Spirituality Special Interest Group
To all who signed up to join the Spirituality Special Interest Group at World con II or any who might wish to join:
As a SIG, I believe it would be productive to consider if not answer the following questions:
1. What is our purpose inside of ACBS?
2. How should we come together as a community?
3. In what ways should a variety of spiritual practices be inside of ACBS or Spirituality SIG events?
4. What would a Spirituality SIG event look like?
5. What is the role of a Spirituality SIG in the promotion of scientific research, treatment development and dessimination?
I encourage any who are interested to write a few questions of your own and share it with others on this page.
regards,
======================
Jonathan Weinstein, M.A.
Psychology Graduate Student
University of Mississippi
Rm 111, Peabody Building
University, MS 38677
cell: 662-380-0247
email: Jonwein@olemiss.edu
''yelling across islands''
I am excited by what I have read here. There is not much that I believe I can contribute at this stage except that I empathise with the vulnerability that has been expressed in some of these posts. My reluctance to fully engage with all of this has been due to this precise concern: 'yelling across islands' (thank you Jonathan).
I am committed to a continuous search for best clinical practice and am convinced that this includes a serious consideration of spiritual beliefs: both of the therapist and the client. ACT and RFT, in my opinion, provide a very clear framework for the incorporation of spirituality into the process of change. I am refining my practice accordingly and am very excited at the prospect of dialogue with other practitioners and researchers about this.
The continual balancing act between 'objectivity' on the one hand and my own passionate stance regarding my own religious beliefs is taxing when dealing with vulnerable clients. This is a process which I have found to require continuous reassessment of the outworking of my faith; a humbling process. A collaborative investigation with colleagues into the relevance of spirituality to our work, would, in my opinion, best be served by a similar, although qualitatively different balancing act; with our vulnerabilities respected but with the focus firmly on pragmatism.
In a Sprituality SIG meeting I would hope there to be a strong emphasis on an exchange of ideas as opposed to debate. It is with excitement that I anticipate that this will be the case, having reviewed the contributions thus far.
Thank you for all that is being done in this area.
Ingrid
Thank you for replies: more understanding and humbled
I want to thank those who have replied in relation to my concerns.
I think that as a believer I get upset by the 100% fusion with the story of evolution that prevails in so much of science, including much contemporary psychological theory (and I understand that non-believers will see my belief as fusion to a story also, and that's fine).
My fear was that this group may just be another branch of that - if we can explain religion, spirituality and 'G-d' with behavioural analysis --> we can hammer another nail into G-d's coffin. If this was the agenda, (and perhaps for some it is) then of course I would feel like an outsider.
But I see now that this was way off the mark, and admit that I could have looked into what RFT was saying more to check out my concerns before airing them here. Even so, it's put this to rest for me. If I'm understanding properly, this issue doesn't come into it at all. It's not about what's 'true', it's about saying - this stuff is here and affects people in a big way, can we understand how it's doing that?
I also really connect with the natural/supernatural distinction. I can believe in the supernatural, but still try to understand in natural terms how these ideas, teachings and practises influence people, including myself - and I have no problem with that. I can even choose to see all of that as being part of the supernatural plan too.
Thank you. I really appreciate the replies posted, and I also feel the need to apologise for buying into my 'judgments'. Even if for nobody else, for me these few posts have been very meaningful and important.
Robert
Trainee Couselling Psychologist, London
Spirituality sig
I'm excited to be a part of this, but also feel quite wary. I'm quite new to ACT and don't know very much at all about RFT, though I'm starting to learn.
My issue is that I'm an orthodox Jew and from some of what I heard at WorldCon I felt like actually believing in spirituality and G-d as real 'entities' - things that cannot be explained by RFT or in terms of reinforcerment, verbal 'concepts', etc. - that this somehow put me on the outside.
G-d will always come before RFT to me, as will my beliefs in a spark of the Divine within all of us that separates us from animals and gives us the potential for altruism and truly 'spiritual' acts.
I suppose I just want to know if I'm not alone in this, and if this group has space for people who hold such beliefs, who may find the reduction of spirituality and 'G-d' things that can be tested and explained through behaviour analysis quite abhorrent.
Don't mean to offend, and sorry if i have.
Robert Joseph
ACT and belief in God
The first major RFT research study was done by a student of mine who was a minister. I asked him about this problem. He denied it was one: "science is about the natural," he said. "My faith is about the supernatural."
I would be interested in what sense you felt on the ourside. If you felt disrespected or criticize for your faith, I'd be disturbed. If you felt that ACT / RFT folks either would not stop trying to understand the nature and value of faith and spirituality on the one hand, or would not acknowledge faith as a substitute for scientific analysis on the other, then I'm not disturbed. ACT / RFT is a naturalistic theory of all of humna action. Som there should be no boundaries. And it is a scientific appraoch so there can be not substitutes. But this does NOT mean that ACT / RFT is meant as a substitute for religious faith. It is a natural science; a science of love cannot substitute for love; a science of sex is not sex; and a naturalistic analsis of spirituality is not meant to be a substitute for spiritual and religious practices and institutions.
One of the cool thing about contextualism is that multiple truths are possible depending on goals. Religious faith and natural science has different goals -- contextualistically you can easily both believe in God AND assume a monistic, determined world provided these are differentiated by context and purpose.
- S
Steve Hayes
Steven C. Hayes, University of Nevada
ACT and belief in God
I agree completely with Steve's student who said that "Science is about the natural," and "My faith is about the supernatural." For those of "us" who are "believers," this issue is not an issue. I said that at World Con I when I gave my God is a Verb talk, with my scientist hat on (working from the context in which I was attempting to provide a science of spirituality, with the goal of prediction and influence of behavior), and I said it again at World Con 2, from a different "place."
I was asked to be a discussant in a talk on spirituality and values, and I with much hesitation and, as those who were there can attest, with many tears - chose to speak with my spirtuality hat on. I don't see the two hats things (which I talk about so much that it has become a running joke among both my students and people in this workgroup who have wide-varying levels of familiarity with me) as a problem.
However, for me it is not about consistency with a functional contextual science. I understand that (and it has been pointed out in this discussion multiple times, so I won't address it), but this issue is not about that - well, not just about that, not for me. And, me being passionate about these issues does not occur as simply being because I have a history that occassions them as highly reinforcing, or because religion and spirituality are "buttons" for me, or because I grew up in a society that generally importants about religion, etc.
I don't deny any of those things as being factors with a lot of influence, AND for me (and others who chose to "believe"), these factors are a small part of and not anywhere near the sum of what I view as the force behind the mattering. There is no scientific account that will be "good enough" to explain, decribe, or predict and influence that. I value science, and some "things" I value more. It is this piece that I think sometimes leads to feeling like an outsider. I don't want to speak for Robert, or anyone else. In my own experiences, this valuing and speaking from this place seems different from what typically occurs in science. Perhaps, this distinction is warranted (from both a scientific and spiritual perspective), as the goals are very different. It does suck
(sorry, I can't think of a better word), though, if it leads to feelings of distance between people who all care about making a difference.
I heard (to the extent that one can hear an email) Steve acknowledge that the account is not a substitute, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate that many in this workgroup make room for that. I also, however, have had multiple experiences with other scientists(in and out of this workgroup)in which I have felt like my spirituality was foolish or naiive. I have felt as if I have been treated as if I just don't really understand science, or what we as a workgroup are up to. That piece (as Steve, I think, noted) is troubling.
I don't know that there is anything necessarily to be done. In fact, with my spirtuality hat on, I don't see the need at all. With my scientist hat on, in a workgroup where I care about people feeling heard and respected so that the work can move forward, I don't know. Thoughts?
Sorry for the long post. Thanks if you are still reading!
Amy
Spirituality
I am going to bed here in Louisville, KY--2:00 AM with a feeling of love and reassured that there are other Christians out there in ACT who have similar views that I do. A very good post.
Gary
Interested skeptics welcomed
To Robert and other dear friends,
It is my feeling that we need people in this community with precisely your sensibilities otherwise we would risk attempting a discourse that offends our audience and threatens the chance for long-term interest in this domain of braiding science and spirituality.
In one sense we are attempting something risky and different. The epistemology of most spiritual traditions and the epistemology of functional contextualism are based on a set of philosohpical assumptions that do not appear to be coherent at first blush. And, when arguments are stemming from conflicting philosophical view points there is indeed a risk of a kind of debate that I have heard described as "yelling across islands." That is, since basic assumptions are in conflict there is no agreement as to what constitutes evidence for which to evaluate respective theories.
However, one of the more attractive feature of functional contextualism as a system of thought is that it allows the scientist to employ other epistemologies within a pragmatic criterion-- "does it work?" Does this account add to better control, prediction, influence, and so on. If it does then there is no conflict, at least from a functional contextual perspective.
I recognize that those who are deeply spiritual may find this line of reasoning irreverant and possibly dissmissive. So, let me add this. I see this SIG as a way to organize scientific and scholarly activity for the purpose of exploring spiritual phenomena not for their own sake, but as a way to treat human suffering. In my clinical experience, obtaining access to clients spiritual beliefs can lead to a conversation about how that particular client wishes to live in concert with their values. If this promotes healing and improved living than who can say we have not been an instrument of the divine?
As researchers why can't we have this same goal of promoting Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) with our science?
peace,
jonathan weinstein
Spirituality SIG
Thank you for starting this interesting discussion! It sounds like the beginning of a diverse and important discussion.
I believe that spiritual traditions and teachings, of course, have a lot to offer. I come from a different perspective, slightly. Since I am a therapist and an ordained Episcopal priest, I find that ACT has a lot to offer to religion. For example, I have found that, in my role as a clergyperson, teaching people to observe their mind (with all of its doubts and questions) while remaining committed to their faith has been enormously helpful. I recently did a sermon on the role of ACT and Christian faith, and the response was very positive. So, in other words, I think we have something very important to offer what may be called the Western religious traditions. I spoke to Steve at the WorldCon conference and he said that he would like to get these ideas out there to pastoral counselors and clergy. I think this would be great. I am planning to present a workshop to fellow clergy on this idea.
Obviously, a spirituality SIG has to be inclusive and pluralistic. I think a spirituality SIG can be a helpful resource for practitioners who work with people who operate within more formal, religious backgrounds. For example, I work with a lot of orthodox Jewish clients. Values, I think, may look a little different for this group, for example, than for somebody who practices a less formal spirituality. Perhaps the values may not look different, but the process of getting there may be different. How does the ACT model understand community values that are received from a religion?
My own observation is that the best way to create dialogue with a diversity of spiritual traditions is for each to honor the particularity of each while sharing the commonalities. In other words, a spirituality SIG does not need to agree in content, but in its mission to honor the religious and/or spiritual values of people and to facilitate and utilize those to therapeutic ends.
I think an excellent Spirituality SIG event would be to have speakers from various traditions talk about the inter-relationship of their religion and ACT concepts. Another interesting discussion would be case studies where ACT and religion have been successfully blended. And simply having time for open discussions is always helpful!
A spirituality SIG event on its own would be great, but perhaps not feasible at this point. But integrating these ideas into future ACT training and ACBS events would certainly be in order.
I hope I can add a helpful voice and perspective to this group. I am very excited by it.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel Mattila, M.Div., LCSW
Cognitive Therapy Center of New York
Cognitive Therapy Institute of Westport
This response is from Lai Mollahan
Hi Jonathan,
First of all, it was nice meeting you and the rest of ACT folks in London. Below are my thoughts on the questions you presented:
1. Purpose inside of ACBS: The most fundamental way spirituality an play is that it can be practised at many levels as it appeals to people with different interests. It fits inside of ACBS to give support and guidance to a variety of work in connection to contextual psychology.
Taken from Ajahn Sumedho's book, 'The Way It Is-' page 9:
There are many forms of dependence that are concerned in this analysis. It is helpful to remember that paccaya 'dependent on' or 'conditionss' does not necessarily means 'creates'. For example, one could say 'walking is dependent on legs' or 'ice is dependent on water' or 'catching the train id dependent on getting to the station at the right time' or even 'the view id dependent on the non-appearance of intervening objects'. Understanding this, the contemplative begins to realise that just as 'arising dependence' need not mean 'creation', the 'cessation' so valued by the Buddha need not mean 'annihilation'. In this lifetime, where Nibbana is to be realised, mentality-corporeality can 'cease' - i.e. the identification with physical and mental kamma-formations can cease so that life is no longer lived from the pleasure/pain principle dictated by the senses. (nama-rupa-salayatana-phassa-vedana-tanha). In this spirit, one could interpret the sequence in a more fluid way.
With the cessation of such a death-bound frame of reference there is the living of the True life, the Holy life, of which Ajahn Sumedho so evocatively speaks.
Although many of these talks were delivered to monastics, the beauty of the Dhamma is that it is available to those who wish to listen. It is with this in mind that this book is freely offered.
May all beings realise Truth
I would say the session on ACT & Spirituality promote such process!
2. How should we come together as a community?: I agree with Tony, we should have group messenger sessions/on-line discussion. But, I also think we ought to meet half yearly to connect as a SIG. How, that is open to the group!
3. In what ways should a variety of spiritual practices be inside of ACBS or Spirituality SIG events?: To include spiritual practice of sound meditation (chanting) and Dhamma talks at the SIG events. Maybe even invite spiritual leaders to lead meditation session/s. The sale of goods from monastry/centres and all proceeds goes to supporting them. I believe a certain degree of self-development is required before attempting to instruct others.
4. What would a Spirituality SIG event look like?: I thought Tony's ideas was great! And why not? However, I do not agree this should only be scientific psychologists! Anyone who is interest should be encouraged and supported.
5. What is the role of a Spirituality SIG in the promotion of scientific research, treatment development and dissemination?: I like the extract from speech by Ven. Wu Ling on the 24th Oct 1998 in Singapore below which respects all beings.
"Buddhism is not a religion...Buddhism is not a philosophy...Buddhism is an education and it's not necessary to abandon one's nationality or religion to learn it.
Buddhism lets us know a clear understanding of the environment and ourselves. It allows a complete understanding of life and the universe.
Becoming an arahant is equivalent to earning a bachelor degree. Becoming a bodhisattva is equivalent to earnign a master degree. Becoming a Buddha is equivalent to earning a Doctorate degree"
I hope you and the group can benefit from my reflection.
With metta,
Lai
Spirituality SIG comments
Dear all,
Here are some reflections on the interesting questions Jonathan has raised:
1. What is our purpose inside of ACBS?
Probably we have several different purposes inside ACBS. One may be to explore the ways in which a critical, scientific approach can accompany and more traditionally reflective and meditative one. Another may be to discover and disseminate writings from spiritual traditions that can inform the work of contextual psychology.
One such would be the following, written in the 12th Century by Chinul, the founder of Korean Zen (I posted this to the ACT list a while back - I know Hank has seen it) -
"..... The continuation of [intellection and dualistic thought] leads
the ... individual to generalize the sense contacts unique to a
particular moment along lines which accord with past experience and
understanding. Those concepts are invested with a measure of
reality because of their obvious utility in ordering the mass of sense-
experience. Furthermore, because of the influence of conventional
language, those concepts are endowed with an objectivity which is
entirely consistent with the conceptual realm, and once they are
introduced into the process of ideation, the whole of one's thought
becomes crystallized. Finally, the concepts which had been employed
for convenience overwhelm the individual: conscious activity and
sense-experience are dominated by understanding rooted in those
concepts. Even sense perception, otherwise a neutral process, is
colored by conceptual understanding ... : pleasant objects become a
focus for greed, unpleasant for hatred, and neither pleasant nor
unpleasant for delusion...."
I would also strongly recommend the writings of Charlotte Joko Beck as compatible, at least in part, with what we are about.
2. How should we come together as a community?
Perhaps we could have group messenger sessions, or Skype-type online conversations, or form our own Yahoo group. And we could meet at WorldCons and other ACBS meetings.
3. In what ways should a variety of spiritual practices be inside of ACBS or Spirituality SIG events?
I am wondering whether we couldn't encourage more practice - meditations to start the day, for instance - at events: bring this kind of thing more to the fore.
4. What would a Spirituality SIG event look like?
Kaftans, loon pants, crystals, bongs, that kind of thing. No not really. I like the idea of having scientific psychologists who actively practice within a faith present at such an event. Would be interesting. I mean, there are many people who are obviously religiously observant who are also scientists. That's interesting, and I'd like to explore it.
5. What is the role of a Spirituality SIG in the promotion of scientific research, treatment development and dissemination?
Taking further the ideas of a science with heart that Steve and Kelly both expressed so eloquently. Doing that without implying that maybe other scientists don't have a heart close to their work (I don't think for a minute S or K were implying that). The question of choosing which research to do and which not to do. Treatments of particular relevance to people of religious faith.
Just some late-night thoughts to be kicking off with.
Thanks, Jonathan, for getting this ball rolling.
Tony.
Tony Balazs, MSc, BCBA
Consulting Behaviour Analyst
London, UK