Heideggerian inflected spirituality

Not only is one of the key terms in the title almost impossibly vague, but I’m going to deal here in possibly hopeless generalisations. I do so because, despite the massive caveat, I think there is a certain character to some contemporary Anglican theologians, reflecting the influence of Heidegger (more or less explicitly), that is preferable for the Christian theist to many other current options. I use the term spirituality because this is not just a matter of intellectual acrobatics but deeply bound up with the way people live, with personalities and sensitivities, with the ‘visceral register’ (William Connolly).

 

In Being and Time Heidegger suggests that from the very beginning of the western philosophical tradition seeing has been considered the main mode of understanding. Platonic philosophy aimed at contemplating the Forms, and this fed into Christian conceptions of contemplation and prayer. Aristotle considered contemplation the highest human activity, but, in contrast to Plato, seemed to have pictured it as a mental review of and rumination on ideas within the mind. Heidegger also remarks on the two contrasting postures or moods of ancient and modern philosophy as wonder (thaumazein) and doubt respectively. Heidegger makes various moves to get beyond the Cartesian doubt and detached gaze. His notion of truth as unconcealment and disclosure in some ways re-activates the ancient posture of wonder and receptivity before phenomena, but he cannot ignore modernity’s doubt. It seems to me that in Heidegger a receptivity to Being through disclosure, combined with a hermeneutical spiral and awareness of the thrownness of Dasein, combine both wonder and doubt, producing a tertium quid.

 

I’m not sure what to call this philosophical posture (I’ll drop the term ‘mood’ because it could be confused with Heidegger’s own use of it). I take it as attempting to be receptive and open to the disclosure of Being through the immanent world (in contrast to an invisible realm), whilst refusing certainty in the expectation of constant revision. In theological terms one could describe this through a mixture of negative theology, repentance as a regulating principle of theology, and a certain balance between transcendence and immanence. This posture seems common to Andrew Shanks, Rowan Williams and George Pattison. They share a certain reticence and reserve in the manner in which they handle metaphysical speculation. This does not mean they do not believe in, say, the resurrection or the communion of saints (answers will differ depending on who you ask), but that they do not overestimate the importance of such beliefs nor assume they can be held with certainty. Shanks takes directly from Heidegger the notion of truth as openness rather than truth as correctness, which downplays formulations of belief in favour of openness to shaking experience. Pattison, who has written extensively on Heidegger, authored Thinking about God in an age of technology, foregrounding the nature of the need to pose the question of God in as fruitful a way as possible. Hardly a rallying cry for the troops.

 

And there’s the rub. These theologians handle Christianity and theology with great sensitivity and sophistication, but precisely those virtues seem to make their version of Christianity difficult for many to follow. Even academics have remarked on their difficulty following some of Williams’ arguments. Perhaps, however, this is where vague terms such as spirituality or posture may help. Perhaps others may be able to share a posture even if they cannot follow the intellectual erudition. But this too seems unlikely. Perhaps this form of spirituality is only accessible to the highly educated, and perhaps it helps to be in a pluralist society (and politically liberal? and middle class?). There are other reasons for disagreement. Few have the stomach for such a reticent theism. Fundamentalists prefer certainty. Evangelicals seem to be more optimistic, more willing to stake a claim that God has done this or that, more likely to feel ‘assurance’. Radical Orthodox, avowedly Platonic-Christian, retains an edge of certainty too, and triumphalism in some forms. Others go the way of Christian atheism or a Cupitt style post-Christian-Buddhism. But for those not yet willing to abandon theism and averse to triumphalism and certainty, and with a different experience of faith (or lack of experiences!), these Anglican writers offer a viable alternative.

Heelas on social scientific study of spirituality

In Spiritualities of Life, Paul Heelas has what seems to me a common sense approach to studying spirituality from a social science position. It is, of course, difficult to do. One the one hand you can take people’s word for what’s going on, or you can claim that the social scientist knows better than them what they are doing. Neither approach should be ruled out. But, Heelas comments:

‘As social scientists, we do not have independent access to ‘spirituality’. By this I mean that if spirituality exists, it is highly likely that it exists as a state of affairs which lies beyond anything which can be studied, scientifically, by way of publicly accessible information.’ (92).

Therefore, though ‘We don’t have to believe the ontological truth of what they report…it is appropriate to take their word’ (93). The point is there is no ‘objective reality’ against which to test what people say about their spirituality. It is not like class, about which we can have fairly good indications (newspapers, housing, occupations), so that what class people consider themselves to be, can be compared to a fairly robust description and we can agree/disagree on good grounds. In order ‘to move beyond the participants’ frame of reference requires good evidence; perhaps the participant letting slip; perhaps observational evidence; perhaps contradictions.’ (95). Heelas thinks the amount of good evidence for moving beyond what people experience in their spirituality is difficult to come by.

This causes another problem, because we are then stuck with competing accounts of spirituality, or spiritual realities. Another difficult with studying spirituality is that it can be used to ‘render apparent falsifications non-falsifiable.’ E.g. you prayed for healing but she died, and the response is not, ‘this proves there is no god,’ but, ‘we didn’t have enough faith.’ How can you prove this one way or the other?