Now non-religious students are clamoring for non-religious chaplains to minister to their spiritual needs:
While many higher-education institutions have been affiliated with particular religions since their founding, there has been a broad movement in recent years to accommodate religious diversity by enlisting additional chaplains to serve different faith groups, such as Muslims, Jews, Hindus and various Christian denominations that might not have been present at institutions’ foundings.
Now an organization of non-religious students at Tufts University is saying: Hey, what about us?
The Tufts Freethought Society — a group of about 150 students who identify as atheistic, agnostic, or otherwise non-religious — wants the university to establish a “humanist” chaplaincy to serve as a resource for students who are interested in exploring how to live “ethical and meaningful lives” without subscribing to any religion.
They may not be alone, according to Alexander W. Astin, founding director of the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles, who has studied the issue. “Most students — religious and non-religious — have an interest in what we consider to be spiritual issues: the meaning of life, their most deeply felt values, why they’re in college, what kinds of lives they want to lead, how connected they feel to others, etc.,” Astin wrote in an e-mail.
“The current chaplaincies just don’t address the needs of those students,” said Xavier Malina, president of the society at Tufts. “A lot of students might want spiritual guidance but don’t feel comfortable going to the available chaplains on campus, [who] might not satisfy their spiritual needs.”
“Perhaps there is some validity there,” said Don Brewington, president of the National Association of College and University Chaplains. However, Brewington added that spiritual guidance may require “a little more than humanism will and can provide.”
“Using the word ‘spiritual’ — that seems to be somewhat contradictory,” he said.
Still, Brewington said he was reluctant to pass judgment on the notion of a humanist chaplaincy, since Wednesday — when he learned about the Tufts campaign — was the first he had ever heard of such a thing.
That’s probably because there are only three such chaplaincies in the country. Only Harvard University, Rutgers University, and Adelphi University retain humanist chaplains, according to Harvard’s Greg Epstein. Stanford University and Columbia University have had them in past years, Epstein said, but the positions are currently vacant.
So if being non-religious is a religion, complete with clergy, how are we going to separate church and state? If people who aren’t religious are concerned about their spiritual needs, in what sense are they not religious?
HT: Jackie
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
These people are so close; they know that they need something and unfortunately society is going to fall all over itself to make sure they get what they want instead of what they need.
Where does one get his qualifications to be a non-religious chaplain? This is just a bunch of juvenile kids who don’t know what they believe, or why. I imagine these kids to be of the type who are really naive, have swallowed pulp culture in a Dan Brown book, and now think they have the key to the universe and are smarter than everyone around them. When you talk to these types there is nothing you can do but to hang your head in embarrassment for them.
Using the word ‘spiritual’ — that seems to be somewhat contradictory,” he said. Still, [National Association of College and University Chaplains President Don] Brewington said he was reluctant to pass judgment on the notion of a humanist chaplaincy.
Given the nebulous, if not contradictory, Purposes of NACUC, it would appear that having a non-religious religious advisor to provide spiritual counseling would be instant nirvana for President Donny.
There are probably a number of dedicated palm readers, astrologers, and crystal gazers who would jump at the chance to slum it in academia.
Life imitates art. Paula Poundstone used to joke that she didn’t beleive in God, but still attended an atheist church because she didn’t want to be a heathen.
Unfortunately, these folks are voicing what too many who sit in pews are after: something to satisfy their spiritual “needs”, as in “felt needs”. Joe says they are so close, but so close to what? I am very surprised these people can’t get the kinds of counseling they yearn for from most Christian campus counsellors. It is the sort of thing that has been doled out for years. I’m sure there are plenty of counsellors who would happily drop the name of Jesus for these folks, and just give them the ole “ethical, meaningful life” spiel that passes for much of “Christian” counseling., at least on the campuses I have come into contact with.
But I suppose what is partly driving this is these kids look at the spiritual counselling services available to religious folks as think, “Hey, not fair! We want that too!”
BTW, who is the humanist counsellor at Patrick Henry these days?
What? Another vacancy???
Close to understanding that the need Christ. I feel a need, they think they know what it is. Instead, of helping them understand what the emplty feeling really is, our society will slap a band-aid on it and call it a day.
wow. sorry for all the typos.
All these fools need to do is find a Unitarian chaplain who in good syncretist style will transfer the divinity of Christ to themselves and pronounce a blessing on their worshipful nihilistic relativism.
My first thought was that they have a whole Psych department they could consult, if humanistic babble is all they want.
My second thought is that we should start filing suit to root secular humanism out of our government, since it is now a religion, on the basis of the “separation of church and state”. Maybe the ACLU will help us.
So, they want instruction on how to lead “ethical and meaningful lives” without religion? Which of course presupposes that their exist any basis for ethics or meaning outside religion. Good luck finding that.
Kerner @11.
Natural law.
Peter nails it. You want a humanist chaplain? Just go to the Unitarians or the UCC.
Regarding Kerner’s point about leading a meaningful, moral life without religion, I read Dr. Olasky’s column on that topic last night–and more or less, the Ivy League prof who wrote about morality without God fails from the first sentence by failing to explain why it’s important that people not harm one another. On what authority, now?
Hey, Bike Bubba. Just read the bumper stickers: “Mean people suck.”
What more rationale do you need?
Seriously, you can ask these questions, but remember: we’re dealing with people who DON’T WANT TO GET PINNED DOWN. What turns them off about religion is giving up that beautiful Sunday morning autonomy. I still remember the death throes and birth pangs of Christianity’s insistence that we are saved only by the Word of God. Argh!!!!
No, they want someone to comfort them without entrapping them. This will be a lifelong search, a longing in their hearts, and depending upon how firmly they have set the terms, it’ll end that way. We just have to keep finding little ways to whisper The Word into their ears.
David @ 12,
It’s true that the natural law is written even on the hearts of atheists, so in practice it cannot really discarded as a source of morality. Philosophically speaking, however, even natural law is baseless without God. As Hume argued, “is” doesn’t imply “ought”. J. Budziszewski has a good article on this in First Things. From that perspective, Kerner’s point is valid.
I think the tension between that practical inescapability and simultaneous lack of philosophical foundation is what’s driving this desire for “chaplains” in the first place.
Hume’s skepticism regarding our ability to argue for natural laws (e.g. gravitation) makes me slow to accept his reasoning for why we can’t argue for natural law (ethics). Alasdair MacIntyre suggests doing some philological study to see how our language actually works. In some European languages, the words “ought” and “owe” have the same root. If we work from there, the problem might be less elusive.
I’m inclined to see this more as Francis Schaeffer argued. The atheist can build a moral bridge. Just don’t expect it to hold up as well under crushing circumstances.
Also, though a code of behavior based upon man’s nature would have a lot of overlap with Christian ethics, the lack of the first table really changes the entire meaning of the goodness. The question is often asked, “Can we be good without God?” And people are content if they can argue that we won’t all go on killing sprees. But if we asked, “Can we be good BEFORE GOD without God?” we will answer differently.
Bruce: :^). I wish I had no more evidence than that which you present.
Rick, you make a great point about the sustainability of atheistic ethics.