The Secularist Identity

What comprises the cornerstones of the secular lifestyle? Why do devoutly non-religious thinkers maintain their faith in the ‘spiritual’? No one wishes to deny the presence of the numinous, the magnificent, the magisterial, or the awesome, but where does one overlap with the other and cross into the realm of ‘spirituality’? Does the essence of ‘spirituality’, as it is commonly used, refer to a sense of the ‘soul’? Is this merely synonymous with human consciousness? Does such a think exist at all? Is it only illusory, and wedded to our illusion of free will? Indeed, if the much asserted presence of free will were disproved, would the basis for maintaining ‘spirituality’ still exist?

I personally renounced the term ‘spirituality’ when I began to disavow religion. I believed that any sense of the numinous that supposedly extended into the boundaries of the metaphysical were erroneous and should not be upheld in case it lent a single jot of credibility to the religious who frequently manipulate such terms, and contort their beliefs into something seemingly much grander than they deserve. Not only does the very notion of ‘spirituality’ provide lifeblood for the archaic presuppositions of religion, but it also defames the true connotations of the numinous and the awesome.

The editor of Free Inquiry magazine, Tom Flynn contends the religious employment of ‘spirituality’ as a means of espousing authority, but defends its apparent and proper use, which should not, he claims, be denied the secular. He reports on a recent discovery. Nurses, he says, have oftentimes denied patients some forms of emotional care since the patients have claimed no religious belief or ‘spirituality’. Such care includes the usual and otherwise common rituals of hospital stays.

The nurse managers told me that they considered having a quiet conversation with a patient, holding a patient’s hand, evaluating a patient or family member’s emotional state, even giving a comforting alcohol rub, as providing spiritual care. [emphasis mine]

Clearly, this jumbling of interpretation is severely limiting patient comfort and recovery. Why is it that a renouncement of the ‘spiritual’, for one, denotes the withdrawal of any kind of psychological comforting for another? Is this example demonstrative of a wider trend across America that is limiting widespread understanding of secular values? Moreover, is this sort of discourse more generally accepted by larger numbers of the general population than I previously thought? And, indeed, does this further contribute to the hesitancy of many when confronted by urges to cast off the brick-laden backpack of religious proprieties?

It seems that, to answer these questions, a firmer definition of ‘spirituality’ is urgently required. Flynn, it must be said, hesitates in recognizing the root of the problem and the extent of what this implies. He does, however, see the trend, and concludes:

I may have discovered a wholly inadvertent discrimination against the non-religious … rooted in our old friend, the endlessly pliable meaning of the word, ‘spiritual’?

You may contend, as I do, that the use of the term, “old friend”, is rather unfounded. However, it is the very pliability of ‘spirituality’ that lends it meaning to so many, and a significant problem to us few.

Another contributor to Free Inquiry magazine, Phil Zuckerman interjects where Flynn closes and mounts the offensive by coining a new term, “aweism”. He defines himself as an “aweist” passionately embracing the numinous and our sense of wonderment. He seizes upon the flaw inherent in the term ‘atheist’. It is only a negation, he claims, affirming the non-affirmative. We would be better off with a positive definition, one that does not fall foe, or recognize anything to do with theism. His criticism is a common and pertinent one, but one that has led to the failure of other such terminological rebuttals. Professor Richard Dawkins’ proposal of naming secularists “Brights”, for instance, has all but fallen by the wayside. I predict that Zuckerman’s term will discover a similar path of embarrassed inconsequence.

Zuckerman mentions that religious denominations, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., all provide a wealth of categorization in order for one to find, shall we say, the right match. Is this not, however, a systematic flaw in the fundamental workings of religious groupings? The sub-groups of sub-groups present throughout religious communities provide little more than the affirmation that religion is more divisive than welcoming and all-encompassing. I doubt that the author wished to mimic the religious communities, but by forming genres of non-belief we leave ourselves open to attack, and not only from without.

Unsatisfied by normal modes of secular categorization, Zuckerman wished to condense the finality of his self-analysis into a simple term. Perhaps “aweism” is appropriate for him, but he’ll be forced to explain and clarify his position (dare I say, beliefs) with inevitable regularity. He insists, however, that “awesim” is totally devoid of ‘spirituality’.

An awesit just feels awe from time to time, appreciates it, owns it, relishes it, and carries on – without any supernatural, cosmic, karmic, or otherworldly baggage.

You may feel inclined to sympathize with this deliberate, yet futile divorce, though I doubt you’ll come to label yourself an “aweist” any time soon.

The question, then, persists; how should we define ourselves? Reading this blog, it’s likely that we think in very similar ways. Should this method of thought define us? Perhaps. Or maybe we should not define ourselves at all.

Regular contributor, James Poulter once posed the question, somewhat off-handedly, of the fundamental principles to which we adhere. Put simply; what makes up the basis for secularism? I would suggest the following: logic, reason, and evidence. Might I raise a finger here and add irony? Without irony, humour, and the ability to self-questioning and self-doubt, life would be unbearable. (I was delighted to read this month’s cover of Free Inquiry, which proudly claimed: “Now FOUR MORE Pages!”)

It is important to remember and, it’s worth repeating, that the principles outlined above are not beliefs. They do not require justification of any kind, nor any faith. They are governing principles under which we should form opinion, evaluate scenarios, live. Note also that this means our opinions, our judgments, and our views are constantly susceptible to change. This is integral to secularism and the overarching detachment from religion that we procure. This is the foundation of our position. Without needing to alter our principles we can fluctuate and shift between estimations or opinions with ease. The ability to assess one’s argument against a counter-argument is central to progress and to winning the war against religion. Indeed, the religious are incapable of doing so to the same extent, as they are bound and ceaselessly limited to their scripture.

Recognizing the spiritual, as Tom Flynn has done, and refute it, as Phil Zuckerman suggests, leaves us to contend with the numinous, the magisterial, the magnificent, and the awesome: something that, I hope you’ll agree, is a rather attractive proposition. Furthermore, this refines our position. We uphold a basis of logic, reason, and evidence, and nothing more, as our defining principles, and we refuse to be categorized by them. Unlike the religious, we don’t need to gather together every week to remind ourselves of what we think. We just know.