Creating
a theoretical space for spiritual interventions:
The
Alldredge Academy
Matthew
Whoolery and Brent Slife, Brigham Young University
L.
Jay Mitchell, Alldredge Academy
Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of
Behavioral
and Social Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 2002
Correspondence about this article may be sent to Mat Whoolery by e-mail: mwhoolery@aucegypt.edu
Creating a theoretical space for spiritual interventions:
The
Alldredge Academy
Many
psychologists and psychotherapists are attempting to study religious
spirituality and formulate religious interventions.
The underlying secular philosophy in psychology has made these attempts
less than fruitful. Because this
secular philosophy does not require a god, religious spirituality is either
discounted or altered to fit secularism’s god-less universe.
Secular philosophies are often viewed as being neutral regarding values,
but we will contend that explanations not requiring God are logically
incompatible with explanations that do require God.
Without first making conceptual room for theistic spiritual interventions
by providing an alternative to secularism, there is little chance of success.
The solution is a practical one—a better theory, one that permits and
encourages god-oriented explanations without itself being expressly religious.
Creating such a theoretical space would allow for the development and
implementation of theistic spiritual interventions in psychotherapy and
psychotherapeutic systems. The
Alldredge Academy, a school and treatment center for troubled youth, will be
used as an example of how this philosophy can be applied to the development of a
therapeutic program and interventions.
The first question that must be addressed is: Why is there currently no
space for theistic spirituality? Over
the past two decades, the amount of research and published articles about human
spirituality and religion has increased dramatically (Richards & Bergin,
1997; Joseph, 1996; Bergin, 1980; and others).
This increase in interest may give the impression that there is no
problem in conducting this kind of research—that space has been created.
However, we argue that this is not so.
Though there has undoubtedly been an increase in attempts to
create religious spiritual interventions, the underlying assumptions of
psychology have crowded out a truly theistic, and thus god-filled understanding
of spirituality (Slife, Hope, & Nebeker, 1999).
Psychology is, of course, founded upon a secular philosophy.
This philosophy, usually as associated with science, is thought to be a
value-neutral—and thus a religiously neutral—philosophy.
If a secular philosophy were truly value neutral, it would allow for both
theistic and non-theistic explanations. But
this claim to value-neutrality is itself a value.
Psychology’s secular philosophy encourages certain views of
spirituality while discouraging others. As
several observers have noted, the specific secular philosophy of psychology is
naturalism (Bergin, 1980; Slife, in press).
We will use the term “naturalism” to describe this underlying secular
philosophy and demonstrate how it crowds out the possibility for a theistic form
of spirituality.
Naturalism
is a philosophy that claims that our bodies, thoughts, behavior, and even our
ethical ideals are governed by laws or principles (Lewis, 1970; Slife, in
press). The philosophy of naturalism has long been a dominating force
in the natural sciences. Social
scientists adopted this philosophy wholeheartedly into the study of psychology
and psychotherapy when they adopted the methods of the natural sciences (Leahey,
1991; Slife, in press). The
“lawfulness” assumption of naturalism leads psychologists to search for
underlying laws or principles which determine human behavior. We will address three primary tenets of naturalism—1)
lawfulness, 2) hedonism, and 3) determinism—and attempt to show how these
tenets obviate psychology’s efforts to formulate and test theistic spiritual
interventions. I will briefly
define these terms, necessarily over-simplifying them due to time constraints.
First,
naturalism assumes the existence of natural “laws” that govern the universe,
including human behavior. From
gravity to reinforcement, these laws and principles are believed to be
independent of any deity or Supreme Being.
Although a deity may have originally created the laws, the laws—in
order to be lawful—must be unchangeable, even by a deity.
If a deity is assumed to exist, it could not “disrupt” or suspend
these laws or they would no longer be lawful.
The view of deity proposed by naturalism is a deity that must then be
passive or separate from human affairs. The
universe is assumed to work as it always has, whether or not this god exists.
An understanding of spirituality in this philosophy would necessitate a
passive god. Otherwise the notion
of natural laws would be jeopardized.
One of the laws that is nearly universally assumed in the natural and
social sciences—as a result of naturalism—is hedonism (Slife, in press;
Fisher Smith, 2000; Slife, 2000). Hedonism
is the belief that all nature, including human nature, is and must be governed
by the seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain, and thus, self-interest.
According to hedonism, spirituality must ultimately serve some selfish
purpose. The works of Sigmund Freud
and B.F. Skinner on the nature of religion reflect this hedonistic belief about
religious spirituality. Religion for Freud serves our own selfish pleasure or
the avoidance of a painful reality (Freud, 1830/1961).
Religion for Skinner ultimately serves as reinforcement (i.e., treasures
in heaven) for those who behave religiously.
As a third and final assumption of naturalism, human behavior is assumed
to be generally deterministic, or determined by laws “outside” of the
person, such as hedonism—laws that are outside the control of the persons
themselves. For example,
psychologists routinely believe that human behavior and personality are caused
by a combination of “nature” and “nurture” which ultimately determines a
person. In the July 1999 issue of
the American Psychologist discussing the issue of human will, each article
clearly came to the same conclusion-- that human behavior is ultimately
determined and caused by external sources outside the control of the person.
Though acknowledging the “experience” of free will, one set of these
authors (Wegner and Wheatley, 1999) claim “the real causal mechanism is the
marvelously intricate web of causation that is the topic of scientific
psychology” (p. 490). While not denying that people experience the feeling of
choosing, they assert that this experience is only an illusion.
What are the implications of these three tenets of naturalism for
research on religious spirituality? As
you will see, they “crowd out” the possibility of an active deity, which is
a primary tenet of a theistic spirituality.
There have been many valiant efforts to formulate a psychological
understanding of theistic spiritual experiences and interventions.
We are acquainted both personally and professionally with many of these
researchers and have a profound respect for their work.
However, most of their efforts are unfortunately doomed to failure,
because they do not begin with a philosophy that truly allows for a theistic
universe—a universe in which God is required and not an add-on.
In fact, it is our contention that the philosophy of naturalism forces
these researchers to view spirituality in a way that removes its theistic
meaningfulness. We have time for only a few examples.
One of the ways in which current researchers are attempting to understand
spirituality is through the study of the brain.
Many have claimed to find the true source of religious experiences in
various places such as the amygdala and the “God module” in the frontal lobe
of the brain (Joseph, 1996; Ashbrook, 1984).
Some explain that “biology, in some way, compels the spiritual urge”
(Newburg, D’Aquili, & Rause, 2001), p. 8). Though
these explanations have received a great deal of attention, they do not allow
for a theistic understanding of spirituality.
God cannot be the cause of these events, at least as they are presented
and described, because natural laws and biology do not require God.
A deity, from this naturalistic perspective, is not actively involved in
the principles of biology. Although,
as mentioned, a deity could have created the laws that control the human brain,
these laws are not currently under the direct or intentional control of
the experiencer or the deity. Spiritual
experiences are like all experiences from the naturalistic
perspective—determined, and thus out of any purposeful control or intention.
A subtler example of this naturalistic understanding of spirituality
involves psychological research on religion.
Many religious psychologists attempt to legitimize spirituality by
showing empirically that religious people are just as happy and healthy as
non-religious people. Though this
may be an important point to make, it still can fall within the naturalistic
tradition. First, it ultimately
presumes hedonism. When some
researchers are making the claim that religious people are just as happy or
happier than others, their assumption is that religion is ultimately concerned
with individual happiness and the personal seeking of pleasure.
If religious people were found to be less “happy” than their
non-religious counterparts, would that mean that religion is not healthy or good
for people? Many religions would
answer “no” to this question. Surely
for Christians, Jesus Christ was not happy to die on the cross, yet he
presumably did what he was supposed to do—and told his believers that they may
suffer for their God as well.
Moreover,
many religious leaders of the world have led lives that could be considered
“dysfunctional” or maladaptive in terms of the conceptions of many
psychotherapy outcome measures. Hedonism
assumes that rational and adaptive behaviors are ones that protect and benefit
the self. Many of the most esteemed religious leaders were so
maladaptive to their environments that they created problems enough to get
themselves executed (e.g. John the Baptist and Indira Gahndi). In this sense, religion has never been about the
gaining of pleasure and self-interest. Indeed,
religious people view the behaviors of leaders, such as Jesus Christ, as
ultimately altruistic and without any hedonistic or selfish aims at all.
A
theistic understanding of spiritual experiences also requires moral choices and
beliefs. In order for a person to sin or act in accordance with the
will of God, they must be responsible for their own behavior.
Unfortunately, as I described earlier, a naturalistic understanding
assumes that spiritual experiences are determined by events outside a person’s
control. In a book titled Why
God Will Not Go Away, the authors explain the long-standing traditions of
religion to persist because we are biologically compelled to have spiritual
experiences (Newburg, et al, 2001). While
they strive to preserve a sense that spiritual experiences are “real,” what
they mean is that they are observable, biological brain events.
Spiritual experiences are reduced to brain functions and thereby lose any
sense of true meaning and any sense of a true God.
Therefore, as long as naturalistic philosophy underlies the human
sciences, theistic spiritual interventions will never be formulatable or viable.
Spirituality is changed into brain events, happiness-seeking, and
deterministic cause-and-effect chains, (Joseph, 1996).
A person’s spiritual experience, then, is governed by natural laws that
produce brain events and hedonistic actions.
Theoretical space must first be created before any legitimately theistic
spiritual interventions can be created. A
non-naturalistic philosophy must be provided as an alternative to the dominant
assumption of naturalism.
Though a theoretical analysis may seem more like philosophy than
psychology, we claim that this analysis is the most practical thing we can do to
allow for and promote truly spiritual interventions in psychology.
We must first have a basis of understanding that allows room for
spirituality and does not reduce it to naturalistic terms.
Such a basis would include contrasting assumptions to the three tenets of
naturalism: 1) god-filled patterns versus god-less patterns, 2) a world in which
altruism is possible, and 3) an agentic rather than determined world.
A god-filled world requires God to make sense of the universe,
including human behavior and experience. Though,
as mentioned, some naturalistic views of the world allow for a passive deity who
creates laws and then steps back from worldly affairs, a god-filled world cannot
make sense without God. For
example, in a god-filled world, miracles are not suspensions of a natural law. The natural and the “miraculous” are not separable.
Indeed, even the natural are considered the actions of a God who is
thoroughly and constantly engaged with people in the world.
True miracles are expected, and natural events are always miracles in the
sense that God is a necessary condition for their occurrence.
The universe is not governed by laws, but by a deity. Therefore, all that exists requires and is dependent upon
God. Spirituality, then, has a
source not in the brain or body, but in God.
The second counter-assumption to a naturalistic philosophy involves the
possibility of altruism. An
altruistic world allows for pure altruism—where a person can act, ultimately,
for the benefit of others, even if this means some personal suffering or acting
against their self-interest. This
is not to say that selfish acts are impossible, indeed they are possible and
perhaps even frequent. But there is
a true possibility for a person to act solely and consistently for the benefit
of another. Benefits from
altruistic acts may ensue, or result from, the action but are not the primary
motivation. The possibility of
altruism allows for an understanding of human actions as moral and meaningful.
A person can love another, not for personal benefit, but truly for the
sake of the other person. And religion can be a source of devotion and sacrifice rather
than sophisticated self-seeking and selfishness.
Agency is also an integral part of a philosophy that creates a space for
theistic spirituality. Agency is
not simply a rational, calculating process of making decisions, but the way we
responsibly experience the world we live in.
Human agency is integral to understanding spirituality as it allows for
human possibility to reject or accept the guidance of Deity.
Without this, human action is best understood as similar to a computer,
which does what it is commanded to do without the possibility of doing
otherwise. In an agentic view,
humans are faced with a world full of possibility and moral responsibility,
including the possibility of disobeying a deity.
Unfortunately,
unfamiliarity with a non-naturalistic philosophy leads some psychologists to
view it as “pie in the sky” philosophy or idealistic abstraction.
Interestingly, however, L. Jay Mitchell, the founder of a very successful
therapeutic system for troubled youth, did not think so.
As Mitchell considered the development of a therapeutic school, he came
across some of the works of Brent Slife, which discussed non-naturalistic
alternatives. Through consultation
with Slife, Mitchell built a therapeutic system based on theistic spirituality
that was purposefully and explicitly non-naturalistic.
The
Alldredge Academy is a program for troubled youth that combines a wilderness
program, remote village experience, and a traditional boarding school.
Students progress through these different environments, experiencing what
Mitchell describes as “a world of
fundamental questions about death, life purpose, right and wrong, healing,
virtue, and the Source.” Through
healing experience, which include teaching, ceremonies, and ritual, adolescents
are helped to find greater meaning in their family relationships and their own
unique religious and moral traditions.
One example of applied theistic spirituality is the explicit
encouragement of altruism in the students at the Alldredge Academy.
When youth first arrive at the Academy, they are placed in a remote,
rugged, outdoor environment in which they have limited resources.
They are challenged to the point where they realize that they truly
cannot make it on their own. However,
instead of focusing on self-reliance and self-development—focuses of egoism
and hedonism—they are trained as search and rescue teams. Their development of skills is for the benefit of others
rather than themselves. They are
helped to realize that they need to gain survival and technical skills in order
to be of help to others in need. In
a naturalistic system—even one that involves wilderness experiences—the
focus is ultimately individual learning, learning to take care of themselves.
This type of sentiment is discouraged at the Academy, and it is replaced
by an altruistic focus on the needs of others.
The Alldredge Academy focuses explicitly upon the development of virtue
and trust in a Source that is greater and higher than the students.
The academy remains non-denominational and does not specify how they
should see this Source, but it does encourage students to develop a relationship
with and reliance upon this Source. This
source is explicitly NOT considered to be within the individual, as a
naturalistic “source.” The
students are reminded of past experiences they may have had with the Source
through prayer, meditation, or divine intervention.
Academy students are taught that they have an explicit purpose for their
lives, a purpose provided for them from the Source.
They are encouraged to seek out this purpose so that they may more fully
be of service to others.
In conclusion, while many worthy attempts have been made to study
theistic spirituality, they are ultimately doomed to failure because of the
constraints of naturalistic philosophy. By
providing an alternative framework, the possibility of an understanding of a
truly religious spirituality is created. The
assumptions of agency, altruism, and a god-filled world open the possibility of
understanding theistic spirituality and paving the way for god-filled spiritual
interventions.
References
Ashbrook,
J.B. (1984). The human mind and the mind of God: Theological promise in brain
research. Lanham: University
Press of America.
Bergin,
A.E. (1980). Psychotherapy and
religious values. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48,
95-105.
Fisher
Smith, A.M. (2000). Limitations in
the psychotherapeutic relationship: Psychology’s implicit commitment to
hedonism. General Psychologist,
35, 88-91.
Freud,
S. (1830/1961). Civilization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton
& Co.
Joseph,
R. (1996). Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Clinical Neuroscience. Philadelphia, PA: Williams & Wilkins.
Leahey,
T.H. (1991). A history of modern psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Newburg,
B., D’Aquli, E.G. & Rause, V. (2001).
Why God won’t go away: Brain science and the biology of belief.
New York: Ballantine Books.
Richards,
P.S. & Bergin, A. E. (1997). A spiritual strategy for counseling and
psychotherapy. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Slife,
B.D. (in press). Theoretical
challenges to therapy practice and research: The constraint of naturalism.
In A.E. Bergin and M. Lambert (Eds.) Handbook of psychotherapy and
behavior change. (5th Ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Slife,
B.D. (2000). Hedonism: A hidden
unity and problematic of psychology. General Psychologist, 35, 77-80.
Slife,
B. D., Hope, C., & Nebeker, S. (1999).
Examining the relationship between religious spirituality and
psychological science. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 39 (2), 51 – 85.
Wegner,
D.M. & Wheatley, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the
experience of free will. American
Psychologist, 54, 480-492.