Most (not all) agree:

• “Spirituality” as commonly understood has measurable psychological, therapeutic benefits. Therapists  attempt to employ “spiritual” language to help give their patience a sense of well-being.
• Science itself cannot resolve fundamental differences between religions. (Monotheism/polytheism vs. pantheism, Moses or Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad or “all of the above”, etc.)

In an attempt to employ religious or spiritual perspectives to afford practical comfort from a scientific perspective (non-sectarian) most practitioners attempt to get as non-specific as possible.

• This is not new of course. AA made this move years ago.
• Pastors regularly  postulate that the Athenian altar to the “unknown god” that Paul refers to was a similar move.
• “God” is of course a problematic word for many coming out of Christendom so people today commonly take up “higher power” or “divine” or “transcendent” or “universe“

Attributes and Relationship

I think it is important to point out that the move to get as non-specific as possible about our commitment to divine attributes is itself making a statement about the relative importance of divine attributes in a potential relationship. We of course know this about relationships. People are highly committed not only to their personal attributes but also to the perception of the other to their attributes. “Do you think these jeans make my butt look big?”

This is not a small point in the therapeutic appropriation of the spiritual or religious aspect in therapy, but it’s not my main concern right now.

Avoiding Sectarian Ugliness

The main move away from specifics of divine attributes is of course an attempt to avoid the long history of sectarian conflict over these attributes. Because the therapeutic sciences aren’t interested or equipped to resolve these differences they avoid them (or at least act as if they can) in order to deliver the therapeutic goods.

But here’s the question. If they admit that they cannot wade into the weeds of sectarian divisions over the attributes of the divine then they surely can’t also make any statements about these attributes including existence. All that matters is the measurable impact on well-being in the patient. If the patient says they feel better after processing their life circumstances in relationship with the divine or transcendent then the therapy has been a success.

It seems to me that this isn’t really any different from the placebo effect. It matters not the content of the actual pill that is being delivered, all that matters is that the patient feels better.

“Yeah But” from both sides

What’s interesting is that the move will raise objections from two sides that normally oppose each other. One is the new crop of atheist-evangelists who are arguing that religion is harmful.

The other source of opposition of course are religious sectarians who would assert (quite correctly in my opinion) that sanitizing “the divine” of all attributes even for therapeutic is in fact to assert attributes and also to make claims about the attributes of the relationship itself with the divine.

Let’s do an illustration.

Let’s imagine an adult someone seeks therapy because they are troubled by the abuse they suffered at the hands of a now departed father. There are a number of ways to approach this issue but one way that likely would not be attempted by a therapist would be to assert that the patient attempt to deny the abuse ever happened in order to re-imagine or (falsely) re-remember their father as being nurturing, safe and loving. Vital to the process for any therapist I assume would be the truth about the father to the degree that the therapist could in fact know the truth. In other words the truth about the father indeed matters.

Where does that leave therapists appropriating spiritual or religious language in an attempt to offer well-being to their patients?