Content uploaded by David O. Moberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David O. Moberg on Mar 31, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Spirituality Research:
Measuring the
Immeasurable?
David O. Moberg
The rising popularity of spirituality is accompanied by a flood of research in
numerous disciplines to probe its relationships with health, wellness, and countless
other topics. Initially subsumed under religion, especially Christianity, and still
overlapping with it, spirituality is increasingly treated as a distinct topic that applies
to all religions and to persons who have none with their diverse assumptions,
variables, and terminology. Besides issues common to all social and behavioral
sciences, spirituality research faces special challenges because of its subject matter.
In the context of Christian values, it is immeasurable, yet numerous scales serve
the measurement need as its indicators or reflectors. Much more research is needed,
ideally with methodological and philosophical precautions to avoid reification,
reductionism, and other traps. Because spirituality pervades everything that is
human, its study is central to investigations of the essence of human nature.
A1986 article on spirituality and
science began with the words,
“Most social and behavioral
scientists avoid attention to the spiritual
nature of humanity.”1That still is true
in some specialties, but spirituality has
become a prominent subject of research
in those most closely related to religion,
health, and well-being. This article sum-
marizes and critiques significant devel-
opments in psychological and other
research on spirituality. It provides an
introductory foundation for beginning
research on the subject and critically
analytic suggestions for persons already
grounded in it. Endnote references can
guide readers deeper into aspects of
spirituality that intrigue them.
The Popularization of
Spirituality
Popular magazines that once aimed at
political correctness by shunning discus-
sions of religion have resumed publish-
ing front cover stories about it. News
reports no longer avoid mentioning the
religious orientations and spiritual ex-
periences of newsworthy persons for
whom they are a concern, although most
use only “God talk” substitutes about
personal faith in Jesus Christ. Since the
late 1980s, there has been a rising cre-
scendo of popular interest in spirituality
and its marketplace2of religious and
pseudo-religious phenomena, including
meditation, mysticism, psychic healing,
yoga, spirit guides, witchcraft, New Age
cults, and alternate religions, some of
which openly or covertly incorporate
themes and techniques from ancient
Greek, Gnostic, or Eastern religions.
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 99
Article
David O. Moberg (ASA Fellow) is Professor of Sociology Emeritus at
Marquette University where he taught for twenty-three years after nineteen
years at Bethel College (Minnesota). He is the author of numerous articles
and books, two still in print, The Great Reversal (3d ed., Wipf and Stock,
2007); Aging and Spirituality (Taylor and Francis, 2001). He has served
as editor of the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (1962–1964)
and Review of Religious Research (1968–1972), co-edited Research in the
Social Scientific Study of Religion (1989–2004), held offices in several
professional associations, and twice was a Fulbright professor (Netherlands
and West Germany). His AB is from Seattle Pacific University, MA from
the University of Washington, and PhD from the University of Minnesota.
Now during retirement, he sometimes says, “I’m still working full-time,
just without a salary.”
David O. Moberg
The popularization of spirituality is accompanied
by expanded recognition of the centrality of religion
in human societies and a surge of interest in study-
ing spiritual phenomena.3Annual meetings of many
professional societies include sections on religion-
related topics that once were shunned, if not banned.
Entire conferences gather around spiritual themes.4
Empirical research on and related to spirituality
has rapidly expanded since the late 1980s in the
social and behavioral sciences, social work, nursing,
medicine, neurobiology, and other academic special-
ties and applied professions. It matters not whether
popularization stimulated scholarly investigations
or reflected the growing recognition that spirituality
is important, for they are closely interrelated. These
interests also reflect major trends in the politics of
global society, culture wars, international warfare,
and significant migration patterns. Spirituality is in-
creasingly recognized as a concern that penetrates to
the core or essence of both human nature and society.
This article focuses upon one significant facet of
those developments, the multidisciplinary research
on spirituality. By answering key questions, it
sketches some highlights of the research, methods,
and tools used to investigate spirituality; samples
of findings; research problems and limitations; and
relevant Christian values. It mentions some of the
challenges for future research and provides refer-
ences to help interested scholars and researchers
quickly locate helpful resources for their investiga-
tions, whether they are at beginning or advanced
stages of study.
How Did Spirituality Research
Begin?
The American Scientific Affiliation was far ahead of
its time when the question of the amenability of
spirituality to scientific study was included in its
joint conference on “Science and Christian Faith”
with the Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship at
Oxford University in July 1965.5Interest in spiritual-
ity was stimulated in part by a nagging feeling that
the central core of religion may have been cut away
from the sociology of religion. The claim of Charles
Glock, a prominent sociologist of religion, that all
of the manifestations of religious commitment in all
religions of the world can be subsumed under five
interactive and researchable dimensions (ritualistic,
ideological, intellectual, experiential, and consequen-
tial) also motivated that work.6
Probing this issue led to the conclusion that, at
least within Christianity, there is a sixth component
of personal religiousness that can be labeled as the
“spiritual” or “supernatural.” It is the very essence
or core of religious commitment, labeled by Italian
sociologist Sturzo as “the true life.”7He convincingly
argued that the supernatural is not a separate
segment of social life juxtaposed to the natural,
but rather, that the natural order exists within
the atmosphere of the supernatural. Therefore, even
those who search for purely natural explanations
of religion, while denying the supernatural root
and branch of life, are involved in “a sociology of
the supernatural” in a negative sense.
This is fully consistent with 378 references in the
Hebrew Bible to the word ruah and 146 in the Greek
New Testament to pneuma, each referring to human
beings as spirit. The Creator breathed life into Adam,
and he became a living soul (Gen. 2:7).8
Indeed, the word “breath” comes from the Latin
spiritus, which means “that which gives life
or vitality.” When we breathe in, that invisible
breath gives life to our visible bodies: so it is
with our spirit, also unseen. Spirit, like the
breath, transcends a person but is part of the
person. All of our relationships with others can
be perceived as spiritual, especially when we
understand that they have in common the life-
giving gift of breath.9
Rich and relevant reports on evidences for the spiri-
tual nature of humanity, the importance of bringing
ontological supernatural elements of religion back
into the sociology of religion (and by implication
all disciplines dealing with religion), and tentative
methods by which spirituality can be explored
through philosophical questions, theory develop-
ment, and scientific methodologies comprise major
foundation stones for subsequent developments in
research on spirituality.10
Even more important from the perspective of
its discernible historical impact was the 1971 White
House Conference on Aging (WHCA), which re-
placed a section on religion with one on Spiritual
Well-Being (SWB). Its 63-page background paper
began by differentiating spirituality from religion
100 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
and identifying six categories of spiritual needs
among aging people. Its working definition stated,
… we shall consider “the spiritual” as pertaining
to man’s inner resources, especially his ultimate
concern, the basic value around which all other
values are focused, the central philosophy of
life—whether religious, anti-religious, or non-
religious—which guides a person’s conduct,
the supernatural and nonmaterial dimensions
of human nature. We shall assume, therefore,
that all men [i.e., people] are “spiritual,” even if
they have no use for religious institutions and
practice no personal pieties.11
In order to implement recommendations of the SWB
Section of the 1971 WHCA, the National Interfaith
Coalition on Aging (NICA) was founded in 1972.
As it began cooperative work, its leaders quickly
recognized dissimilar interpretations of SWB that
had divergent referents, denotations, and connota-
tions, sometimes clashing with each other. To assure
reasonable agreement that all were discussing the
same or closely related phenomena when they used
the word “spiritual,” a nonsectarian definition was
needed to guide NICA’s deliberations and data collec-
tion. A two-day workshop in 1975 discussed the
diverse viewpoints of representatives from numerous
religious backgrounds and academic disciplines. It
resulted in a “working definition” that still remains
in use:
Spiritual well-being is the affirmation of life
in a relationship with God, self, community
and environment that nurtures and celebrates
wholeness.12
That NICA definition has been used for ecumeni-
cal discussions and pragmatic applications, but it
clearly is not an operational definition for scientific
research. Nevertheless, it has stimulated cooperation
and prevented many human service professionals
from continuing to ignore the spiritual nature and
needs of clients. It sensitized academicians from
many disciplines to spirituality, encouraged spiri-
tual intervention experiments and interdisciplinary
studies, and prodded support for spiritual care in
hospitals, retirement facilities, and other service
agencies. In 1992, it was among the stimuli for
changing the name of the Forum on Religion and
Aging to FORSA, Forum on Religion, Spirituality
and Aging.13
What Are the Foundations for
Spirituality Research?
Spirituality was long excluded from scientific investi-
gations as too ephemeral, mystical, theological, in-
effable, or transcendent to be a researchable subject.
Christians were especially resistant to its scientific
study. Many of them, with others, believed it was
too sacred for study by the mundane, cold, worldly
methods of science. Others thought it was so inscru-
table that it was far beyond the range of sensory
observations. Logical positivists claimed spirituality
was nothing more than a verbalized reification or
product of the human imagination. Reductionists
subsumed its manifestations under psychological,
neurological, medical, or other concepts.
Gradually, however, the recognition grew that
spirituality was no more intangible and immeasur-
able than numerous other internalized phenomena
that already were investigated through the scientific
lenses of disciplines such as psychology, epidemiol-
ogy, and sociology. Already researchable were sub-
jective nonmaterial subjects, e.g., anomie, attitudes,
beliefs, opinions, prejudice, self-concepts, and mari-
tal happiness, that were accessible only through
self-reports.
Narrative accounts of spiritually sensitive nurses,
physicians, therapists, chaplains, pastors, and priests
complemented the stories and legends spread by
the testimonials of Christians and others in reli-
gious circles and popular culture. Anecdotal and
observational data in literature and scholarly essays
(analogous to early forms of qualitative research)
stimulated further studies of spirituality through
quantitative methods, especially survey research.
Today the question of whether spirituality, or
at least aspects of it, can be subjected to scientific
research methodologies is seldom raised, although
subsidiary questions, such as differentiating spiritu-
ality from religion and the appropriateness and
scope of quantitative studies, remain.
Is Spirituality a Synonym for
Religion?
Initially, everything now considered to be spiritual
phenomena was subsumed under the concept of
religion. Reinterpreting details of religion research
reveals inclusion of numerous variables and concepts
that now would be classified as “more spiritual than
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 101
David O. Moberg
religious.” Moberg’s 195l dissertation, e.g., included
multidimensional measures of religious faith and
beliefs alongside church membership and religious
activities. It found that beliefs (now categorized as
spirituality) were more likely than other measures
to be correlated with good personal adjustment in old
age.14 Similarly, the 1967 Religious Orientation Scale
that differentiated intrinsic from extrinsic religious-
ness was an early attempt to separately measure two
types of personal religion.15
Religion and spirituality are very complex multi-
dimensional phenomena. They overlap so much
that two leading research questions are whether
“spirituality” is just another word for “religion,”
and if not, whether it is possible to separate the
two for research purposes. Allie Scott’s content
analysis of thirty-one definitions of religiousness
and forty of spirituality that were used in social sci-
ence publications over the previous century found
three differentiating polarizations that became in-
creasingly acceptable among behavioral scientists.
They are organizational religion vs. personal spiritu-
ality, substantive religion vs. functional spirituality
(centering upon sacred contents or their effects), and
negative religiosity vs. positive spirituality. Never-
theless, one qualifying conclusion [especially rele-
vant to Christians] was that there is little difference
between the processes of religion and of spirituality
for those who consider all of life to be sacred.16
For at least a decade, many have treated the con-
cepts as so interrelated that they can be studied
together as “Religion/Spirituality.”17 Among recent
demonstrations of their overlap in people’s minds
are face-to-face interviews with 6,082 USA adults
from three ethnic and racial sub-groups. Their
self-ratings of religiousness and spirituality clearly
suggest that most Americans do see differences
between the two concepts, although the majority
closely link them together.18 Therefore the dominant
trend in research is to deal with them as discrete
although interrelated and overlapping variables.
Thus, in her introduction to three special issues on
spirituality and adult development in the Journal of
Adult Development, Sinnott explained,
Spirituality is one’s personal relation to the sacred
or transcendent, a relation that then informs
other relationships and the meaning of one’s
own life … Religion … refers to practices and
beliefs related to a particular dogma system.19
From my perspective, spirituality is the broader con-
cept. Out of it emerged the countless religions and
pseudo-religions of the world. Their rituals, belief
systems, ideologies, and institutions developed out
of the original incentive to awaken, stimulate, nour-
ish, and satisfy desires and drives that originate in
the spiritual essence of every person.
How Is Spirituality Measured?
Especially since the 1960s, numerous indexes, scales,
and rating instruments have been constructed to
“measure” personal religiousness. The components
of each, typically including many now classified as
facets of spirituality, define whatever the scale is
named. By 1984, Gorsuch argued that there already
were a sufficient number and variety of reasonably
effective instruments to meet almost any task related
to the psychology of religion. He pleaded that,
instead of creating ever more new measures, psy-
chologists should work on testing, improving, and
linking with theory those already in existence.20
Soon thereafter, in-depth analyses compared
twenty measures of spiritual and transpersonal con-
structs uncovered in a nonexhaustive survey and
mentioned fifty-four more they did not discuss.21
(Transpersonal constructs include spirituality as a
major topic among phenomena that extend beyond
direct empirical observation, such as experiences of
awe, ecstasy, inner states of consciousness, creativ-
ity, love, meaning, mystical experiences, and pur-
pose in life. They attract the attention of New Age
sects, but Christian scholars recognize that they are
closely related to biblical perspectives on spiritual-
ity.)22 Extension of those descriptive and analytical
studies at the end of the twentieth century revealed
ten more research tools plus another twenty-eight
not included in earlier studies.23 Hill and Hood also
provided descriptions and evaluations of 126 mea-
surement scales. Eight included “Spiritual” in their
titles; numerous others would now be considered
primarily spiritual, and most of the rest included
spiritual components.24
Dozens of scales with varying degrees of method-
ological sophistication relative to spirituality have
been developed subsequently, so at least two hun-
dred are now available. Many relate to the spiritual
assessment of individual persons. Others aim to
evaluate holistic well-being in a framework of physi-
cal or mental health, and still others aid nonsectarian
102 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
chaplains and counselors who work in settings like
hospitals, colleges, businesses and industries, retire-
ment facilities, and the armed forces. Still more are
oriented mainly to the needs of nurses, physicians,
or other health professionals. Some are tools for
use in research, including several created to measure
different kinds of praying and prayer.25 Despite their
variety and abundance, most are relatively unknown
except among a small minority of professional prac-
titioners within each research and service domain.
Most measures of religion and spirituality can be
classified for research and other purposes under
twelve domains. Hill refers to four as measures of
dispositional religiousness or spirituality: general
religiousness or spirituality, religious or spiritual
commitment, religious or spiritual development,
and religious or spiritual history. The other eight
are functional assessments of religious or spiritual
social participation, private practices, support,
coping, beliefs and values, motivations, experi-
ences, and techniques for regulating and reconciling
relationships.26
The most widely used instrument designed for
measuring general spirituality is the Spiritual Well-
Being Scale (SWBS) developed by psychologists
Paloutzian and Ellison.27 Itsusesinhundredsof
studies in very diverse populations are reported in
nearly four hundred articles and books. Its twenty
simple questions produce a SWBS score. Ten com-
prise the Existential Well-Being subscale, a “horizon-
tal dimension” of adjustment to self, community,
and surroundings with items probing the respon-
dent’s sense of purpose, direction, satisfaction in life,
and adjustments to self and community. The other
ten are on the “vertical dimension” of Religious
Well-Being, one’s perception of the wellness of his
orherspirituallifeinrelationtoGod.Althoughorig
-
inated in a Christian frame of reference, it is used
in non-Christian cultures for evaluating spirituality
levels of general populations. Researchers construct-
ing new religion and spirituality scales use it to test
concurrent criterion validity. It is a tool for clinical
counseling, for assessing the effectiveness of patient
care programs, for helping individuals “assess your
perceived relationship with God, sense of life pur-
pose and life satisfaction,” and for evaluations in
religious congregations, although it is less helpful
for distinguishing between people with high levels
of spirituality than those with low or average levels
of spirituality. With rare exceptions, its scores have
been positively correlated with a wide range of mea-
sures of health and well-being.28
What Has the Research
Revealed?
The results of studies relating spirituality to mea-
sures of health, well-being, personality, and other
concerns are so exceptionally consistent in one direc-
tion that many researchers are surprised by their
discoveries.
The growing body of evidence that there is a
strong positive relationship between spiritual
health and other forms of physical, psychologi-
cal, and social health would seem to suggest that
therapeutic interventions with clients might be
enhanced by addressing spiritual dimensions
of the client’s life experiences.29
Many of these findings have been clearly, compre-
hensively, concisely, and critically summarized in
numerous books, especially those by Harold G.
Koenig.30
This, however, must not lead to the presumption
that every activity and practice labeled as “spiritual”
has only wholesome effects for every person and
group. Outliers with negative results instead of the
usually constructive and wholesome correlates and
effects of spirituality are found in most, if not all,
empirical studies. Exploring those cases and the
reasons for their deviations deserves more attention
than it has received to date.
Questions can also be raised about the evaluative
criteria that describe events and experiences as good
or bad, well or ill, and so forth. What are the values
behind each label? Are they superficially time- and
culture-bound or linked to only superficial feelings,
hence of no enduring worth? Peterson, e.g., has
reminded us that even the increasing use of the
word “spirituality” in Christian circles might reflect
more pathology than health.31
Does the Research Reflect a
Christian Bias?
One criticism of most spirituality research is that it
strongly reflects Christian definitions and interpreta-
tions of spirituality. Whether by Christian research-
ers or others, it allegedly applies explicit or implicit
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 103
David O. Moberg
Christian values that then are presumed to provide
universally valid criteria for evaluating the positive
or negative spiritual well-being and functional health
of all people everywhere. Thus Glicksman claims that
Protestant theological themes that shaped American
civilization are so central to the research that its tools
are inappropriate for use in non-Christian popula-
tions.32 He thinks “evangelical Protestant” themes
and assumptions pervade seven prominent scales that
he analyzed and then contrasted with perspectives
of contemporary Judaism. Those scales are weak,
he claims, both from the viewpoint of excluding
“right action” such as charitable acts and from the
viewpoint of ignoring “the core of the Christian
message—the message of sin and redemption” from
their components. Therefore they neither use mea-
sures independent of a particular religious tradition
nor properly reveal how faith shapes the lives of
respondents.
Among several respondents to Glicksman’s stim-
ulating critique, Oman studied details of the same
scales and concluded that “the problem appears sub-
stantially smaller than the impression conveyed by
Glicksman, but still merits further attention and cor-
rection.”33 Moberg called attention to the ongoing
need to clarify the concept of “spirituality” and asso-
ciated methodological issues, while also summariz-
ing some Jewish roots of evangelicalism that support
several of the evaluative criteria.34
Nearly all prominent spirituality scales, indeed,
were developed inside a cultural context of implicit
Christian values, even if most constructors fail to
acknowledge any source other than universal
humanistic ideals. The main reason is that most of
the research has been done in the USA and other
countries with populations of mostly Christian
backgrounds and identities. Under the European
heritage of ethical and legal values grounded in
Christianity, most popular evaluations use labels
that simply assume what is good and bad, well
and ill, upright and immoral, and the like. Besides,
spirituality is a special concern of Christian theology,
so some of the research was undertaken for specific
Christian purposes.
A significant question is whether spirituality itself
is so strictly a Christian concept that it is inappro-
priate for study among people with other religions.
Christian terminology does slip into items included
in some “nonreligious” measurement scales. There
also is such a wide variety of people’s concepts or
images of God that any item referring to the deity is
likely to reflect meanings so diverse that findings are
not genuinely equivalent from one religious group
to another, and possibly not even from one person
to another. (Members of the same Christian parish
reciting a liturgical creed together may have widely
divergent mental images of God, Jesus, sin, forgive-
ness, and other religious concepts.)
Studies of the spirituality of people with non-
Christian religions usually use case studies, simple
survey questions, or general scales because none
have been specifically developed for use in the
context of their own faith. Few professional reports
cover Buddhist spirituality and aging, possibly due
less to disinterest in the subject than to tenets of the
faith and its spiritual culture,35 although an eleven-
item Buddhist Beliefs and Practices Scale was devel-
oped to assess agreement with Buddhist teachings
and practices.36 The faith traditions and religious
experience of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hin-
duism are described alongside those of Catholicism
and Protestantism in chapters of Hood’s Handbook.37
People in Japan, however, lack a clear equivalent for
the word “spirituality,”38 and Shinto is so indige-
nous that Isomae believes it ought not be treated as
the hybrid implied by the term “Japanese religion.”39
Is There Research on
Nonreligious Spirituality?
Currently, some interpret spirituality as if it were
completely separate from religion. This usually takes
the form of “nontheistic” (atheistic) attempts to ex-
clude every reference to God, worship, supernatural-
ism, and institutional religion. Not only are there
scales to deal with spirituality apart from religion,
but there also are academic, analytical, and interpre-
tive studies that present spirituality as a “natural”
phenomenon, conflating it to one or another “nonreli-
gious” essence, such as meditation or self-realization.
Ellis, e.g., argues that spirituality is misrecognized
existential self-esteem.40
The most prominent analytic example is Atchley’s
textbook on spirituality and aging with its wealth
of perspectives on and interpretations of spiritual
self-identity, journeying toward wisdom, coping
104 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
with aging and dying, a spirituality inventory, and
similar topics. It defines spirituality as
… a subjective, existential region of experience.
Spiritual experience begins with basic spiritual-
ity, an unadorned sense of being. To this is
added a sense of ‘I’ as perceiver and actor,
having the capacity to experience spiritual
qualities through various human avenues of
experience.41
Atchley believes that each person’s spiritual journey
is one of seeking and negotiating a landscape for
which we never have perfect maps to help us dis-
cover the ground of being. Drawing mainly upon
developmental experiences and qualitative resources,
he emphasizes the importance of an intentional inner
journey and shows how Quaker, Buddhist, and other
types of reflection and contemplation can aid spiritual
growth. Because his book focuses on spirituality as
a topic separate from religion, it omits attention to
nearly all of the huge and rapidly growing body of
empirical research findings.
Both religious and antireligious biases create
problems for any researcher, therapist, or educator
who desires to use a single spirituality instrument
in heterogeneous groups that include members out-
side of Christianity or any other cultural context that
is the scale’s origin. When no religiously neutral
instruments appropriately measure spirituality with
only nonreligious variables, researchers covering
nonreligious or other ideological groups need to
create their own.
Onescaledesignedtomeasuretheeffectofspiri
-
tuality on subjective well-being outside of a religious
framework is the Spirituality Index of Well-Being.
It aims to be a parsimonious, yet global, instrument
to capture the complexity and depth of spirituality
in any healthcare or other context without being
“hampered” by items that gauge religiosity. Assum-
ing spirituality is a health-related quality-of-life con-
cept within a psychological domain, its twelve items
ask (with five “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”
responses) if the respondent is unable to do much to
help himself or herself, fails to understand his or her
problems, knows how to begin to solve them, feels
overwhelmed, has not found life’s purpose, often
has no way to complete whatever was started, has
a great void in life, and the like. Most of the variance
among its scores is accounted for by two factors,
life scheme and self-efficacy. Its scores correlate
positively with those of the SWBS, especially its
Existential Well-Being subscale, presumably because
both include life purpose and satisfaction in addition
to life experiences.42
Because of the consistently observed importance
of religion and spirituality to health and the need for
a holistic model to deal with health problems in their
existential as well as other dimensions, Katerndahl
developed a Spiritual Symptom Scale to complement
the other components of the BioPsychoSocioSpiritual
Inventory. Its seven items (none mentioning reli-
gion) summarize a medical client’s sense of peace,
harmony, and purpose. Among patients in two
primary care clinics, spiritual symptom scores alone
or in conjunction with other symptom categories
were associated with higher health services utiliza-
tion rates for seven of ten outcomes.43
Whether these and other nonreligious scales
validly focus upon spirituality, comprise only socio-
psychological measures of subjective feelings of
mental health or well-being, are reductionistic per-
versions of spirituality measurement, or reflect some
other underlying concept remains an open question.
Is Spirituality Relevant to
Other Sciences?
As ever more linkages of spirituality with other do-
mains of personal and scholarly interest are
recognized, investigating it has spread far beyond its
primary homes in the psychological, social science,
epidemiological, medical, and religious disciplines.
For example, biological factors help to explain differ-
ences in the religious and spiritual orientations of
paired twins, although environmental influences are
more important.44 Mystical, religious, and spiritual
experiences have been linked to neuroscientific
findings,45 the innate genetic brain structure of hu-
mans,46 consciousness rooted in the brain,47 quantum
physics,48 mystical experiences,49 and other scientific
research.50
As additional associations of spirituality with
other variables are revealed, novices will be tempted
to believe that it is fully explained by whatever is
the focus of their research. Spirituality, however,
is much too huge and complex to be treated fairly
by any ontological reductionisms of scientific work.
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 105
David O. Moberg
Even on the basis of the best research revealing
contributions of religion and spirituality to resolv-
ing human problems and meeting people’s needs,
the findings
… cannot be explained away simply as attempts
to counter the fear of death, as the expression
of a need to find in God or the gods fantasy
substitutes for earthly parents, as a neurotic
escape from the realities of life, or as symptoms
of incipient or real psychosis.51
Furthermore, just because many scientists’ opinions
overstep the limitations of science by rejecting spiri-
tuality and the Bible as possible aspects of reality, is
no reason for denying them. The fact of the existence
of a spiritual dimension or of an intelligent Creator
is outside the sphere of scientific examination per se.
What is obvious in everyday experience need not be
overlooked just because it cannot be measured.52
Without appropriate qualifications, it is easy to
conclude that a research scale actually measures
spirituality as a whole or that its scores are equiva-
lent to spirituality itself. Doing either is a serious
ontological reductionism, for no measurement con-
stitutes the phenomenon it measures. Thus, a serious
error to avoid is making statements that declare spir-
ituality is nothing except whatever is named.53
In reducing everything to the laws of nature
we risk denying that there is any rationality
or truth behind nature’s laws … [Just because]
human beings [are] made up of atoms and mole-
cules … that does not even begin to describe the
unity we experience in our everyday lives.54
Does Spirituality Research
Confront Special Problems?
All of the methodological issues ordinarily involved
in social and psychological research apply to study-
ing spirituality, but it poses additional complications,
some of which may be unique. Because spirituality is
becoming a significant aspect of professional inter-
ventions and therapies, there also is a danger of inter-
preting it as nothing more than an additional means
to an end, a tool to use for healing, coping with prob-
lems, or attaining other goals. Human beings and
their conceptualizations can be observed and under-
stood only in part, while their Creator immeasurably
transcends all limits.
Conceptual Issues
Not the least of the complications of researching
spirituality are questions about the concept itself.
Hundreds of definitions are available. How a re-
searcher interprets it must interact with the defini-
tions held by research subjects. This reflects the
questions of whether spirituality is subsumed under
or is a partner of religion, whether supernatural refer-
ences are needed, and whether it is, at base, supernat-
ural or nonreligious.
Using subjective data, e.g., feeling states, a sense
of meaning or purpose in life, self-rated well-being,
or other subjective self-evaluations, to measure spiri-
tuality can imply that it is no more than a reification
of interiorized impressions that differ from one per-
son to another and lack any objective foundation.
It also opens the question of whether it is genuinely
reflected by verbalized self-appraisals offered in
interviews, questionnaires, narratives, and the like.55
To use an analogy, thousands of people every year
look good and feel well with no medical tests uncov-
ering ailments, yet later a slow-growing cancer at
or near the stage of metastasis that must have been
present much earlier is discovered. Similarly, many
devout saints of God experience “the dark night of
the soul.”56 Subjective feelings can twist facts into
perceptions contrary to reality.
Linguistic Issues
Language differences easily become a source of
incomparable meanings even among the members
of relatively small groups. Regional and global
nuances in the meanings of words, the breadth of
the vocabularies of research subjects, reading- and
writing-skill levels, being test-wise or not, dialects
that interfere with oral communication, previous
religious knowledge and spiritual experiences, and
much more, influence data collection related to spiri-
tuality. The complications are accentuated whenever
a research sample includes persons of different cul-
tural backgrounds, religious traditions, educational
levels, and lifestyle patterns.
Translation of scales from one language to another
imposes additional complications, as is especially
evident to Christians who have studied diverse
religious interpretations originating in alternative
meanings of the original Hebrew and Greek words
in the Bible. When, e.g., my Spiritual Well-Being
Questionnaire57 was translated into Swedish, we
106 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
wondered how to word the Jewish “theological
position” (faith) in a society with very few Jews.
I preferred simply Jude or Judaisk, but my Swedish
consultants insisted upon Judaiska trosbekännelse
(Jewish confession of faith). Several Christians
checked it, apparently realizing that their faith in
Jesus Christ echoed Abraham’s faith in Yahweh
(Gen. 15:6).
Research Design
There are important questions about the appropriate-
ness of various designs for spirituality research. Most
quantitative studies use cross-sectional data gathered
at only one moment of their subjects’ lifespan, but
people change spiritually over time, some by life-
changing conversions and others by gradual devel-
opmental modifications. Even if all research subjects
are within a narrow age range, they may differ
greatly in spiritual alertness and maturity. In terms
of biblical evaluations, some are spiritually dead,
while those “born anew” may remain spiritual
infants (1 Cor. 3:1–4; Heb. 5:11–14).
Many studies use data from convenience samples,
especially college students, most of whom have had
limited personal experiences, are relatively imma-
ture spiritually, and represent a far narrower scope
of spiritual experiences than most middle-aged and
older adults. This is an important limitation of spiri-
tuality scales developed by studying only youths.
Assessments to discover and measure changes in
spirituality that occur from a ministry or program
intended to produce spiritual growth can be biased.
By using the same instrument for before and after
evaluations, results in the repeated “test” may be
modified by the habituation of recalling details.
Longitudinal studies of spirituality at different
stages of the same persons’ lives are very desirable
to assess either developmental growth or the effects
of influences such as family, education, or participa-
tion in church ministries. However, they are contam-
inated by intervening events and experiences of their
subjects, some of which reinforce and some counter-
act the variables under investigation. The inevitable
dropouts during research can also bias results. Thus,
since people with the lowest levels of religiousness
usually die earliest,58 the average spirituality level of
a typical large group can increase with age even
without any changes among the survivors.
Experimental interventions aimed at modifying
personal spirituality are confronted with major com-
plications, whether the change agent is education,
evangelism, counseling, Bible study groups, or other
influences. Sometimes one can coerce members of
a “captive audience” to participate behaviorally, but
even then no spiritual change is certain. If spiritual-
ity is basically an inner orientation “of the heart,”
it cannot be imposed upon people from the outside.
Besides, questions about feasibility include impor-
tant theological issues regarding “free will” and the
ethics of research.
Statistical Analyses
As already suggested, most spirituality research has
used quantitative methods, gathering data from
questionnaires and interviewing schedules. The sim-
plified answers to response categories of questions
can be analyzed with rigorous statistical sophistica-
tion, but their simplicity is itself a source of difficulty
because it waters down complex feelings, commit-
ments, beliefs, behaviors, qualifications, and relation-
ships with God and people.
In addition, many studies, including some used
for scale construction, are based upon small samples
that lack statistical significance even when observed
differences are large, while others with big national
samples produce statistically significant differences
with a narrow range of variations. The nature of
statistical measurement in and of itself thereby
raises questions about the certainty of generaliza-
tions, especially when few people have a reported
characteristic. In my opinion, the social significance
represented by large and consistent but statistically
insignificant results from numerous small samples
is more important than small but statistically
significant differences from a large sample.
Qualitative Studies
Because spiritual phenomena have a richness that
is difficult to capture by statistically manipulable
answers, qualitative methods are exceptionally suit-
able for studying them. Besides their typical uses
during the exploratory stages of research, qualitative
methods can lead to improved understanding of
relationships between the subjects’ interpretations
of their own and others’ spirituality, its connections
with their own sense of meaning in life and purpose
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 107
David O. Moberg
for living, its impact upon their perceived well-being,
the influence of past experience, its connections with
religion, and much more.
Despite that rich potential, an analysis of 2,726
articles published from 1978 to 2003 in seven jour-
nals that include articles relevant to psychology
and spirituality found only twenty-two based upon
qualitative methods.59 Of them, eighteen used face-
to-face interviews, three of which were in focus
groups. Seven used a phenomenological design
that was also referred to as a narrative approach or
clinical interviewing, four applied grounded theory,
and two used research software.
Researcher Bias
Because spirituality is a nebulous concept, a shrewd
scholar using any method can subtly or uncon-
sciously shape its representations to fit the postulates
and presuppositions of his or her frame of reference,
whether it is an academic discipline, theory, religion,
or philosophical ideology. More often than not, the
narrower and more precise the targeted scope and
definition of spirituality, the less likely will a defini-
tionally limited instrument meet the interests and
needs of those who identify themselves with diver-
gent disciplines, religions, or belief systems. On the
other hand, the more generalized and universalized
the instrument, the less the likelihood that it will sat-
isfy the precise interests and needs of persons within
any particular spiritual frame of reference.
Ethical Issues
Social and professional pressures drive researchers
toward conformity to whatever values and practices
seem most acceptable or politically correct in their
society or subculture and subtly push them toward
minimizing attention to whatever is unique in their
own ideology and faith.60 Christians, like others, must
carefully weigh those issues to find the best profes-
sional and personal resolution for each situation.
They also must face the issue of whether it is ethical
to use political, institutional, or other influences to
force Christian behavioral norms, including those of
research instruments that allow only responses based
upon unique Christian values, upon people of other
faiths, no religion, or NUNYAs (none of your busi-
ness).61
Do Spirituality Scales Really
Measure Spirituality?
Every attempt to measure spirituality is based upon
one or more observable reflectors that score each
individual. Typically these are components, con-
comitants, correlations, or consequences that alleg-
edly reflect a person’s spirituality or a subsidiary
such as spiritual intelligence, orientation, maturity,
gifts, self-assessment, and so forth. Because each item
included is chosen as a possible sign or symbol of
the aspect of spirituality under investigation, every
measuring instrument is a product of postulates and
assumptions that are more often implicit than overtly
expressed. Whatever the researcher believes to be
outside of possible relevance is not even considered
for inclusion. The validity of the instrument (whether
it genuinely measures spirituality or a subcategory)
thus depends upon presuppositions that preselect
and omit variables before empirical data gathering.
If truly important variables are omitted from the
initial selection, they are never tested. (Ideally,
prior knowledge and qualitative explorations help
to overcome that limitation.)
Central to questions about the validity of instru-
ments for evaluating and measuring spiritual well-
ness and illness is the issue of widely diverse
standardsforjudgingelementssuchascommitment,
devoutness, ritual faithfulness, and other criteria
used in various world religions, their subsidiary
denominations and sects, and the functionally equiv-
alent philosophies, therapies, and practices that serve
as parts of spirituality or as its synonyms, analogies,
or substitutes. Do those evaluation systems and
the research instruments built upon them genuinely
measure spirituality or only something else con-
nected with or related to one of its disparate inter-
pretations? What does any given scale really
measure? To date we have, for the most part, simply
accepted at face value the claims of psychologists
and others who create spirituality scales, affirming
that they indeed measure spirituality.
Since the indicators included in a scale are only
components of spirituality, those parts obviously
do not comprise its whole. If they are concomitants,
any relationships found could be little more than
the coincidence of disparate events that happen
together at the same time. If they are correlations,
both variables may be common causes or effects of
108 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
thesamechainsofevents.Iftheyareconsequences
of spirituality, its products cannot be spirituality
itself. The same holds true if they are verbal or other
symbols of spirituality, for words, pictures, music,
sculpture, or whatever else depicts spirituality is
not spirituality. In the final analysis, therefore, the
validity of any index or scale cannot be established
by scientific investigations alone. It depends upon
theological and philosophical criteria that ultimately
extend beyond the limits of empirical observation.
The complexity of these epistemic relationships
means that the measurement process itself has
impenetrable limitations. Even if there is agreement
on a conceptual definition of spirituality, its opera-
tional definition for empirical applications is fraught
with difficulties. Unless there is agreement about
an outside basis for evaluation, the ultimate conclu-
sion must necessarily be that spirituality in each case
is only whatever is measured by the spirituality scale
under consideration. Each scale is its own operational
definition. Although many scales are closely related
to others that have overlapping components, some
are completely different from all the rest. Do all
genuinely measure spirituality?
Allegations about hidden “Christian values” in
the research reflect those complications. Christian
values necessarily must be the foundation for ex-
plicitly Christian scales, but whose values should
govern those intended to be generic or universal?
The analysis of these complex interrelationships
is a continual challenge for religion scholars and
philosophers of religion as well as for social and
behavioral scientists.
How Do Christians Interpret
Spirituality?
The Bible clearly teaches that humanity originated
in creation by God as males and females made in
“his” image (Gen. 1:27). Obviously, that image is not
physical, for every human body is unique. However
we interpret and fine tune that imago Dei, it is
explained by Jesus who taught that “God is spirit”
(John 4:24). Therefore our essence, too, must be spirit
(a concept often interchangeable with soul in the
Bible). As spirit, we possess bodies and minds; we are
not bodies that possess spirits and minds. Yet, as Hall
explained, we are spirits embodied in the material
and physical world God created, and our bodies
have the purpose of functioning within facilitating
relationships of service that show God to others.62
In the process of creating humans as trinitarian
spirits (with body, soul, and mind), God “set eternity
in the hearts of men” (Eccles. 3:11, NIV). The inner
nature of humanity innately seeks God and wants
to please him, however nebulous and distorted their
images of him may have become through millennia
of social and cultural modifications that have pro-
duced diverse religions and far-fetched philosophi-
cal speculations. To use psychologist Helminiak’s
words, “… simply to be human is already to be spiri-
tual. So underlying all expressions of spirituality is a
core that is universal, a core that is simply human.”63
Barrett’s cognitive science of religion accordingly
concludes that belief in divinity is so inevitable a con-
sequence of the kind of minds we have that theism
is our natural condition.64 People everywhere try
to transcend the natural world and thereby confirm
that the ultimate referent for spirituality is the
Almighty Creator in whose image all were created.
He is revealed most clearly of all by his incarnation
in the person of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1–4) but also
through all of his created universe and the gentle
inner whispers of the Holy Spirit calling attention
to things we observe, experience, and do. Those rev-
elations help us make sense of scientific (and other)
discoveries, interpretations, and contemplations in
the context of biblical truths.
Biological research provides supportive evidence
that spirituality is a built-in biological component
of human nature.65 God did “set eternity in human
hearts,” so all of life is spiritual or sacred and every-
thing human relates to or mirrors spirituality. There-
fore every thought, feeling, and action reflects
spirituality in some way, and almost all of them
could be used in research, along with other vari-
ables, as indicators or reflectors of spirituality.
No wonder every known group of people has, or
at least has had, a religion of some kind! Most have
included sacrifices and offerings to win the favor or
deflect the anger of one or more demons or deities.
The preliterate and ancient religions originated, in
my opinion, in the undescribed and unexplained
relationships with the Creator that led Cain and Abel
to offer up sacrifices to him (Gen. 4:3–4). Later, when
their descendants were scattered across the earth
after their sin at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1–9),
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 109
David O. Moberg
they brought atoning sacraments along. Over centu-
ries of separation from each other in diverse environ-
mental and cultural settings, the details of their
rituals and accompanying meanings of sacrifices
were gradually modified into today’s global varia-
tions of spiritual worship and religious systems.
(I hope archeological and other researchers will
some day discover the resources necessary to test
that hypothesis.)
The Bible teaches that all humanity are spiritual
beings who stem from a common ancestry (Acts
17:26–29). It reminds us that Christian spiritual wor-
ship requires the living sacrifice of offering one’s
entire being to God (Rom. 12:1–2). That means pray-
ing without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17), not only during
worship services, prayer gatherings, and personal
devotions. Loving God with all of one’s heart, soul,
mind, and strength (Luke 10:27; Matt. 22:37–40) is
a 24/7 spiritual activity, not an occasional part-time
experience separate from the rest of life.66 Believers
who are spiritually alive through faith in the Lord
are “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to
do good works” (Eph. 2:10). On average they are
more sensitive to the issues, values, biases, assump-
tions, limitations, and applications related to spiritu-
ality than are people who remain spiritually “dead
in transgressions and sins.”
Human Finitude
Since spirituality is the essence of human nature,
everything in which people are engaged is related
to it. Nevertheless, because it is the core or ground
of being, it is easy either to ignore it or to slip into
thinking that one’s own dominant interest is its cen-
ter and consequently to view all human experience
from only that limited perspective. Reaching simpli-
fied conclusions about spirituality is one of the most
subtle forms of ontological reductionism, especially
if that focus obscures manifestations, however faint,
of the mystical work of the Almighty Creator.
Many problems of spirituality research stem
from failure to recognize the limitations of science,
on the one hand, and of Christian faith, on the other.
The sciences are based upon observing only “natu-
ral” phenomena. God and much of his work are
scientifically unobservable, so research is limited to
“methodological naturalism”67 or “methodological
atheism.”68 Except for theoretical and speculative
attempts to interpret that which cannot be observed,
science is limited to empirically discernible data.
That, however, does not preclude the “philosophical
theism” of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scientists
who believe that human beings, the universe, and
everything it contains were made by the invisible
Creator and therefore reflect his handiwork.
What Is the Future of Spirituality
Research?
Spirituality research is flourishing. When I first con-
templated writing this article, I thought it ideally
ought to summarize all the definitions and scales
that have been developed to measure and assess
spirituality and its numerous subsidiaries. Analysis
of those scales should list all the indicators (ques-
tions and topics) that comprise each operational defi-
nition, demonstrating side-by-side which indicators
are shared and which are exclusive, so that it shows
how a scale is distinctly different from all others. In
addition, I wanted to summarize and compare details
of the specific methodological procedures used for
collecting and analyzing data, for they also help to
explain similarities and differences of findings.
Alas, those tasks are undone! They would require
an ever-expanding activity for a year or more of
full-time work and result in an encyclopedic report.
Also awaiting attention is the collection and analysis
of voluminous interpretations of spirituality tucked
away in literature, history, the arts, religious studies,
and other humanities.
The Multiplication of Research Scales
The challenge to researchers who need spirituality
instruments explicitly oriented to the beliefs, values,
languages, and cultures of non-Christian faiths is
slowly being resolved. However, there are few
explicitly “Christian” instruments focused directly
upon elements at the heart of the value systems of
fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Catholic, Orthodox, or
other branches of Christianity.69 Because most scales
attempt to be generic, unique elements, such as ques-
tions about an evangelical faith in Jesus Christ as
the only way to eternal salvation and trusting his
vicarious death and resurrection for forgiveness of
sin, usually are omitted. Research on any Christian
group that believes that the unique aspects of its own
Reformed, Arminian, charismatic, denominational, or
other distinctives are important may require its own
110 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
spirituality subscale. Because of the large variations
within and between major religious groups, research
reports always should designate clearly whichever
definitions and measures of spirituality are used.
“Cafeteria Religiosity”
A challenge to Christian leaders is the tendency of
many of their people and even some clergy70 to create
their own religion by patching together pieces of
faith, worship, ethics, and practices that make them
feel good, regardless of their source and whether
their creation is or is not consistent with creeds they
recite or the Bible they claim as their guide to faith
and action.71
Currently the word spirituality glows with favor,
so numerous New Age sects, alternative healing
cults, and commercial hucksters use words such as
“spiritual” to describe their rituals, attract members,
and sell their services or wares. What they allege
to be good spirituality may be as radically opposite
to values of the Bible as the biblical words of
Satan were when he tempted Jesus (Matt. 4:1–11;
2 Cor. 11:14–15). It is very easy to “let the world
around you squeeze you into its own mould …
[instead of letting] God re-mould your minds from
within” (Rom. 12:2, Phillips). Christians are squeezed
by social, economic, political, and other pressures
of society and its subcultures to rationalize worldly
standards instead of conforming to whatever genu-
inely reflects the mind and example of Christ.
Three-fourths of the US population identify them-
selves as Christians, but many are becoming more
like Hindus who believe there are many paths to
God. With a strong propensity for a “divine-deli-
cafeteria religion” that selects and combines its
own pieces of different religions, thinking all seem
the same and with 24% believing in reincarnation,
a Hindu spirit seems to be replacing Christian
orthodoxy.72
The Next Great Discovery?
Richard Cox has boldly asserted, “The next great dis-
covery will be in the realm of the Spirit. The ramifica-
tions of this discovery for the church will be beyond
our current imagination.”73 On the growing edge of
that prediction are research reports on the genome
and countless other subjects in peer-reviewed jour-
nals, conferences on topics such as consciousness that
present massive evidence for the reality of the Soul
and Spirit, and the coming together of the fields
of psychology and religion. The Christian church,
Cox believes, therefore needs to practice an “invasive
theology” out of the conviction that its message is
truly life changing. Centuries of its results are equiv-
alent to empirical experiments that demonstrate the
power of what it preaches and teaches.74
Recent demonstrations of that power include the
renunciation of atheism by Antony Flew, who in
2004 publicly announced that he now accepts the
existence of God. Major influences on his shift were
scientific findings of DNA investigations, data on
the fine tuning of the universe, the inability of evolu-
tionists to explain the first emergence of life, and
fallacious circular reasoning of atheists unable to
explain the origin of the universe. Reason and
science, not faith, were progenitors of his radical
turnaround.75 Flew is not alone. “Since the 1980s
and 1990s, there has been a renaissance of theism
among analytic philosophers.”76
Conclusions
All research on spirituality is incomplete and im-
perfect. Despite significant progress, especially since
the late 1980s, it still is in its infancy. Every research
method and tool used to identify, describe, analyze,
evaluate, and apply the findings about spirituality
touches on only fragments of its totality. Spirituality
is so comprehensive, universal, and all-inclusive that
humans can apprehend only miniscule bits and
pieces that are but tiny samples reflecting its amaz-
ing totality.
In the final analysis, spirituality is “the demon-
stration of the Spirit. It is an action of its originator,
the soul, i.e., Spirit.”77 Because we are spirit, it is
impossible to separate ourselves from spirituality
to study it with unbridled objectivity, and many
of its immaterial aspects are outside and beyond
the bounds of scientific observation. As Fontana
concludes,
… the urge to religious and spiritual experience
and belief, and the consequences of this urge
for human behavior, are among the greatest
mysteries facing psychology. In spite of count-
less words written over the centuries, we are
still a long way from finding answers to these
mysteries.78
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 111
David O. Moberg
The mysteries of spirituality are at the core of
human existence, pervading everything that human
beings are and do. It is impossible to fully under-
stand it and all of its complex connections, even
though every activity, belief, commitment, and
motivation reflects it positively or negatively in
some way.
This means that the large and expanding number
of scales that allegedly measure the immeasurable
spirituality are a benefit, not a problem. Whether
they include religiosity or not, all provide strong or
weak reflections of their subjects’ spirituality, even
when reversals of positive and negative scores may
seem necessary to fit contrasting values of Christian
and other ideologies. Ultimately, however, only God
knows for sure whether a person is spiritually well,
so it may forever be impossible for mere humans to
discover and measure levels of spiritual well-being
with absolute certainty despite the guidelines for
righteous living in the Bible.
Scientific research on the material universe is
rapidly expanding human knowledge of both its
vastness and its intricately interacting minute parts,
processes, and relationships. Similarly, research on
spirituality is expanding our perceptions toward both
an ever broader awareness of its vast domains and
a deeper discernment of its largely impenetrable
components, processes, and influences.
As we continue to study snippets of spirituality
and its manifestations both within and outside of
religion, we will generate increasing light on its com-
plexities and expanding wisdom for its applications
to social and individual behavior. Yet far beyond the
scope of research methods related to spirituality and
their findings, there forever is more and more and
more.
Puzzles will always remain and will serve as
a stimulus to further growth. Yet Christians
who use the paradoxes and dilemmas of life
constructively will win the satisfaction of bring-
ing healing to both individuals and society in
our troubled world. They will reap the immedi-
ate satisfactions of God’s shalom … [and] the
ultimate reward of being a part of the great
multitude “from every nation, tribe, people and
language, standing before the throne and in
front of the Lamb,” their redeemer (Rev. 7:9,
NIV).79 §
Notes
1David O. Moberg, “Spirituality and Science: The Progress,
Problems, and Promise of Scientific Research on Spiritual
Well-Being,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 38,
no. 3 (1986): 186–94. (That article serves as an introduction
to this one.)
2Wade C. Roof, Spiritual Marketplace:Baby Boomers and the
Remaking of American Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1999).
3See, e.g., Eileen Barker. ed., The Centrality of Religion in Social
Life: Essays in Honour of James A. Beckford (Oxon, UK: Ashgate
Publishing, 2008); and Adrian Wooldridge, God Is Back: How
the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World (New York:
The Penguin Press, 2009).
4Examples include the interdisciplinary conference on
“Alternative Spiritualities, the New Age and New Religious
Movements in Ireland” at the National University of Ire-
land, Oct. 30–31, 2009; the sixth international conference of
the SIEF Working Group on Ethnology of Religion, devoted
to “Experiencing Religion (illuminating spiritual experi-
ence)” in Warsaw, Poland, June 2–3, 2010; the theme of
“Religion: A Human Phenomenon” chosen to encourage
discussion of religions and religious phenomena across tra-
ditional geographical and temporal boundaries at the XXth
Quinquennial World Congress of the International Associa-
tion for the History of Religions, Toronto, Aug. 15–21, 2010;
an international conference on “Politics, Poverty and
Prayer” at the Africa International University in Nairobi,
Kenya, July 22–25, 2010; and an international conference on
“Changing Gods: Between Religion and Everyday Life”
at the University of Torino, Italy, Sept. 9–11, 2010.
5This resulted in a paper by David O. Moberg at ASA’s 1965
annual meeting, which was subsequently published in the
Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation under the title,
“Science and the Spiritual Nature of Man,” 19, no. 1 (1967):
12–17.
6Charles Y. Glock, “On the Study of Religious Commitment,”
Research Supplement, Religious Education 59, no. 4 (1962):
S-98–S-110.
7Luigi Sturzo, The True Life: Sociology of the Supernatural, trans.
Barbara Barclay Carter (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1947).
8Nephesh, the Hebrew word for soul, is also variously
translated as spirit, person, being, creature, and so forth.
9Hartzell Cobbs, “A Small Room in Kolkata: The Spiritual
Gifts of Caregiving,” Aging Today 30, no. 4 (2009): 10.
10Moberg, “Science and the Spiritual Nature of Man,” and
David O. Moberg, “The Encounter of Scientific and
Religious Values Pertinent to Man’s Spiritual Nature,”
Sociological Analysis 28, no. 1 (1967): 22–33.
11David O. Moberg, Spiritual Well-Being: Background and
Issues (Washington, DC: White House Conference on Aging,
1971), 3. As customary then, its references to “man” were
to all humanity, not sexist allusions to one gender as if
only males are important.
12James A. Thorson and Thomas C. Cook Jr., eds., Spiritual
Well-Being of the Elderly (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Publisher, 1977), xiii.
13James Ellor, “FORSA Celebrates Traditions of Diversity,
Fellowship and Service,” Aging Today 30, no. 4 (July–August
2009): 7, 9.
14David O. Moberg, Religion and Personal Adjustment in Old
Age (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1951).
112 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
15G. W. Allport and J. M. Ross, “Personal Religious Orienta-
tion and Prejudice,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 5 (1967): 432–43. The ROS is still in use; e.g., it is among
the scales used by Mark Brennan and Thalia MacMillan,
“Spirituality, Religiousness, and the Achievement of
Vision Rehabilitation Goals among Middle-Age and Older
Adults,” Journal of Religion, Spirituality and Aging 20, no. 4
(2008): 267–87.
16B. J. Zinnbauer, K. I. Pargament, and A. B. Scott, “The
Emerging Meanings of Religiousness and Spirituality:
Problems and Prospects,” Journal of Personality 67, no. 6
(1999): 889–919.
17B. J. Zinnbauer and K. I. Pargament, “Capturing the Mean-
ings of Religiousness and Spirituality: One Way Down from
a Definitional Tower of Babel,” Research in the Social Scientific
Study of Religion 13 (2002): 23–54.
18Linda M. Chatters, Robert Joseph Taylor, Kaim Bullard, and
James S. Jackson, “Spirituality and Subjective Religiosity
among African Americans, Caribbean Blacks, and Non-
Hispanic Whites,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
47, no. 4 (2008): 725–37.
19Jan D. Sinnott, “Introduction: Special Issue on Spirituality
and Adult Development, Part I,” Journal of Adult Develop-
ment 8, no. 4 (2001): 199–200.
20Richard L. Gorsuch, “Measurement: The Boon and Bane
of Investigating Religion,” American Psychologist 39 (1984):
228–36.
21Douglas A. MacDonald, Laura LeClair, Cornelius J.
Holland, Aaron Alter, and Harris L. Friedman, “A Survey
of Measures of Transpersonal Constructs,” Journal of Trans-
personal Psychology 27, no. 2 (1995): 171–235.
22David O. Moberg, “Christian Spirituality and Trans-
personal Sociology,” Research in the Social Scientific Study
of Religion 12 (2001): 131–63.
23Douglas A. MacDonald, Harris L. Friedman, and Jeffrey G.
Kuentzel, “A Survey of Measures of Spiritual and Trans-
personal Constructs: Part One—Research Update,” Journal
of Transpersonal Psychology 31, no. 2 (1999): 137–54.
24Peter C. Hill and Ralph W. Hood Jr., eds., Measures of
Religiosity (Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press,
1999).
25Bernard Spilka, “Religious Practice, Ritual, and Prayer,”
in Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,
ed. R. F. Paloutzian and C. L. Park (New York: Guilford
Press, 2005), 365–77.
26Peter C. Hill, “Measurement in the Psychology of Religion
and Spirituality: Current Status and Evaluation,” in
Handbook, ed. Paloutzian and Park, 43–61.
27Raymond F. Paloutzian and Craig W. Ellison, “Loneliness,
Spiritual Well-Being, and Quality of Life,” in Loneliness:
A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy, ed. L. A.
Peplau and D. Pearlman (New York: Wiley Interscience,
1982), 224–37; R. F. Paloutzian and C. W. Ellison, Manual for
the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (Nyack, NY: Life Advance, Inc.,
1991); R. K. Bufford, R. F. Paloutzian, and C. W. Ellison,
“Norms for the Spiritual Well-Being Scale,” Journal of Psy-
chology and Theology 19 (1991): 56–70; for the 2010 version
of its website, go to www.lifeadvance.com/spiritual-well-
being-scale/8-research.html (Accessed February 10, 2010).
28See M. F. Ledbetter, L. A. Smith, W. L. Vosler-Hunter, and
J. D. Fischer, “An Evaluation of the Research and Clinical
Usefulness of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale,” Journal of
Psychology and Theology 19 (1991): 49–55; R. F. Paloutzian,
“A Time-tested Tool: The SWB Scale in Nursing Research,”
Journal of Christian Nursing 19, no. 3 (2003): 16–9.
29David B. Simpson, Jody L. Newman, and Dale R. Fuqua,
“Spirituality and Personality: Accumulating Evidence,”
Journal of Psychology and Christianity 26, no. 1 (2007): 33–44.
See also P. S. Richards and A. E. Bergin, A Spiritual Strategy
for Counseling and Psychotherapy (Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association, 1997).
30Among the most useful overviews of the research compiled
by Harold G. Koenig are Medicine, Religion, and Health:
Where Science and Spirituality Meet (Conshohocken, PA:
Templeton Foundation Press, 2008) and his massive survey
and critique co-authored by Michael E. McCullough and
David B. Larson, Handbook of Religion and Health (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001). Brief summaries are in
D. O. Moberg, ed., Spirituality and Aging (Binghamton, NY:
Haworth Press, now Taylor and Francis, 2001).
31Eugene H. Peterson, Subversive Spirituality (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1997).
32Allen Glicksman, “The Contemporary Study of Religion
and Spirituality among the Elderly: A Critique,” Journal of
Religion, Spirituality and Aging 21, no. 4 (2009): 244–58.
33Doug Oman, “Unique and Common Facets of Religion
and Spirituality: Both Are Important,” Journal of Religion,
Spirituality and Aging 21, no. 4 (2009): 275–86.
34David O. Moberg, “Predicaments in Researching Spiritual-
ity and Religion: A Response to Glicksman’s Contemporary
Study of Religion and Spirituality among the Elderly,” Jour-
nal of Religion, Spirituality and Aging 21, no. 4 (2009): 297–309.
35Ronald Y. Nakasone, “A Brief Review of Literature of
Buddhist Writings on Spirituality and Aging,” in Methods
in Religion, Spirituality and Aging, ed. James W. Ellor
(New York: Routledge, 2009), 211–7.
36Tipawadee Emavardhana and Christopher D. Tori,
“Changes in Self-Concept, Ego Defense Mechanisms, and
Religiosity following Seven-Day Vipassana Meditation
Retreats,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36, no. 2
(1997): 194–206.
37Ralph W. Hood Jr., ed., Handbook of Religious Experience
(Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1995).
38M. Takahashi and S. Ide, “Implicit Theories of Spirituality
across Three Generations: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
in the U. S. and Japan,” Journal of Religious Gerontology 15,
no. 4 (2003): 15–38.
39J. Isomae, “Rethinking ‘Japanese Religion’: The Transcen-
dental and the Indigenous.” Paper presented at the 19th
World Congress of the International Association for the
History of Religions, Tokyo, March 28, 2005.
40Thomas B. Ellis, “On Spirituality: Natural and Non-
natural,” Religion Compass 2, no. 6 (2008): 1117–38.
41Robert C. Atchley, Spirituality and Aging (Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 147.
42Timothy P. Daaleman and Bruce B. Frey, “The Spirituality
Index of Well-Being: A New Instrument for Health-Related
Quality-of-Life Research,” Annals of Family Medicine 2, no. 5
(2004): 499–503.
43David A. Katerndahl, “Impact of Spiritual Symptoms and
Their Interactions on Health Services and Life Satisfaction,”
Annals of Family Medicine 6, no. 5 (2008): 412–20.
Volume 62, Number 2, June 2010 113
David O. Moberg
44Matt Bradshaw and Christopher G. Ellison, “Do Genetic
Factors Influence Religious Life? Findings from a Behavior
Genetic Analysis of Twin Siblings,” Journal for the Social
Scientific Study of Religion 47, no. 4 (2008): 529–44.
45Kevin S. Seybold, “God and the Brain: Neuroscience Looks
at Religion,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 24, no. 2
(2005): 122–9.
46D. Hamer, The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our
Genes (New York: Doubleday, 2004).
47A. B. Newberg, E. d’Aquili, and V. Rause, Why God Won’t
Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (New York:
Ballantine Books, 2001).
48Fred Alan Wolf, The Spiritual Universe: How Quantum
Physics Proves the Existence of the Soul (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1996); and P. Zoeller-Greer, “Genesis, Quantum
Physics and Reality: How the Bible Agrees with Quantum
Physics …,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52,
no. 1 (2000): 8–17. See also Jeffrey Satinover, “Quantum
Theory and the Boundary between Science and Spirit:
Some Remarks from a Friend of Kabbalah,” World Futures:
The Journal of General Evolution 64, no. 4 (2006): 300–8.
49Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Fingerprints of God: The Search for
the Science of Spirituality (New York: Riverhead Books, 2009).
50Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents
Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006).
51David Fontana, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality (Ox-
ford: British Psychological Society and Blackwell Publish-
ing, 2003), 228.
52 Martinez J. Hewlett, “What Price Reductionism?” in Science
and the Spiritual Quest: New Essays by Leading Scientists, ed.
W. M. Richardson, R. J. Russell, P. Clayton, and K. Wegter-
McNelly (London: Routledge, 2002), 82–9.
53This “nothing buttery” fallacy is thoroughly exposed in
Donald M. MacKay, The Clockwork Image: A Christian Per-
spective on Science (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1974).
54Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity (Wash-
ington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 247, 246.
55David O. Moberg, “Epistemological Issues in Measuring
Spirituality,” Annals of Family Medicine (March 16, 2004):
http://annalsfm.highwire.org/cgi/eletters/2/1/49
(Accessed February 10, 2010).
56Gerald G. May, The Dark Night of the Soul (San Francisco,
CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004).
57See Michael J. Boivin, reviewer, “Spiritual Well-Being
Questionnaire (Moberg, 1984),” in Measures of Religiosity,
ed. Hill and Hood, 375–81.
58Koenig, McCullough, and Larson, Handbook, 385–6.
59Jamie D. Aten and Barbara Couden Hernandez, “A 25-Year
Review of Qualitative Research Published in Spiritually and
Psychologically Oriented Journals,” Journal of Psychology
and Christianity 24, no. 3 (2005): 266–77.
60For one introduction to these issues, see David O. Moberg,
“Assessing and Measuring Spirituality: Confronting Dilem-
mas of Universal and Particular Evaluative Criteria,” Journal
of Adult Development 9, no. 1 (2002): 47–60.
61See Reeve Robert Brenner, “Nons, Nunyas, Appreciative
Inquiry, and the Aged,” Journal of Religion, Spirituality and
Aging 21, no. 1–2 (2009): 119–30.
62Elizabeth Lewis Hall, “What Are Bodies For? An Integra-
tive Examination of Embodiment,” Christian Scholar’s
Review 39, no. 2 (2010): 159–75.
63Daniel Helminiak, The Human Core of Spirituality: Mind as
Psyche and Spirit (Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1996), 272. For further discussion of the inner self
as an aspect of the whole person, see Nancey Murphy,
Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006).
64Justin L. Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004).
65David Hay, Something There: The Biology of the Human Spirit
(Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2007).
66See D. O. Moberg, Wholistic Christianity (Elgin, IL: Brethren
Press, 1985).
67Patrick McDonald and Nivaldo J. Tro, “In Defense of Meth-
odological Naturalism,” Christian Scholar’s Review 38, no. 2
(2009): 201–29.
68For a popularized explanation of “methodological athe-
ism,” see D’Souza, What’s So Great, 55–64.
69One exception is the Mormon Scale reviewed by Susan
Sheffer, “Attitudes toward the LDS Church Scale (Hardy,
1949),” in Measures of Religiosity, ed. Hill and Hood, 471–8.
70Alexander D. Salvato, “A Buddhist Bishop in the UP,”
Religion in the News 12, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 14–6.
71See the Barna Research Group’s interpretations of chal-
lenges and opportunities this offers Christian pastors:
“Many Churchgoers and Faith Leaders Struggle to Define
Spiritual Maturity,” Barna Update (website), May 11, 2009,
www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/
264-many-churchgoers-and-faith-leaders-struggle-to-define-
spiritual-maturity (Accessed March 9, 2010).
72Lisa Miller, “We Are All Hindus Now,” Newsweek (Aug. 24
and 31, 2009): 70. Her thesis is based upon results from
public opinion polls.
73Richard H. Cox, The Sacrament of Psychology: Psychology and
Religion in the Postmodern American Church (Sanford, FL:
InSync Press, 2002), 288.
74Ibid., 288–95.
75Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God:
How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008).
76Ibid., 149.
77Cox, The Sacrament of Psychology, 289.
78Fontana, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality, 228.
79Moberg, Wholistic Christianity, 200.
114 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Article
Spirituality Research: Measuring the Immeasurable?
66th Annual Meeting
of the
American Scientific Affiliation
July 29–August 1, 2011
North Central College
Naperville, IL
Jointly hosted by
North Central and Wheaton Colleges
James Baird and Rodney Scott, co-chairs