Spiritual Intelligence: A New Form of Intelligence for a Sustainable and Humane Future

Spiritual Intelligence: A New Form of Intelligence for a Sustainable and Humane Future: History

Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contributor: Gianfranco Cicotto

Spiritual intelligence (SI) is defined as a unique form of hermeneutic–relational intelligence that enables individuals to integrate cognitive, emotional, and symbolic dimensions to guide their thoughts and actions with reflection, aiming for existential coherence rooted in a transcendent system of meaning. It functions as a metacognitive framework that unites affective, cognitive, and symbolic levels in dialog with a sense of meaning that is considered sacred or transcendent, where “sacred,” in this context, refers inclusively to any symbolic reference or value that a person or culture perceives as inviolable, fundamental, or orienting. It can derive from religious traditions but also from ethical, philosophical, or civil visions. It functions as a horizon of meaning from which to draw coherence and guidance and which orients the understanding of oneself, the world, and action. SI appears as the ability to interpret one’s experiences through the lens of values and principles, maintaining a sense of continuity in meaning even during times of ambiguity, conflict, or discontinuity. It therefore functions as a metacognitive ability that brings together various mental functions into a cohesive view of reality, rooted in a dynamic dialog between the self and a value system seen as sacred.

spiritual intelligence
value coherence
existential discernment
empathy
interpersonal relationships

Reflection on the relationship between intelligence and spirituality is not a recent development. Ancient religious and philosophical traditions—ranging from Christian asceticism to Islamic Sufism, Jewish mysticism, and yogic practices—have long cultivated forms of inner discernment, reflective abilities, and transformative practices aimed at aligning worldview with behavior. The extensive collection in the Paulist Press Classics of Western Spirituality series showcases the historical and cross-cultural breadth of spiritual practices dedicated to personal transformation, ethical reflection, and inner discernment—practices that prefigure many functions now linked to spiritual intelligence ^[1]^[2]. This indicates that spiritual intelligence has deep roots in a long-standing history of experiential and reflective practices. More recent theoretical developments describe spiritual intelligence as a multidimensional ability that combines emotional awareness, ethical intuition, and existential reflection into a cohesive system of meaning. This skill allows individuals to navigate ambiguity, interpret personal and collective experiences through core values, and maintain a sense of purpose even during times of change or uncertainty ^[3].

The concept of spiritual intelligence has been suggested as a possible extension of Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences ^[4]. However, Gardner himself later expressed caution about including it in his official model. Among those who support the scientific plausibility of this construct is Robert Emmons ^[5], who identified spiritual intelligence as a distinct type of intelligence based on the ability to use spiritual information to solve problems and achieve existential goals. Emmons outlined five core capacities, including transcending the material, sanctifying everyday experiences, and using spiritual resources as guides for moral action.

Individuals with high spiritual intelligence tend to demonstrate inner integrity, relational insight, and the ability to handle complex situations using shared ethical principles. Furthermore, while spiritual intelligence relates to other types of intelligence—such as emotional or intrapersonal intelligence—it is distinct in its explicit reference to a broader, symbolic, and value-based dimension, which includes transcendent or ultimate aspects ^[6].

In this contribution, the term “spiritual intelligence” refers to the general concept as defined in existing literature, while the acronym “SI” denotes the specific theoretical model developed here. Although spiritual intelligence has been proposed as a potential new form of intelligence—such as in discussions related to Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences—SI distinguishes itself by offering a conceptual redefinition that reframes spiritual intelligence through a unique symbolic–hermeneutic perspective. Specifically, SI interprets spiritual intelligence not only as a cognitive–existential ability but as a form of intelligence based on engagement with a symbolic and sacred interpretive framework. Unlike purely theoretical or speculative views, SI is demonstrated through the tangible alignment of beliefs, emotions, and actions connected to a transcendent source of meaning. Although it does not directly include internalized humanistic ethics, it acknowledges their importance and affirms their relevance within intercultural dialog. Rather than introducing an entirely new type of intelligence, SI redefines spiritual intelligence by positioning it as a hermeneutic capacity rooted in sacred symbolism and value orientation. While it may resonate with religious traditions, this hermeneutic capacity is not restricted to religious faith; rather, it reflects an interpretive function through which individuals engage with symbolic frameworks—whether spiritual, philosophical, or existential—that provide coherence and meaning. This approach fosters existential discernment and coherence by harmonizing inner beliefs, reflective processes, and daily actions within a sacred horizon of meaning.

This proposal differs from the typical definitions of spiritual intelligence, which often associate it with empathy, compassion, or a vague sense of inner depth. While acknowledging some overlap with emotional and intrapersonal intelligences, this definition emphasizes that SI operates through a specific interpretive framework: a reference to revealed or sacred content (broadly understood) that guides thoughts and actions. A biblical commentary provides an example—without claiming any definitional authority—of how sacred content can serve as a symbolic framework for interpreting moral and ethical concepts, especially in the sections on “understanding” (p. 1138) and “wisdom” (p. 1189), where sacred texts are shown as guiding tools for ethical understanding ^[7].

While this proposal agrees with Emmons’s view that spiritual intelligence acts as a type of competence involving cognitive, value-based, and transformative processes, it differs in several key aspects.

First, whereas Emmons employs a distinctly functional language in which spiritual intelligence is conceived primarily as a tool for solving problems and achieving adaptive effectiveness, the model proposed here defines SI as a hermeneutic capacity grounded in symbolic and transcendent reference points. While it may lead to functional outcomes, such as fostering inner coherence, the emphasis is not on utility or adaptation, but on the interpretive integration of beliefs, values, and actions. In this sense, SI is not merely a tool for effective functioning, but a framework oriented toward existential meaning-making, aligning thought and behavior with what is perceived as sacred.

Second, although Emmons views spirituality as broad and flexible enough not to require affiliation with a formal religious system, the model presented here adopts a different stance. SI is rooted within a symbolic and value-based framework that is explicitly considered sacred. This framework, although intercultural and non-confessional, is neither neutral nor solely subjective. It involves deliberate engagement with a transcendent referent that offers both normative guidance and symbolic structure. As a result, SI is not simply liberated from dogma—it is guided by an active interpretive relationship with a horizon considered sacred by the individual, which functions as a central axis.

Third, the epistemological stance varies: Emmons seeks to place spiritual intelligence within Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences by attempting to prove its scientific validity. In contrast, the definition presented here adopts a more conceptual and phenomenological approach, developing new semantics for the construct that differentiates it from existing models while still acknowledging commonalities.

All of this naturally raises complex theoretical questions. A key issue concerns the epistemological status of spiritual intelligence: Is it valid to include it among other types of intelligence if its expressions involve symbolic, spiritual, and transcendent elements that are often hard to measure? Although scholars like Emmons ^[5] have suggested functional criteria for recognizing it, the difficulty of scientifically operationalizing it remains unresolved.

A second key issue relates to the potential semantic overlap between spiritual intelligence and related constructs like empathy, moral awareness, and emotional regulation. To clarify this, SI is proposed as a form of intelligence that provides individuals with a multidimensional metacognitive ability operating at a deep interpretive level, fostering an ongoing dialog between the self and a transcendent symbolic system. It combines and balances various psychic functions—cognitive, emotional, and relational—bringing coherence and meaning to lived experience. This process involves a high level of reflective awareness through which individuals interpret their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in relation to ultimate values and broader horizons of meaning. SI does not simply respond to stimuli; instead, it reinterprets them through the lens of existential questions and guiding principles, demonstrating a hermeneutic capacity that unites subjective inner experience and symbolic–spiritual dimensions into a coherent view of reality. Lastly, there is a risk that defining SI based on positive behavioral outcomes (such as compassion, coherence, or value-based judgment) could lean toward implicit normativity, where SI is seen more as an ethical ideal than an empirically measurable ability. To prevent this, it is helpful to focus on a descriptive approach that analyzes psychological and reflective processes, avoiding prescriptive or moralizing language.

SI also manifests itself in the intersubjective realm through recognizing another person’s spiritual dimension. It includes the ability to perceive and respect others’ beliefs, values, and spiritual experiences, thereby fostering dialog and coexistence in diverse settings ^[8]. Just as emotional intelligence involves understanding others’ emotions, SI similarly entails the capacity to recognize and interpret someone’s spirituality, integrating various meanings, symbols, and worldviews. In this way, it functions as a relational and intercultural skill, essential for forming genuine connections and promoting social harmony.

Through its ability to activate processes of reflective awareness and symbolic discernment, spiritual intelligence (SI) cultivates dialogical and inclusive attitudes in educational, organizational, and public settings. In these environments, it functions as a relational skill that supports coexistence among diverse worldviews, promotes authentic leadership, encourages mindful civic engagement, and enhances intercultural cohesion. These outcomes demonstrate the hermeneutic–relational role of SI, which allows individuals to interpret and transform experience into shared meaning.

In the debate on spiritual intelligence, ethics plays a central role, but this requires a framework that goes beyond simply aligning with confessional moral norms or prescriptive behaviors. A more inclusive idea is the principle of reciprocity, seen as a fundamental element shared across many religious and philosophical traditions. In this context, the Golden Rule—“In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12) ^[9]—serves as a clear and concise expression of relational ethics rooted in reflective empathy and moral symmetry.

This principle is not exclusive to Christianity. In the Confucian tradition, the maxim “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself” reflects a similar ethical stance rooted in mutual respect ^[10]. Likewise, in Islam, thinkers like Al-Ghazālī have viewed the principle of ethical reciprocity not just as a behavioral guideline but as a theological basis for moral coexistence. From this viewpoint, reciprocity has a dual purpose: it shapes interpersonal relationships by encouraging empathy and respect, and it also embodies a universal aspect that can go beyond specific religious or cultural boundaries ^[11].

Reciprocity is the recognition of symmetry between oneself and others—it is the idea that an action is ethically justified only if you would be willing to accept it if roles were reversed. From this view, ethical behavior comes from the ability to think universally about your moral intentions, using a relational imagination that includes others. While this attitude can be shown even without religious faith, the harmony between thought, emotion, and ethical actions might be seen as a form of spiritual intelligence when grounded in a deep engagement with a transcendent symbolic horizon, giving it a sacred and identity-forming importance ^[12]. In this way, reciprocal actions can express both shared humanity and internalized religious commitment ^[5].

Just as emotional intelligence is often understood as the ability to perceive, understand, regulate, and utilize one’s own and others’ emotions to guide thinking and behavior ^[13]^[14], SI can similarly be viewed as a metacognitive skill that allows individuals not only to reflect on their own spiritual interiority but also to recognize and comprehend that of others. SI extends beyond personal introspection and functions within the interpersonal realm, enabling dialog among different worldviews, transcendent beliefs, and symbolic systems. This capacity is demonstrated through the ability to interpret and mediate spiritual meanings in complex relational contexts, leading to a deeper understanding of others while maintaining a clear conceptual distinction between emotional and spiritual domains. In the literature, this competence is described as a form of relational and symbolic discernment, capable of initiating processes of recognition, respect, and understanding of spiritual otherness ^[8]^[15]^[16].

Finally, a key issue concerns the very idea of intelligence, whose historical development has been heavily influenced by Western epistemological frameworks, mainly based on abstract–logical and performance-driven standards ^[17]. Over time, this approach has caused a gradual standardization of the concept, risking the neglect of forms of situated cognition, relational knowledge, and existential wisdom that are common in many cultural traditions ^[18]. Several cross-cultural perspectives have challenged the universality of the traditional psychometric model, emphasizing the need to recognize more contextual, holistic, and integrated methods ^[19]. In this context, SI offers theoretically grounded efforts to include symbolic processing, existential interpretation, and ethical-affective mediation—dimensions often ignored by standard evaluation models ^[20]. Such an approach enhances the intercultural validity of the concept, avoids universalist tendencies, and encourages a dialogic engagement between different frameworks of meaning.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/encyclopedia5030107

References

Teresa of Ávila. The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila; Kavanaugh, K.; Rodriguez, O.; Translators; Paulist Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
Eckhart, M. The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises, and Defense. Colledge, E., McGinn, B., Translators; Colledge, E., McGinn, B., Eds.; Paulist Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981.
Wiseman, H.; Watts, F. Spiritual Intelligence: Participating with Heart, Mind and Body. Zygon 2022, 57, 710–718.
Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
Emmons, R.A. Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of ultimate concern. Int. J. Psychol. Relig. 2000, 10, 3–26.
Ghobbeh, S.; Atrian, A. Spiritual Intelligence’s Role in Reducing Technostress through Ethical Work Climates. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2401.03658.
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Insight on the Scriptures; Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania: Warwick, NY, USA, 2024; Volume 2.
Cicotto, G. Le Competenze Psicologiche dei Pastori Spirituali; La Bussola: Rome, Italy, 2025.
HarperOne. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version; HarperOne: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
Confucio. I Dialoghi. Cadonna, A.; Translator; Einaudi: Torino, Italy, 2001.
Parrott, J. Al-Ghazali and the golden rule: Ethics of reciprocity in the works of a Muslim sage. Philos. Soc. Crit. 2017, 43, 665–683.
King, D.B.; DeCicco, T.L. A viable model and self-report measure of spiritual intelligence. Int. J. Transpers. Stud. 2009, 28, 68–85.
Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ; Bantam Books: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
Mayer, J.D.; Salovey, P.; Caruso, D.R. Models of emotional intelligence. In Handbook of Intelligence; Sternberg, R.J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 396–420.
King, D.B.; Mara, C.A.; DeCicco, T.L. The Spiritual Intelligence Self-Report Inventory: An evaluation of the SISRI-24. Int. J. Transpers. Stud. 2012, 31, 93–107.
Chin, S.T.S.; Anantharaman, R.N.; Tong, D.Y.K. The roles of emotional intelligence and spiritual intelligence at the workplace. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. Res. 2011, 1–9.
Sternberg, R.J.; Grigorenko, E.L. Intelligence and culture: How culture shapes what intelligence means, and the implications for a science of well-being. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 359, 1427–1434.
Serpell, R. The Significance of Schooling: Life-Journeys in an African Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993.
Wagner, D.A. Literacy and adult education in the South. In Literacy: An International Handbook; Wagner, D.A., Venezky, R.L., Street, B.V., Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 2002; pp. 139–145.
Battiste, M. Indigenous Knowledge and Pedagogy in First Nations Education: A Literature Review with Recommendations. National Working Group on Education and the Minister of Indian Affairs: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2002.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.