Muslim scholar Shiva Khalili shares her research and her Muslim worldview, and challenges scholars in this emerging field to surface their personal assumptions, theories of person, and faith/worldview.
In addition to her roles as psychologist and lecturer at Tehran University, Shiva Khalili heads the Science and Religion Department at the World Religions Research Center in Tehran, Iran. During her psychology and consciousness studies, Ms. Khalili became interested in the intersection of religion and these social sciences. She wrote her doctoral dissertation on scientific psychological theories based upon theistic presumptions and their application in psychotherapy. Since then, Ms. Khalili’s focus has been on the development of a psychological/psychotherapeutical model based on such theistic presumptions.
Deena Bartley, Center Staff Member: Your dissertation won overall honors in the Science-and-Religion Contest 2005 presented by Science and Theology News international magazine. Tell us about your studies.
Shiva Khalili: My aim was to understand naturalistic sciences better, and to see how the study of religion fits in to the social sciences. I wanted to know whether or not it is possible to develop scientific theories predicated on non-naturalistic worldviews. It seems the answer is yes, since everything starts with metaphysical presumptions of the researcher. I then suggested stages of scientific theory development based on a theistic worldview; that is, based on theistic presumptions-—in a sense, moving theological ways of thinking into the empirical world.
DB: What has the field of the psychology of religion contributed to our understanding of how young people develop spiritually? What are some of the important questions from your field about this domain?
SK: The field of the psychology of religion—-the study of religion/religiosity via the existing naturalistic-oriented psychological theories—-can help us to track some of the interactions between different aspects of psychological functioning of the person and what these approaches have defined as religiosity. Their results, together with the research in social and cultural psychology of religion, can contribute to a better theological understanding—-an understanding based upon a theological theory of person—-and theological interpretations of human development.
Unfortunately, many researchers in the field of psychology of religion do not show coherence and consistency between the stages of the research. For example, a researcher may be religious minded, and have certain unidentified presumptions based on his religious definitions. He then uses a scientific psychological theory based upon a totally different theory of person (for example the attachment theory), uses measuring instruments developed upon another different theory of person and/or definition of religion and studies a person/family/group from a cultural or subcultural framework, in which the living religion has been changed and distorted, mixed with plenty of traditional superstitions and rituals.
So here the definitions of the religion as the subject of study, the religion understood and defined by the person/family/group, etc., differs from the definition of religion and religiosity of the researcher and the scientific theory and the religion itself. These differences often remain ignored or hidden, but are crucial for gaining a better understanding of the processes involved, and in interpreting the data—as well as to build upon these results for further research or theoretical development. So there is a demand to document all the presumptions and special notifications when inconsistencies or differences occur.
DB: You’re saying that the worldviews and ideologies of researchers affect research design and results, is that right?
SK: Yes, and also how other researchers are going to understand their research. I think that it is necessary that researchers—-no matter their research method-—are consistent in how they document their worldviews and approaches, starting with their metaphysical presumptions. Especially now, how data is interpreted in the field of science and religion is very sensitive. We don’t have theistic scientific theories, for example, so we are using the naturalistic theories most of the time—even if we are theistic. And then even the instruments that we use, most of them are being developed by researchers whose religious theory of person varies from their scientific theory of person. So everything gets mixed.
It is important to write it down: “Okay, my presumption was that the person is this. I define ‘the person’ as . . . My theory of person, I have taken it from my religious tradition”, for example, or, “I have it from my naturalistic worldview. And then this scientific theory that I’m using was developed within the naturalistic view,” for example, “with a physicalist theory of person. And these samples that I’m doing my research on, they have a totally different definition of ‘religion’. And the religion itself that they are claiming to have has another definition of itself.”
So there are lots of versions and contexts that have to be mentioned and noted at each stage of research because these differences that go unidentified could have a great impact on the data analysis. This kind of consistent documentation would give a clearer picture of the research and the research results.
I have suggested some guidelines for the research in psychology and religion, presented at the Tehran 2nd Congress on Mental Health and Religion (April, 2007), that might help be of benefit to researchers. These guidelines are formulated in a check-list for researchers in the field of psychology, mental health and religion at our interdisciplinary science and religion group in Tehran.
DB: What types of things are on the checklist you developed?
SK: The checklist has about 15 points, and has been used for psychology of religion and mental health studies that we have developed. The worldview (and theory of person) held by the researcher is one of the checklist items. Does he believe in God as a real Being? Is he a dualist or a monist? Most of the researchers in the field of pychology and religion or spirituality hold theistic presumptions. But at the next step they have to choose a scientific theory for their scientific investigation.
Is his worldview grounded in the natural world, or does he hold a very different kind of worldview? Most researchers make physical presumptions, but will use a sort of scientific theory to do the research. This should be noted.
Especially in the field of psychology of religion or in mental health studies, researchers use certain scientific theories that are also based on certain worldviews, on certain theories of person. So, “scientific theories used” is on the checklist, and should be noted. This is true, too, for the use of survey instruments, as set of questions or an inventory or whatever. So this again is developed with a certain theory of person and a certain definition of religion.
Culture considerations are on the checklist. Researchers should note cultural beliefs and other relevant cultural information of the sample used. And religion itself is on the checklist—-what assumptions it is based on—-what theory of person it supposes.
But the checklist is just a checklist. The point here is to use a systematic way of making sure you haven’t forgotten the important things that have an impact on the research in science and religion, especially psychology and religion or mental health and religion. For example, researchers shouldn’t collect information without first having designed a particular psychological model. And you can’t design the psychological model unless you have identified your theory of person. So your presumptions have to be very clear before data collection begins.
DB: Scholars around the world disagree about the terms spirituality and religion (or religiosity). For some, these two terms are interchangeable, completely intertwined. For others, spirituality and religion convey two very different concepts. What is your view?
SK: Well, it is probably different in each tradition. And if we are using a psychological model—-which I think we should, if we are not talking as theologians-—it depends on how we are going to define a person, and then if there is a difference there between ‘religiosity’ and ‘spirituality’. I have tried to define ‘religiosity’ or ‘spirituality’ in the model I developed based upon Islamic worldview.
You see, in the Islamic worldview we don’t use the term ‘spirituality’ in the way that it is used now. We have ‘religion’. And our religion is “the way of life”. It is “the path of life, the way of life”. And so the messages that have been brought by the Prophet are there to offer the optimal framework for human becoming. And this ‘human becoming’ is actually a manifestation of religiosity. So this is the first step. The same word ‘religion’, for the person practicing the religion, this is the first step for his growth. And this is indeed a part of ‘spiritual development’ in the terms that we use today.
What is important is that it’s not just ritual, it’s not just a blind practice, but actually it is based upon cognition, upon conscious devotion. And this conscious organization of all human actions and all his relationships in the world, with his social community, towards his environment, towards himself, is based upon the basic relationship that is indeed the essential meaning of his being: his relationship to God. So in this sense, ‘spirituality’ and ‘religiosity’ becomes the same thing.
However, when there are those who refer to themselves as religious but fail in so many ways, people may come to the conclusion that religion doesn’t help us live a satisfying life. When the external behavior of a self-proclaimed religious person is all we can see, we can’t easily judge if the person is consciously devoted or if they practice false religion.
Ignorance, discord, hypocrisy, under- and overindulgence, false interpretations are the factors that may lead to wrong impressions of religiosity—-like what we sometimes see today, for example.
DB: What do you mean by “what we have today”?
SK: Yes, if we define spirituality as relating to something beyond the observable processes in nature—-to transcendence-—to God-—then spirituality is innate in all Being. If we believe in a God as the origin and the end of Being, all creatures are spiritual, since they are created by Him and are only in relationship to Him.
But the question is what humans have in addition to this primary general spirituality.
What is the difference between the growth and development of humans with other Beings? This has to be defined carefully and differed from the general spirituality that might be experienced as in various spiritual states. These definitions in addition to a psychological model are the first requirements to study the development in children and youth.
What I personally think is actually what I have tried to put in my model of psychology based upon the theistic presumptions. Here is the focus on the conscious devotion and conscious organization of all human cognitive, affective and behavioral processes in all the relationships that the person has (to himself, to his family, social and natural environments) upon the basic relationship to God. So in this model spirituality does not exist alongside with other aspects of human, but it is on one hand the essential meaning or state of its Being, and on the other hand it is the continuing process of conscious organization of its Being – the human becoming.
The inner experience of human dignity in the person’s relationships to family, social and natural environments for young children, children and adolescents seems to be a basic factor within the set of factors that may contribute to the human development—-or the spiritual development.
Spiritual development is an organization of all dimensions and functions and their orientation (including giving meaning, interpreting the task, event, etc.) upon development of the relationship between self-God.
In this regard, the response to a “becoming conscious” perception, event, emotion, memory, etc. can be a chance or an opportunity for spiritual development. The experience of human dignity, through observations of his parents or important people—-or even via books, films, imaginations and wishes of children—-could contribute to their readiness for this kind of response later in life, when they have to reflect on the meaning of their lives for themselves.
DB: Another important aspect of a theoretical framework of spiritual development has to do with the internal and external aspects of our development. By external we mean generosity, morality, service to others, etc. By internal we mean self-awareness, mindfulness, internal growth, that kind of thing. From an Islamic perspective, how do these parts of ourselves play out in spirituality development?
SK: In my worldview—-the Islamic worldview, there is a God-—one God. And He is the origin and the absolute thing, and all being comes from Him. So every being-—from the stones to the trees to a person to a cat-—all of them are spiritual. This is because each being is in relationship to Him. This is the spirituality that is within every being.
But for a human, it is something very special. He experiences his body within time and space, and is in many relationships—within his social environment, within his natural environment, and to himself—which indicates a complex model indeed. You have the body, material things, deeds, behavior, cognition, affect-—all of them are there, and they are just different manifestations of different levels of being. But spirituality or the development of spirituality or the development of the human depends on all of this.
This is conscious devotion and not just passive emotion. It is the active organization of everything—-of your social relationships, of all the aspects of your life—-the way that you base them upon the feeling that you have towards God.
For example, I help my mother not only because other people say I am nice or I am good to do so, and not just because I love her. I love her because of God. I do that because this is the way that God loves me, so this is the way I love my mother—is to help her. This is the way, for example, that in the Islamic worldview or I think in the theistic worldview that you try to have a life that’s based consciously and in an organized way on this relationship to God. It’s not in passivity, but expressed in active interaction with the social environment, in helping. And it shows itself in different areas of life of course, and through different tasks and aspects of living as well. But it’s not constant. Of course from morning until night it’s lots of falling and rising and forgetting and not being conscious, and then being conscious again. It’s just falling and rising but coming back and trying to improve. And it’s not such a bad fall that you cannot come back. I think for humans this is so special: that we can come back.
DB: You are one of over a hundred international advisors helping the Center for Spiritual Development in Childhood and Adolescence grow and to become the “go to” place for resources, thinking, and action in this new area of spiritual development. How do you think we’re doing so far?
SK: I think you’ll want people to understand easily who you are and why the center exists. In what context are you focusing your efforts around religion and spirituality? Do you consider religion and spirituality merely as physical or cultural phenomena? Are you attempting to offer something new for the post-modernist era? Is your orientation something like new age spirituality (which for many indicates godlessness and a lack of religious responsibility)?
Is the center religion-based and using scientific method merely to support your views and then push those views or moral demands to the educational systems of secular countries and naturalistic-oriented scientific systems? Are you striving for social benefits, such as improving the mental health of young people or reducing crime and delinquency by mixing some spiritual elements to the life style of various societies?
I think for the center to be successful and to provide useful research in this sensitive field; to avoid misunderstandings about your intent, and achieve clarity in research interpretations, the center has to present its project motivations, goals, and outlines as clearly as possible and to keep each and every aspect of the center and its projects as transparent as possible.
You can go about this in a number of ways. First, it is important to note that our system of knowledge—-the sciences-—are naturalistic-oriented. This means that the different disciplines have to present a coherent system of a world evolved by chance and led to the evolution of a physical body called human.
In this system of the sciences, notions of religion, concepts of God, transcendence, spirituality, etc. are identified as byproducts of this evolution or human culture. As such, they are not real; God or higher beings are delusions. Spirituality can be seen as a function of certain areas of the brain giving rise to certain experiences. It can also be turned into a consumption state—by using electrodes, drugs, breath and dance/trance techniques, and even by psychotherapists/spiritual therapists.
Then, the staff and researchers of the center must be upfront about their own worldviews, their presumptions, and their theories of person. Do the activities of the center presume a transcendent reality? What is this reality? How do you deal with dualism? What is your primary theory of person? It is important to clarify these presumptions in research documents.
I would also suggest the center gather and present all models and theories, from the naturalistic sciences to all spiritual and religious traditions, including psychological models, models of human development, each with their own definitions of the person, development, religion and spirituality. Here the basic resources of each tradition are important, as well as the well-known scholars from different schools, mystics, and more contemporary scholars and researcher who have tried to present models and theories.
This information, if well organized and structured, will be a precious resource for further research of the common concepts, shared views and discrepancies and their origins and functions, as well as to maintain a more holistic picture with more details at the same time. Then we can decide what differences are essential and cannot be ignored or integrated and which differences are just different interpretations of the same reality or concept, due to cultural, historical or lingual features.
DB: How has having your daughter affected you spiritually?
SK: Well, every relationship brings lots of new tasks and new borders for struggle. Our parents are people who love us, who have only good intentions for us, and we share our cultural and lingual background with them. It’s still difficult when an adolescent or a young person lives with her parents. The different views make it hard for the spiritual or religious devotion and organization of this relationship. It’s a struggle to keep the balance from morning until nighttime. I think marriage can be difficult too. Again, new tasks, different views. But having a child is quite another thing. It is very different. In all relationships it is difficult to try to control yourself, not to react as probably animals do, but to keep consciously organized. It is a struggle. But for a parent, indeed, in her relationship to her child, the loving and forgiving affect is very strong. When a mother experiences the strong loving emotions toward her baby, young child, or teenage kid and the forgiving tendencies, it makes one dare to think of God.
When we have, for example, sayings of the Prophet, and messages from our religions about how compassionate and loving God is, and forgiving and caring. He is the most forgiving, most loving. The experience of loving and forgiving your child can somehow make us think about one’s knowledge about God. Knowing that one cannot imagine how great and compassionate He is. How absolute and unlimited He is in his mercy and forgiveness.
