these as emergent realities. And I believe this is the same for love, compassion, and joy.
 
The cosmologist Sean Carroll speaks of three different kinds of stories we can tell about the world:
           The fundamental level of sub-atomic particles
           The level of people, cars, animals
           The level of values such as right and wrong; purpose and duty etc. The crucial                  thing from a naturalistic worldview is that these values are rooted in our nature
            and are what we bring to the world. We, as particular manifestations of the
            natural cosmos bring into the cosmos values such as love, compassion,   justice
            etc.
 
While science gives us knowledge about the world, and while science can inform our discussions about values, it would be ultimately ridiculous to speak about love and compassion from the fundamental level of subatomic particles while also accepting the knowledge that fundamentally, love and compassion are the emergent realities of such particles!
 
As for the terms religious and religion, note again that I identify as “religious” which points to my overall life orientation rather than any set of beliefs, doctrines, or dogma (religion). As I wrote in my previous essay, in the West we have a very limited idea of what religion is and it is very much tied to the theism that runs through the three Abrahamic religions that have dominated Western history and culture: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But the origin of the term (from the Latin religio) is more an action, a disciplined activity that, like Yoga, is about cultivation. Used agriculturally, it would have described the activity of shaping growing plants; of cultivation. The Buddha too used such agricultural terms such as bhavana (meaning cultivation) to describe the practices he shared.
 
Remember the description of “spirituality” from that University of Iowa’s website:
“It relates primarily to the quality of personal relationships or love for nature. A basic foundation for spiritual wellness may be the sense that life is meaningful and you have found your place in it. The search for meaning and purpose in human existence leads one to strive for a state of harmony with him/herself and with others while working to balance inner needs with the rest of the world.

Many of the behaviors associated with wellness are key components of a healthy spiritual life. Examples include volunteerism, social responsibility, optimism, contributing to society, connectedness with others, feeling of belonging/being part of a group, and love of self/reason to care for self.
 
The very same thing can be said of the praxis of religion; the religious way of life.
 
After all, The Buddha himself rejected the idea of a creator god, and Buddhist philosophers have been known to argue that belief in an eternal god is nothing but a distraction for humans seeking enlightenment. I shared with J that Richard Gombrich has written about the Buddhist monk who, when asked about god, replied, “What does god have to do with religion?” For the Buddhist monk, who may even have believed in the existence of various deities, such beings can do no more than grant boons. What that monk was pointing out is that the real project of religion is liberation, and no god can grant that. One must work and practice to cultivate one’s liberation. So even deity believing Buddhists feel that the gods have nothing to do with the real purpose of religious practice.
 
And Buddhism is not the only nontheistic religion. For instance, there are non-theistic Quakers, also known as nontheist Friends who engage in Quaker practices and processes but who do not believe in god, the divine, the soul, or the supernatural. Like traditional Quakers, also known as Friends, nontheist Friends are interested in realizing peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, joy, and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond. Daoism is another non-theistic religion though the Dao may be seen as a supernatural animating force by some.
 
One commenter at my blog spoke about how institutional religions have a dark history of authoritarian patriarchal power that actually demeaned nature as ‘the feminine.’ And this is true, and another reason many reject religion as J mentioned. And there is no denying that Western institutionalized religion (especially Christianity and Islam) has been pathological in its authoritarianism and in Asia Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam have often allayed themselves with brutal governments. To this I would simply argue that it is also possible to create a religious institutional structure that is non-hierarchical, egalitarian, and consensus-driven. (Here again the Quakers are relevant) And that’s what I and others are creating for ourselves in order to share in a truly communitarian way, our religious awe and investigations.

​The religious worldview that informs and shapes my life is what I call Zen Naturalism. As such, it is one of the many pathways in the growing Religious Naturalism movement. Religious naturalism combines a naturalist worldview with ideals, perceptions, traditions, and values that have been traditionally associated with many religions or religious institutions. "Religious naturalism is a perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world and rejects the notion of a supernatural realm." The term religious in this context is construed in general terms, separate from the traditions, customs, or beliefs of any one of the established religions.

In the Zen Naturalism that I and others are co-creating, we practice many of the traditional forms of Zen from prostrations to chanting, and of course meditation. These are forms of a religious/yogic discipline firmly grounded in the teaching of the Buddha and various Buddhist traditions, while rejecting any teaching that defies what we currently know about the universe. Thus, I do not accept the teaching of “literal” rebirth as most – but not all, traditional Buddhists believe. The famous and influential Thai monk, Buddhadasa was known for saying “we come from one womb and enter into one tomb”; rebirth for him happens every time we have an “I” centered thought.
 
As I also mentioned to J, while major schisms in Western monotheistic religions were based upon difference in belief because of the emphasis on orthodoxy (that is similar belief) in Buddhism, monastics of various schools of thought could and did live and practice together despite differences in philosophy because they shared a similar practice (orthopraxy). Schisms in Buddhism were generated by differences in practice.
 
Thus, anyone sharing in the practices of Zen Naturalism: the various meditation techniques from satipatthana to shikantaza; chanting and the various ceremonial forms is welcome to join our growing sangha no matter what beliefs they may have. And I do have students who practice sufism, Christianity, Judaism, as well as those who identify as atheistic, agnostic and humanist. It’s a big natural tent; a tent as big as the natural world!