Teaching & Learning Guide for: On Spirituality: Natural and Non‐Natural

Author’s IntroductionReligious conversations – both scholarly and popular – routinely employ the term ‘spirituality,’ a term whose ubiquity is matched only by its obscurity. ‘Spirituality’ is seldom, if ever, defined. Most people seemingly appeal to commonsense when they speak of ‘spirituality’ as ostensibly referring to something immaterial and by a certain extension non-natural. The spiritual is supposed to transcend the historical. For those working in Religious Studies, such a position ought to be, and finally is beginning to be, looked upon with suspicion because the (substance) dualism informing commonsense definitions of spirituality is no longer viable. As such, the commonsense definition of ‘spirituality’ is untenable for scholarly purposes. We need a new definition of ‘spirituality,’ and this new definition demands a new approach. To be sure, contemporary academic consilience counsels methodological naturalism. Religious Studies rightly abides such academic consilience. Eschewing all appeals to the supernatural, a natural definition of spirituality suggests that it is existential self-esteem. Although there may be multiple manifestations of self-esteem, spirituality is a misrecognized form of self-esteem as the ‘sociometer.’ Existential self-esteem mitigates interpersonal death anxiety. There are two types of ‘spirituality,’ the non-natural and the natural. Non-natural spirituality pursues ‘literal’ immortality; natural spirituality pursues ‘symbolic’ immortality. Methodological naturalism disallows the former and at least countenances the latter. This guide outlines an approach to teaching about and ultimately defining spirituality as a wholly natural phenomenon.