Here are posts from the hj list on the place of spirituality in Humanistic Judaism. This subject stimulated a strong response on the part of many individuals. Posts included here by: Bert Rothschild (4) Steve Zaplier (3) Gideon Elad Hillary Shemin Al Tauber (2) Mike Prival Susan Averbach (2) Roger Eden (2) Alison Jerris Jordi Sod Hoffs (2) Alan Young Jane Goldhamer Dennis Geller (2) Daniel Hays Kenneth Moss Bob Wolfe (3) Larry Stillman Patty Becker Norm Rosenblatt Mary Perica John Klein (2) Titus Mendell Roy Calder ....................................................................... Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 14:45:44 -0500 From: BRoths@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Re: hj-digest V2 #5 In a message dated 96-01-17 07:16:35 ES Hellman wrote:: > Prayers to a deity are not in our services. We reject dogma >based in supernatural authority. Do we reject supernatural authority? Yes! People discuss something called spiritual as if it is different from supernatural. They argue there is something greater than themselves "out there." So, what's the difference? None that I can tell. I've asked many people to define spiritual without bringing in the supernatural and they all failed, including two ministers I know. The description, humanistic, is too fuzzy. Let's keep secular as affirmation of our beliefs. ....................................................................... From Zap@eworld.comFri Feb 9 19:14:45 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 21:53:28 -0800 From: Zap@eworld.com To: BRoths@aol.com Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Re: Astrology Of course I DONT mean astrology. By not consistent with the ordinary structure of reality, I meant something more like expereinces which are not easily explained....such as the experience of intimacy with my children that is overwhelming and emotional for no apparent reason while playing peekaboo.....such as the experience of being moved and inspired by noticing that I am part of much larger community of people who think like me...like the ones on this list. By the way, if you think its important, I am a Taurus.:-) ......................................................................... Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 08:03:21 -0500 From: BRoths@aol.com To: Zap@eworld.com Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Re: hj-digest V2 #5 In a message dated 96-01-22 03:11:17 EST, you write: >Spiritual refers to an experience a human has that is not consistent with the >ordinary structure of "reality". I assume you mean something like astrology, which is also not consistent with the "ordinary structure of 'reality.'" You have confirmed, as I suspected, that it is another way of arguing that the non-real has something to do with our lives. Sorry, I don't buy it. ....................................................................... From Zap@eworld.comFri Feb 9 19:14:45 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:29:20 -0800 From: Zap@eworld.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ The Nature of Reality The brief exchange about "spiritual" and the remark that somehow, human phenomena of that ilk are not worthy of regard because they are "non-real" suggest to me that the nature of reality is a worthy topic for comment. When I use the term "nature of reality" I mean the human and ONLY the human experience. It appears to me that people dont differentiate (and they should, I think) between what they perceive or what thoughts or viewpoints or opinions they are having and what is happening. Spiritual isnt something that "happens" it is something that people TALK ABOUT as happening. The important thing to note is that nearly all of what humans call "real", is something that people SAY. The World Wide Web is REAL, but it is not something that is happening....its only something that people talk (about) into existence. As a humanist and an atheist, I cant deny that GOD exists, but I can say that God exists in the same way that the World Wide Web exists...its something PEOPLE say exists. The problem is....nearly all of what is human is of this same nature...not real, if you will. That is why I, for one, so like the word HUMANISTIC. ............................................................................. Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 15:27:04 +0200 (IST) From: Gideon Elad To: BRoths@aol.com Cc: Zap@eworld.com, hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Re: hj-digest V2 #5 Spiritual has to do with that "inbetween" human beings that allows us to communicate share understand each other and care for each other.It's the "PGISHA" dimension of our existance. Gidon ....................................................................... From 101333.2634@compuserve.comFri Feb 9 19:14:45 1996 Date: 23 Jan 96 14:51:18 EST From: John Klein <101333.2634@compuserve.com> To: HJ Subject: HJ/ I say humanist - You say secular Hello again everybody, Some say Mind; others say Spirit, Some say Humanist; others say Secular Humanist, Some say Jew; others say Jewish, Some say kosher; others say who cares? Chorus: So let's call the whole thing off ! ( before this group dissolves into even smaller factions.).......... If only we could regain the intellect and passion of yesteryear ! Best wishes, John Klein ....................................................................... Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 20:05:28 -0800 (PST) From: Al Tauber To: shas Cc: BRoths@aol.com, hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Re: hj-digest V2 #5 > In "A History OF God" By Karen Armstrong a former Nun who teaches at the Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism says "Yet my study of the history of religion has revealed that human beings are spritual animals. Men and womeen started to worship gods as soon as they became recognizabley human; they created religions as the same time as they created works of art. This was not simply because they wanted to propitiate powerful forces; these early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seem always to have been an essential component of the human experience.....Like art, religion has been an attempt to find meaning and value in life." "Humanism is itself a religion without God.....Our ethical ideal has its own diciplines of mind and heart and gives people the means of finding faith inathe ultimate meaning of human life that were once provided by more conventional religions" ....................................................................... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 04:24:03 -0500 From: MPrival@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Spirituality Zap said: >Of course I DONT mean astrology. By not consistent with the >ordinary structure of reality, I meant something more like >expereinces which are not easily explained....such as the >experience of intimacy with my children that is overwhelming and >emotional for no apparent reason while playing peekaboo.....such >as the experience of being moved and inspired by noticing that I >am part of much larger community of people who think like >me...like the ones on this list. Yes. It is these highly emotional experiences that are what we call "spiritual". It is, I think, okay for us Secular Humanists to use the word "spiritual", but I always try to use the word "human" with "spiritual" to make it clear that we are not talking about the supernatural. It's a little awkward at times, but it's important to keep meanings clear. Terms like "human spirituality" and "human spirit" are useful and express what we are trying to say. Without wanting to diminish the significance of Zap's "human spiritual" experiences, it is, I think, not exactly right to say that these experiences are "not consistent with the ordinary structure of reality" and "not easily explained". The high level of positive emotion experienced when playing with one's children or being part of a human community are, like everything else in biology, explained by evolution as survival mechanisms. Those strong feelings for our children cause us to sacrifice for them so our genes can survive; feelings for community enable us to work with others for mutual protection and survival. These are traits selected for through millions of years of evolution. Individuals who do not experience overwhelming parental love will tend to have children who do not survive as well and ultimately their genes will be lost--leaving behind those whose brains are structured in such a way that they do have these overwhelming feelings about their children. Those who try to survive on their own without community will similarly tend to die off over time--thus selecting for those who have positive feelings about living and working in communities. The fact that these "human spiritual" feelings can be explained scientifically should enhance, rather than diminish, their significance to us. After all, as Secular Humanists we are committed to the rational, scientific outlook as the best means for explaining reality. Mike Prival Machar The Washington D.C. Area Congregation for Humanistic Judaism ....................................................................... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 96 07:07:23 WST From: "Averbach, Susan" To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ spirituality I am uncomfortable with Mike Prival's piece on spirituality. I can think of one culture, a strong Calvinist culture where there is really very little spirituality or community. Where hyperindividualism is the norm and little love is expressed between people within the community or towards children. This is a particularly cold culture that has survived quite well in North America. The people brought up in this culture are quite affluent and have a great deal of power. There are quite a few right in Washington, D.C. As far as survival goes, there they are--power, money, success. And their children are more achievement-oriented than spiritual or community seeking. And these children feel that they must achieve great things because they are seeking recognition and love from their parents (a love that is not readily expressed). This culture has not only survived, it has flourished! It rules the US! Our humanistic spirituality has more to do with quality of life and finding meaning in life than with mere survival. Its roots are firmly based on Judaism, in tikkun olam. We want to make the world a better place. At times, this task may even conflict with our survival needs! Susan Averbach ....................................................................... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 12:48:13 GMT From: Roger Eden To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Spirituality? What in Gods name do you mean? I will admit to being uncomfortable with the term spiritual. Zap talks of - experiences which are not easily explained - there is only one conclusion to things I can't explain - I can't explain! labeling something as spiritual because we have no easy answer, is something I reject, and what brings me to HJ. A little more humility amongst mankind would help, I find that as I grow I learn how much I don't know. My spiritual friends are excited at finding answers, whilst I get my kicks from being surer of the questions. I would also add that their answers often answer nothing. Like watching David Copperfeild vanish the Statue of Liberty, and hear people comment - it's all done with mirrors! - what a pathetic answer, where are the mirrors, how do they make the effect work, well there's no need for cynicism, in truth they can't bring themselves to say - Gee that was clever, don't know how it was done. If they did that, they could motivate themselves to find an ordinary everyday explanation, but this way the mirrors answers leaves them stuck in ignorance - they can neither repeat the effect nor give a plausible explanation. Mike Prival outlines a biological explanation for these feelings of spirituality, and it is an explanation that is well expressed and appeals to me. Is it possible that some people have more of a disposition than others to claim spirituality. Are we in HJ because we are biologically predisposed, the Pope and the Rabbinate likewise? Clearly we all have a disposition to absurdity, it's part of the fun, but spirituality? its so imprecise, as though its hiding a lack of humility, making things we don't understand more than they really are, surely losing the magic means gaining the excitement, or am I being obtuse. Perhaps there is something to be really scared of, and I'm just too thick to see it? Roger Eden, British Community for HJ ....................................................................... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 14:20:41 -0600 (CST) From: JERRISA@carleton.edu To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ spirtiuality This is one subject that I feel can never get run into the ground. This is because people who do not understand my beliefs explain their confusion with humamsim is our 'lack of spirituality'. I always disagree with them and claim that I am a extremely spiritual person. It is just a matter of how To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Spirituality Hi all! Sorry if this is a tad disconnected. >Zap said: > >>Of course I DONT mean astrology. By not consistent with the >>ordinary structure of reality, I meant something more like >>expereinces which are not easily explained....such as the >>experience of intimacy with my children that is overwhelming and >>emotional for no apparent reason while playing peekaboo.....such >>as the experience of being moved and inspired by noticing that I >>am part of much larger community of people who think like >>me...like the ones on this list. Mike Prival answers: > > Yes. It is these highly emotional experiences that are what >we call "spiritual". It is, I think, okay for us Secular >Humanists to use the word "spiritual", but I always try to use >the word "human" with "spiritual" to make it clear that we are >not talking about the supernatural. It's a little awkward at >times, but it's important to keep meanings clear. Terms like >"human spirituality" and "human spirit" are useful and express >what we are trying to say. Spritual is indeed an easily misused word. In a discussion in soc.culture.jewish on mamzerim (children born of incest, etc.), a fellow was aruging that the reason a kohein or even an israelite can't marry a mamzer is because they're on a "different spiritual level". There are societal reasons for that taboo, but this is B.S. > > Without wanting to diminish the significance of Zap's "human >spiritual" experiences, it is, I think, not exactly right to say that >these experiences are "not consistent with the ordinary structure >of reality" and "not easily explained". The high level of >positive emotion experienced when playing with one's children or >being part of a human community are, like everything else in >biology, explained by evolution as survival mechanisms. > [evolutionary hypothesis surrounding cooperative and loving behavior] > > The fact that these "human spiritual" feelings can be >explained scientifically should enhance, rather than diminish, >their significance to us. After all, as Secular Humanists we are >committed to the rational, scientific outlook as the best means >for explaining reality. This kind of knowledge is painful or humbling at times, but I agree that glimpsing at reasons why we behave the way we do gives us even more reasons for wonder. For those who are interested in how biology shapes our being, I recommend Melvin Konner's beautiful, compassionate book "The Tangled Wing-- Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit", Henry Holt & Co, NY 1982 . For books on to what extend the body is the person, read PAtricia Churchland's "Neurophilosophy", and particularly Antonio Damasio's startling "Descartes' Error". > >Mike Prival >Machar >The Washington D.C. Area > Congregation for Humanistic Judaism Jordi Sod Mexico City. ....................................................................... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:09:44 -0800 (PST) From: Al Tauber To: "Averbach, Susan" Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ spirituality Our behavoir is driven both by genes and memes (cultural practises). Its the old nature nuture debate. One of the great positive differentiators of the Jews is that they inculcated a people in how to live successfully in communities. ....................................................................... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 20:49:41 EST From: ALAN YOUNG To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ spirituality I've been following your arguments about spirituality and whether it implies a belief in god. Someone even equated god with the world wide web. I like that. If man is created with tzelem elokim (in the image of god)then god must have INTEL inside. I would read Bill Gates' new book very carefully if I were you. It could be the new Book of Moroni (the Mormon holy text). This goes very far. If Bill Gates is the new Christ, does that make Steven Jobs the Anti-Christ? I am Windows thy operating system and thou shall have no other operating systems before thee. And thou shall construct a subdirectory and it shall not exceed eight letters. And thy children and thy children's children shall be as numerous as the megabytes in the largest Compaq warehouse. Anyway, the point I'm making is that you guys take yourselves too seriously. Why do you think Buddhism, a religion as venerable as our own, has for a symbol the laughing Budda? Those guys are on to something, I bet. Alan Young rqhq47a@prodigy.com ....................................................................... Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 22:07:08 -0800 (PST) From: "M. Michael Goldhamer" To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Spirituality I can't keep out of this any longer! "Spirituality" is a word I dislike because it's so very imprecise. Like the character in _Alice in Wonderland_, who said, "When I use a word it means what I want it to mean," or words to that effect. What makes me most leery of the use of this word is when it conotes some New Age fad, associated with "sending positive energy," "healing the inner child," crystals, channeling, all the currently popular mumbo jumbo on down to TM and some other things one can't dismiss altogether. Another connotation is the fundamentalist one. I'd much rather use some other word(s) which are more precise and descriptive: human emotion, or aesthetic appreciation, for example. Or altruism, idealism, maybe. When I wrote my "This I Believe" statement for one of our programs, I said, in part: "...while I find myself without religious FAITH, there remains within me a certain religious IMPULSE which is not at odds with rationality. I sometimes feel an almost down-on-your-knees wonderment at the grandeur of nature and the "miracle" of creation; a hushed awe or delight at glimpses of the potentials of the human spirit; and a deep, reverent peace while listening to beautiful music. These emotions don't need a theological construct to explain or focus them and, by themselves, aren't emotions that are in conflict with rationality; they are aesthetic." I think that one of the marvelous things about human beings is that we have this capacity for being moved emotionally by appreciation of natural and people-made beauty--indeed, that we even label some things beautiful! If this is spirituality, I can accept it readily, but am still not comfortable with the word. Jane Goldhamer, Humanistic Jews of Greater Portland, OR Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:51:37 -0500 (EST) From: DENNIS GELLER To: RQHQ47A@prodigy.com Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ spirituality >Anyway, the point I'm making is that you guys take yourselves too >seriously. I agree, we could use a laughing Buddha. (We do have a laughing Sarah though!) But while "too seriously" is a matter of taste, I think you miss the importance of the discussion. One important facet is that, for those of us who belong to active humanistic jewish communities, the dialog about what we are (and aren't) is one of the ways we have to develop both the sernse of community and a direction. It sure isn't most of what we do, but it comes up in various ways: what life cycle responsibilities should the congregation take on, do we want a rabbi, what should we put in the liturgy for various holidays, what is spirituality and what do we do about it in an organized manner. And, of course, how do we find a well-defined common ground that has a real meaning and yet has room for everyone in the congregation to stand comfortably, given that their individual viewpoints may range from a humanistic theism to a discomfort to anything that seems like "religion." This is what makes these apparantly endless and occasionally tedious discussions continue. Dennis Geller Kahal B'raira Eastern Massachusetts ....................................................................... Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:59:30 -0800 (PST) From: Walter Hellman To: DENNIS GELLER Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ spirituality Hi Dennis, I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you completely. This particular discussion may be difficult, and few minds (or spirits) will be changed in all likelihood, but, as you say, it gives all of us a better feel for what the others of us are like...what we have in common. The contributions are valuable. Walter Hellman .................................................................... Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 08:59:39 -0700 (MST) From: Daniel Hays To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Spirituality and the makeup of Humanists As Alan Young wrote: > Someone even equated god with the world wide > web. I like that. If man is created with tzelem elokim (in the image of > god)then god must have INTEL inside. I would read Bill Gates' new book > very carefully if I were you. It could be the new Book of Moroni (the > Mormon holy text). As an Intel employee, I must agree with this :') Interesting concept, though. This thread has been intriguing, and I feel compelled to add my two cents. People are getting too hung up on the word spirituality, and probably because it is not a word which has a common meaning to everyone. I would not disagree with the existance of spirituality, simply because it is a word that descibes a concept that I can identify with. Although I don't believe in a supernatural power, I do think that humans can experience what I term "spirituality" in moments of intense emotion, whether fear, pain, joy, or content. It is probably something that is readily explainable in scientific terms (hormonal or something like that) that I am not knowledgeable enough to comprehend. That brings up one other interesting point that I have not seen addressed here but have often wondered about. What are the backgrounds of those of you that have declared yourselves "humanist" or maybe "atheist" at some time? It is my belief that a large portion of this movement comes from the ranks of scientists, engineers, and others with highly analytical backgrounds. I say this after discussing the matter with students from a number of different backgrounds, and having realized the movement away from religious establishments while in a predominantly scientific university (Georgia Tech, Go Jackets!). It would be interesting to hear from each of you (bias noted due to the population of the Internet). I am an engineer myself, and have noted many in the local SHJ community seem to be the same. - Dan Hays - Phoenix (Chandler) AZ ....................................................................... Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:42:05 EST From: MR ROBERT D WOLFE To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Names secular, I would like to point out that none of these terms can be considered perfect. As has been pointed out, secular could be viewed as a little too dry and cold-blooded, but what about the others? Spiritual reminds me of "spiritualism", a late 19th-early 20th century movement in the US and England which sought to prove the existence of "spirits". The spiritualists were noted for seances in which they tried to produce ghosts, make tables rise and generate strange sounds. As for humanist, most of the early European "humanists" were also anti-Semites. Erasmus, probably the most famous of the early humanists, is cited by Poliakov in his history of anti-Semitism as stating, "If to be a good Christian is to detest the Jews, then we are all good Christians." He was defending himself and his fellow humanists against charges that humanism was a heretical doctrine. So far as I am concerned, the only term which has been bandied around that appears perfect is "atheist". I became involved with the Society for Humanistic Judaism primarily because it was immediately apparent to me that whatever its members might call themselves, they were actually atheists. I knew this because it said in the literature that the Society had no use for an invisible entity called "God", and because this term did not appear in any of the prayers or rituals of the Society. However, I realize that a "Society for Atheistic Judaism" might run into trouble. I have no problem with either "Society for Humanistic Judaism" or "Society for Secular Humanistic Judaism" (the Israeli version) so long as "God" remains excluded from the picture. Names are important, but real life is more important still. Bob Wolfe ....................................................................... Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:27:29 -0500 (EST) From: DENNIS GELLER To: dshays@indirect.com Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Spirituality and the makeup of Humanists > What are the backgrounds of those of you that have declared yourselves "humanist" or maybe "atheist" at some time? It is my belief that a large portion of this movement comes from the ranks of scientists, engineers, and others with highly analytical backgrounds. .... It would be interesting to hear from each of you (bias noted due to the population of the Internet). You make an interesting hypothesis, but unless "highly analytical" is take very broadly, I question whether it will hold up. In our congregation we do have a bunch of scientists and engineers, but I'd guess the largest employment area represented is lawyers (most of whom have been associated at one time or another with legal services agencies), and the second is probably therapists. Some have e-mail, but I think I'm the only one who monitors this list, so I suspect the internet bias is going to be the largest component of the data. Dennis Geller Kahal B'raira ....................................................................... Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 18:49:09 EST From: Kenneth Moss To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Introduction: Ken (Benyomin) Moss Dear fellow discussion group khaverim, Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Ken (Benyomin, Ben-yamin in various contexts) Moss. I am a senior at Rutgers College, a secular Jew increasingly active in cultural matters, and, I suppose, a humanist, though whether I am a 'secular humanistic Jew' is as yet unclear... I chose to get involved on this discussion site on the general principle that more participation is better, but I must admit that so far, I'm not terribly excited by the thread (I don't mean to give offense--perhaps I'm just not in the right place given my interests). Recently, Michael Walzer threw down the gauntlet to secular Jews, arguing that secular Jewish movements have never been able to provide a culture rich enough to endure. Benneth Muraskin, who I suppose is the house intellectual of the CSJO, reponded by agreeing to some extent with the diagnosis (though along the way he made some idiotic pronouncement about Yiddish being dead--two years ago, I would have believed him, ober itzt bin ikh a Yiddish reder un a groyser lib-hober, a mitglid fun Yugntruf, un oykh a mitglid fun Mendele, a leyener von Forverts un yidishe literatur, un azoi vayter--in other words, there's a whole lot happening out there in Yiddish, among all age groups and all over the world, so before we call in the coroner, let's work together to strengthen the patient...)--at any rate, sorry about the digression: my point is, and again, forgive my criticism, that this thread about spirituality seems robust evidence that Walzer was right. I mean, if what passes for secular Jewish life is a general concern with a humanist ethic and a broad commitment to tikkun olam, then what are we but eccentric Unitarians. I'm just as liberal as you are, and I hardly endorse the views of vicious, petty neo-cons like Irving Kristol or the Himmelfarbs, but liberalism does not Jewishness make. Nor, for that matter, does this non-theistic spiritualism that seems to preoccupy everybody here. Secular Jewish life will be culturally rich -- and that means we have to be active and committed to Jewish culture in all its forms -- or it won't be anything. These issues have been dramatized for me over the past few weeks by my first experience substitute teaching in a Jewish secular Sunday school in New Brunswick. Basically, these kids are undereducated (aren't we all, unfortuneately) as far as Jewishness goes, occasionally bordering on culturally illiterate if they come from homes where the parents' attitude toward Jewish life is 'do as I say, not as I do'--i.e., yeah you're Jewish, and we're sending you to that school once a week so they can tell you what that means...Fortunately, many of the parents seem extremely committed and involved, but that doesn't alter the fact that there is a real uphill pedagogical battle involved. And most importantly, we are charged with teaching the kids a bit about what it means to be a Jew. We should ask ourselves seriously whether a bit of spiritualist speculation would really do the trick as far as the next generation is concerned. Generally, I'm a bit incredulous about the whole notion of secular Judaism, as distinct from secular Jewishness. I agree that it's important to be ethically -- 'spiritually,' if you must -- engaged with Jewish history and tradition, but as far as I can see, it's culture or nothing. And that means investment of time and effort not just in progressive politics or these various 'synagogue'-centered activities and rituals, but in all the going concerns in contemporary Jewish culture: music, literature, languages, art, dance, and all the community frameworks that sustain these. Oh well, at any rate, my rant is finished. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes. I generally try to make friends, and again, I didn't intend to give offense. But I would be grateful if somebody would tell me -- or better yet show me -- whether there are culturally 'thicker' threads that occasionally make their presence felt here. Sincerely, Ken (Benyomin) Moss ....................................................................... Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 10:48:11 +1100 From: Larry Stillman To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ spirituality again.. The (spiritual) energy that goes into discussionthis is amazing. I have nothing to add, it's all been said, but may I suggest as further reading _The Humanist Way, An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion_, Edward L Erikson, Continuum (1988), especially the chapter on the spiritual values of Ethical Humanism. ....................................................................... Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 20:41:44 EST From: Patty_Becker@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: hj@teleport.com Subject: spirtuality; backgrounds I must admit I'm a bit weary of the spirituality discussion, but will throw in my two cents' worth anyhow, which is repetitive of what some others have said. While the word certainly is imprecise, it is certainly not dependent on theism. Sherwin Wine has spoken of spirituality as "beauty," as in nature or in the birth of a child. It's an overwhelming feeling when you feel at one with the world and your place in it, I think. I have always felt my daughter is "beautiful"--having nothing to do with pulchritude-- but simply that it is a wonder that she is what she is. Re background, as Dan Hays asks: I'm not a scientist or engineer. I'm a social scientist (albeit quite quantitative, since I am a demographer). I really don't think one's intellectual/vocational bent has anything to do with whether or not the person is or is likely to be a humanist. Being a demographer, I happen to have done some extensive research on the occupations of Jews in general and in Detroit in particular, and I know that Birmingham Temple members have an occupational distribution which is very typical of the Detroit Jewish community as a whole--overloaded with doctors, lawyers, and businessmen, with a good share of teachers among the women. Given our major industry in town and its anti-semitic history, this was not a good town in the past for people who wanted to work for big companies, particu- larly as engineers or scientists, and we do not have a large core of academia as in, e.g., Boston. As I've said before, I'm a humanistic Jew (and a secular Jew) because that's what I am. It fits who I am and what I want to be, and makes me happy. That's not a very scientific explanation for it! Patty Becker ....................................................................... Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 22:15:58 -0800 From: nrosenbl@interserv.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Spirituality Hi Everyone, Spirituality: Humanism seems to have two trends: one which rejects all super-mundane experience, and the other which seeks such experience. Some humanists believe there is a more profound level of human experience than the mundane, others deny such a level. I believe that these two points-of-view can coexist under the umbrella of humanism so long as their proponents accept the principle that our society ought to be "human centered". In our SHJ "congregation" one finds both types of humanist. Some of our members object vigorously to activities such as candlelighting ceremonies, others welcome such ceremonies. I am an atheist, I know that there is no supernatural realm. But I also know that my life is filled with more than one kind of experience. Some experiences are literally awesome. The expression "human spirituality" sounds to me like an acceptable way of talking about awe-inspiring experiences. The fact that these experiences are entirely natural doesn't explain away the profound effect they have on me. I have experienced awe at the Grand Canyon, and terror during a hurricane at sea. I sometimes have "spiritual" experiences while listening to a cantor, yet I am certainly not religious. Spiritual experiences have nothing to do with imaginary supernatural spirits; they are a part of being human, and I refuse to allow the religious to appropriate an important part of my life. I do not reject the "awe" of positive super-experiences, nor the "terror" of negative super-experiences, in order to be an ideologically pure secularist. There is no god, but there is more than one dimension/aspect to human experience. Norm Rosenblatt ....................................................................... Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 09:55:32 -0500 (EST) From: MEABRAMS@gallua.gallaudet.edu To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Spirituality It seems to me that trying to attach a supernatural cause to human spiritual experiences is kind of artificial, like going to Disney World to learn about American history. Because spirituality is purely subjective, it must come directly out of the human mind and human experience. I am spiritually blown away by the courage and power of human will, the depth of human love, and the magnitude of human talent and creativity. For instance, when I walked into St. Peter's in Rome (not exactly a Jewish setting), it made me cry. My first thought was "people built this." It had nothing to do with the religious motivation of the artists and artisans, or the religious dogma illustrated all around me, but with the brilliance and the determination and the decades of hard work involved in building that miracle of a place. The idea of the exodus from Egypt is inspiring, even if it's purely myth. It's spiritually exciting--not because God took time out of his busy schedule to get those people out of a bad situation, but because those people, after generations in slavery, somehow pulled their courage together, with the babies and the grandparents and the goats and the cooking pots, and got themselves out. THAT was a miracle. The rebirth of Israel wasn't ordained by god, it was the result of hard work and courage and desperation on the part of a bunch of militantly non-theistic Zionists. Impossible, therefore a miracle. Supernatural miracles are nothing but magic tricks. Human miracles are testimony to the human spirit, and are therefore deeply spiritual in nature. They are more likely to be found in an atmosphere of profound skepticism than in a place where everyone waits for the intervention of gods and tooth fairies and other charming supernatural ideas. Sheesh! This is fun.... Mary Perica, Machar, Washington DC ....................................................................... Date: 26 Jan 96 14:24:56 EST From: John Klein <101333.2634@compuserve.com> To: HJ Subject: HJ/ Humanist Ghost or Spirit ? If you can't beat 'em - join 'em ! ... My old German dictionary has the following meanings for "GEIST" (n) : spirit; mind; intellect; intelligence; wit; imagination; genius; soul; ghost - (and some further variations on these). In other words, "spirituality" (Geistigkeit) embraces all these aspects (and more). Why bother to define the term? It can obviously mean what you want it to mean. I also like the expression - human spirit or human soul. It's vague , but one knows instinctively (or intuitively) what it stands for. As a secular humanist, I don't exclude the psyche ( here's yet another word for spirit) from my existence - quite the opposite! I may be wrong, but sometimes I feel that English speakers use their mother- tongue without sufficient care, and were they to compare equivalent words in other languages, (as Jordi, I think, already pointed out a couple of weeks back ) they might gain a better understanding of the concepts behind the mere words - English being notorious for its irregularity and its profusion of synonyms. Ah well - on to the next debate. ( or should that be - controversy ? ) Shalom, John Klein (London, U.K.) ....................................................................... Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:37:30 -0800 (PST) From: Al Tauber To: nrosenbl@interserv.com Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ/ Spirituality On Thu, 25 Jan 1996 nrosenbl@interserv.com wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Spirituality: > > I concur with what you say. The experience in our community is the same. On all emotional issues we get the full range from pure rational to pure emotional. A long time ago I recognized that life is rational, irrational, and nonrational. It is the nature of human nature to have this entire range of reactions. What we need is equal respect for any position along the range as long as we agree on the fundamental principals of Jewish Humanism. Al Tauber ....................................................................... Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 13:49:56 -0500 From: BRoths@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Re: hj-digest V2 #9 In a message dated 96-01-26 10:10:36 EST,Norm Rosenblatt wrote:: >Humanism seems to have two trends: one which rejects all super-mundane >experience, and the other which seeks such experience. Some humanists believe > >there is a more profound level of human experience than the mundane, others >deny such a level. I believe that these two points-of-view can coexist under >the umbrella of humanism so long as their proponents accept the principle >that >our society ought to be "human centered". I think ultimately it is not possible for both points of view to co-exist because they are polar opposites. If there is more to "human experience than the mundane," that becomes a basis for dicision making. When there is more than the mundane, revelation creeps in. I think we may have a crisis in the making. Some of our members object vigorously to activities >such as candlelighting ceremonies, others welcome such ceremonies. Whether or not one is a spiritualist, it is hard to understand the objection to candles. We are group animals and like to have ceremonies as a bonding technique. Men watching football together do the same thing. No one calls that spiritual. >I am an atheist, I know that there is no supernatural realm. Out of curiosity, how can one know that? Depending on my mood, I'm either a probabilistic atheist, or an agnostic. Lately I've favored the latter. It is beyond my understanding how one can assert there is the supernatural or there is not the supernatural. The fact that >these experiences are entirely natural doesn't explain away the profound >effect they have on me. > I have experienced awe at the Grand Canyon, and terror during a hurricane at >sea. I sometimes have "spiritual" experiences while listening to a cantor, >yet >I am certainly not religious. Spiritual experiences have nothing to do with >imaginary supernatural spirits; they are a part of being human, and I refuse >to allow the religious to appropriate an important part of my life. > >I do not reject the "awe" of positive super-experiences, nor the "terror" of >negative super-experiences, in order to be an ideologically pure secularist. >There is no god, but there is more than one dimension/aspect to human >experience. While there can be no arguing with the above, it is not clear why phi\ysiological reactions of a certain type should be called spiritual. Terror? Responding to music? Awe? These are all body-states that are amenable to scientific investigation. Much has been done to understand terror. The others are no different. Note the different versions of the word spiritual. Sometimes it means something quantitatively different from human experience, sometimes it just describes human experience. I recently read a quote by a Muslim cleric who said, "the spiritual is our contact with god." Let's drop the word. ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:05:58 GMT From: Roger Eden To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ R.Eden Jew, non-theist, BA (Hons) TFCBH I am a Jew (although Dr Jonathan Miller rolls his hand horizontally and says he is Jew-ish). I have every reason to be proud of being a Jew, and hope - through HJ - to enable others to be so as well. I fear that the religious establishment is causing quite a number to feel shame! I am non-theist, atheist is a term that surely only has meaning to those who believe in God. How can I be -without- something that isn't there in the first place. Also whilst I respect that millions have a genuine emotional awareness of God, what does it mean when they say that they -believe-. From that perspective I too believe in God, who exists for them, but not for me. The debate is only really whether there is some external entity that causes them to feel the way they do, an absurd idea, is there an external entity that makes them feel grief, happiness? then what makes them feel the presence of a supernatural being. As the Jews have always said, God is inside us! As to being intellectual, of course the internet debate varies, and without the mundane, banal even, it would be very dry. If we are an intellectual elite (or at least have such pretensions), then of what group do we form the elite, for an elite does not exist on its own. Although I agree that the debate on spirituality didn't move me. Oh! and TFCBH? a degree conferred on me at a place where I used to work, because I consistently outsmarted a number of others, it stands for Too bloody clever by half (well that's almost what it stands for!). Not too keen on being an intellectual myself, but I do like to get intellectually challenged from time to time. We are going through a quiet patch from that perspective at the moment. Roger Eden British Community for HJ eden@siftac.easynet.co.uk ....................................................................... Date: 29 Jan 96 17:35:34 EST From: "Titus C.R.Mendell" <73517.3133@compuserve.com> To: Humanist List Subject: Re: HJ/ Spirituality what is wong with the term significant emotional experience? I do not believe that spirituality should be used by us. ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 18:24:14 -0500 From: CRCALDER@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Re: hj-digest V2 #10 I totally agree with Bert Rothschild's comments regarding the term "atheism". I am as non-theistic as the next person, but I would never define my religious philosophy as "atheism". To me, it takes as much chutzpah to say: I know there is not; as it does for our religious - and especially fundamentalist - friends who say: I know there is. What surprises me most is that in all our discussions on this subject, the term coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, to wit: ignostic, has, to the best of my recollection, never been mentioned. Ignosticism refers to the irrelevance of the God concept to our daily lives and appears to me to be much more descriptive of our true position than either atheism or agnosticiscm. The next most acceptable term, to me, would be Non-theism. But I suppose, there is a danger to all labels. Roy Calder. ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 18:56:28 EST From: MR ROBERT D WOLFE To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ What's happening? I'm starting to wonder what's happening on this list. Here are some points I find a little disturbing: - It seems to me that some people are trying to smuggle in "God" under the guise of a concern for "spiritual" reality. I call myself an atheist because I am quite sure that "God" was invented as a prop for monarchy: a divine King in the sky to validate earthly kings. For thousands of years belief in "God" was a compulsory article of faith throughout a large part of the world; doubters and deniers were persecuted and often killed. One result of this history is that even today, when atheism is legal, many people still feel a strong social pressure to believe in "God". They are too sensible to believe in a divine King in the sky, so they try to invent a "God" that possibly does exist. With the aid of the theologians, who are old hands at this game, they define "God" as positive energy, or natural law, or the human spirit, or that old favorite, "nothingness". Please forgive me, but whenever I see the word "God", no matter how defined, I feel people are simply reflecting the current reactionary political climate. - I honestly do not understand how anyone who was born a Jew can call themselves anything but a Jew. For many years I was very far from any concern for Jewish identity; all the same, it never entered my head to deny that I was a Jew. I must admit that in many situations I tried to avoid giving the impression that I was a Jew, but if someone asked, I told them that I was Jewish. At no point in my life have I ever told anyone that I was a humanistic Jew, or an American Jew, or an atheistic Jew, or any kind of a Jew except for a just plain Jew. I can't know for certain, but it seems to me that even if I was a convert I would still think this way. Being a Jew is such a Big Deal, no matter how lightly we may choose to regard it, that it seems foolish and redundant to attempt to qualify or modify it in some way. I know American Jews are supposed to be divided into Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and so forth, but unless the specific context of a discussion requires such distinctions, I know very few Jews who will speak of themselves as a Conservative Jew or what have you. To me, the use of such distinctions when the context does not require it seems to imply a desire to get away from being Jewish. Just as redefining "God" will not rescue us from the stigma of being atheists, so championing humanism will not rescue us from the stigma of being Jews. We might as well face the fact that we are a minority of a minority and derive whatever advantage or satisfaction we can from this situation. As Jabotinsky put it, "Strength is the only consolation". Bob Wolfe New York City ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 16:53:30 -0800 From: Zap@eworld.com To: hj@teleport.com Cc: jordi@mail.internet.com.mx, 73517.3133@compuserve.com Subject: HJ/ Spirituality Greetings friends: Jordi Sod from Mexico City wrote thoughtfully on this subject and ended her message with, "What is wrong with the term significant emotional experience? I do not believe that spirituality should be used by us." If what is meant by spiritual is a supernatural deity, then the term, nor the EXPERIENCE would properly belong in the domain of the humanist. But, the common usage for spiritual, I would argue, is not as stated above....rather it is used to express a human experience which is not, as Jordi offers, simply an emotional one. If that were the case, I would be the FIRST one to agree with you Jordi. On the whole, the term spiritual experience is meant to denote one that is not easily explained. It is wrong, in my view, to think of a humanist as someone who can or must find an explanation for everything. To be able to explain something does not mean it is merely human. Many people can explain God or the/a supernatural entity. Such an explanation may not be agreeable to you (certainly it is not to me) but it is explainable nonetheless. An experience which is not explainable can be purely human. Furthermore, a kind of experience that is not only emotional and not only physical and not only intellectual can occur.....if you say so. The people who are saying so are calling that kind of experience spiritual. While it seems that most of those people who are saying they are having a spiritual experience are usually the same people who do not believe in a supernatural deity, that alone does not justify the humanists acceptance of spirituality as a "fact". The only fact is that many human beings say spirituality "happens" for them. This is different that people who say a supernatural deity happens for them....those same people say a supernatural deity is happening for me too regardless of what I say. As a humanist, I dont think you will be having a spiritual experience unless you say so and if you say so, I will consider it to have happened without the aid of any supernatural entity. ZAP ....................................................................... Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:48:09 -0800 (PST) From: Walter Hellman To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Secular/Spiritual: Attempted summary NOTE: The brief nature of this post cannot convey the richness of what has been said on these subjects, and more may certainly follow, but I felt an effort at an overview summary should be made. Hello All, I've just finished re-reading all the posts from the past month or so dealing with the use or non-use of the word "secular," and the related similar debate over the word "spirituality." Obviously these subjects are important to us or we wouldn't have such vigorous participation in the debates. If one of the main purposes of the list is to find out who we are...we are certainly finding out how we feel about these topics. I may be an eternal optimist (requirement for being a humanist?), but I feel that, for the most part, the debates reveal great differences over interpretations of words, but, thankfully, not insurmountable differences of substance. Generally, it seems that many people who like to use the word "secular" do not like the use of the word "spiritual" in describing what we are. The fear is that spiritualism is too closely related to supernaturalism and, in fact, might even be theism in disguise. Having read all the posts of those supporting a "spiritual" element in HJ, I found a strong expression that spiritual feelings for these HJ's was in no way connected with supernatural forces or theism. Rather, spiritualism has to do with emotional responses and feelings, without which, many HJ's would derive little satisfaction from their HJ involvement, or, indeed, life itself. The other side of the coin is that those who dislike the "secular" adjective, feel that a secular organization will necessarily sterilize those emotions and feelings which are important for their spiritual satisfaction in Judaism. Again, in reading posts, it seems that while there may be a few secular supporters who would object to even candle lighting, the majority are not against emotions and their expression in ceremony and ritual. In behavioral terms then, the all-important what we do, most of us will be comfortable in the same services, the same ceremonies and the same meeting agendas. We can go forward. We may have very strong feelings about what words mean, but if we listen to each other, I think we find that while we may disagree on the precise meaning of words, we do not, in large, disagree about our basic philosophy. We are committed to continuing the great principles of Judaism in our lives and with our families, but in the non-theistic manner which is the signature of Humanistic Judaism. As we go down this same path, some of us may be gesturing excitedly, even skipping, while others of us are walking carefully and looking quietly. To borrow a line from Jane Goldhamer, "...sounds kind of like a family to me." Walter Hellman ....................................................................... Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 07:10:43 -0500 From: BRoths@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Re: hj-digest V2 #10 In a message dated 96-01-28 14:06:10 EST, you write: >My old German dictionary has the following meanings for "GEIST" (n) : > >spirit; mind; intellect; intelligence; wit; imagination; genius; soul; ghost >- >(and some further variations on these). > >In other words, "spirituality" (Geistigkeit) embraces all these aspects (and >more). >Why bother to define the term? It can obviously mean what you want it to >mean. > Exactly. We can say spirituality should, or should not be part of the HJ movement and have said nothing understandable to anyone. I also like the expression - human spirit or human soul. It's vague , but >one knows instinctively (or intuitively) what it stands for. As a secular >humanist, I don't exclude the psyche ( here's yet another word for spirit) >from my existence - quite the opposite! Sorry, I don't know "instinctively" what the "human spirit or human soul," stands for. Vague, yes. ....................................................................... Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 06:46:07 -0600 From: Jordi Sod Hoffs To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Re: Spirituality >Greetings friends: > >Jordi Sod from Mexico City wrote thoughtfully on this subject and ended her >message with, "What is wrong with the term significant emotional experience? >I do not believe that spirituality should be used by us." Hi people! Just for the record: a) The remark was Titus', not mine... b) For future reference, I'm a HE! Regards, Jordi. (= George in Catalan) ....................................................................... Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 14:31:44 EST From: MR ROBERT D WOLFE To: hj@teleport.com Subject: HJ/ Secular, spiritual I would like to introduce a new distinction into the secular-spiritual discussion. I strongly identify with the secular side, but that doesn't mean I am hostile to what people are driving at when they talk about "spiritual". It's just that I don't like the word, or the word "supernatural" either. However, I feel that there is a reality behind these words that needs to be looked at. So far the defenders of "spiritual" have mainly talked about the importance of emotion. No one can argue with that, but something more than emotion is generally intended by people who use such words. Although I don't like the words, I do feel attuned to the something more. Let me be specific. On more than one occasion in my life I have dreamed about something which later happened pretty much as I dreamed it. I am therefore convinced that it is possible to see the future in dreams. I am also pretty well convinced that some people - I don't seem to be one - have the capacity to read other people's minds with amazing accuracy. On the other hand, I am a strong disbeliever in any doctrine of disembodied spirits, be they ghosts or divinities. It is for this reason that I don't like the word "spiritual". In other words, my experience has led me to believe that there are some phenomena in life which no one really understands; yet the language which people normally use to talk about such phenomena I find inappropriate. ESP, for example, is probably not "extra-sensory", nor is it above nature ("supernatural"), nor is it "para-normal" (it is most likely quite normal). I think the problem here is that genuinely mysterious phenomena have been seized upon by the advocates of "God" and the "immortal soul" and so distorted by them that it is very difficult to talk about such phenomena in a strictly secular way. I like the word "secular" because to me it implies truthful, objective, scientific; but part of the truth as it appears to me is that human beings have certain capacities that no one has yet explained. I suspect that many of the people on this list who speak of "spiritual" are really referring to these capacities, so I would like to make it clear that for me the concept of "secular" does not exclude such a discussion. To the contrary, I feel sure that it is only when people begin to talk about these capacities in a strictly secular way, without the slightest admixture of spiritualist ideology, that we will begin to understand them. Bob Wolfe New York City