The “Concept” of Spirituality

We stated at the outset that it is easier to indicate what spirituality is not than to find any satisfactory way of putting into language what it is, but we must now turn to the more difficult part of the task. Under this head we can give only passing notice to the metaphysical problem of what one must believe about the character of the universe in order to find a place in it for a spiritual interpretation of life. It is necessary to believe at least that man is more than a part of the universe as interpreted by science. Personally, I think it can be shown that it is shown by a really critical development of science itself, that we are justified in believing in a spiritual reality underlying natural processes, even outside of our own consciousness. Cause and effect do not tell us all there is to say about natural changes. Science itself, when it is ruthlessly critical of itself and fully candid, does not pretend to tell what is going on in ultimate reality, “behind the scenes” of visible change. It is only a formula for enabling us to predict what will happen under given conditions, met with in nature or produced in laboratory or factory in order to some purpose of our own. Whether there are “really” existing, corpuscles, gravitation, electricity, and the like in physics and chemistry and determiners or “genes” in biology, or if they are what they are like, is a question which the truly critical and honest scientist admits to be quite beyond his province. But the masterly address of Mr. Bridges at an earlier point in this program makes it doubly superfluous for me to go into such questions. For that matter, my task is limited to the definition of terms and the pointing out of problems and dangers.