Religion and Spirituality
“Religion” and “spirituality” - these terms seem like good starting points for this discussion.
Do you consider yourself religious, spiritual, both, or neither? Is it possible to be religious without being spiritual - or spiritual without being religious?
What is a "humanist?" Someone who cares deeply for humanity but isn’t religious? And yet caring, love, agape… these concepts figure prominently in religion. The New Testament presents Jesus as someone who gave his life for humankind.
Of course, some of this is just semantics. “Religious” usually connotes participating in religion as a social institution. Still, if someone felt strongly that he or she was religious apart from any church affiliation, there appear to be grounds for such a position. Consider, for example, that there was a Buddha before Buddhism, a Mohammed before Islam, a Jesus prior to Christianity.
Consider a cleric who commits crimes and a layperson who leads a well lived life but doubts the existence of God. Is a tree better known by its fruit or through being recognized by church institutions as a vehicle of grace even if we see little manifestation of it?
In The Varieties of Religious Experience William James defines religion in terms of our attitude toward life as a whole. How might this fit in, or not, with your idea of what religion is?
Do you consider yourself religious, spiritual, both, or neither? Is it possible to be religious without being spiritual - or spiritual without being religious?
What is a "humanist?" Someone who cares deeply for humanity but isn’t religious? And yet caring, love, agape… these concepts figure prominently in religion. The New Testament presents Jesus as someone who gave his life for humankind.
Of course, some of this is just semantics. “Religious” usually connotes participating in religion as a social institution. Still, if someone felt strongly that he or she was religious apart from any church affiliation, there appear to be grounds for such a position. Consider, for example, that there was a Buddha before Buddhism, a Mohammed before Islam, a Jesus prior to Christianity.
Consider a cleric who commits crimes and a layperson who leads a well lived life but doubts the existence of God. Is a tree better known by its fruit or through being recognized by church institutions as a vehicle of grace even if we see little manifestation of it?
In The Varieties of Religious Experience William James defines religion in terms of our attitude toward life as a whole. How might this fit in, or not, with your idea of what religion is?
Posted by Paul at 12:32 PM Permalink
32 Comments:
I don't know if I am either. I am Jewish and active at my Reform Jew (liberal branch), but I am not much of a believer. I tend more toward science than divinity. (Does that make me more of a cultural Jew than a religious one)?
I respect and love humanity. Am I a humanist? A secular humanist? (I have a strong Jewish identity, so I'm not sure I'm really secular).
Who knows? I guess the label is unimportant, anyway. The important thing (as you eloquently say) is the person I try to be and what I give back to humanity.
I just read a post by a Jesuit somewhere about the difference between spirituality and religion and how (he thought) both were needed for a person to be balanced. I lean more toward spirituality.
What is a "humanist?" Someone who cares deeply for humanity but isn’t religious? And yet caring, love, agape… these concepts figure prominently in religion. The New Testament presents Jesus as someone who gave his life for humankind.
Secularism is a much misunderstood word. Look what it has done to my own country!
Love for another fellow Human Being should be most important exclusive of so-called labels.
a combination of all three could perhaps be ideal to being a balanced person. i would term an extremely religious person a fanatic, if he is devoid of humanistic qualities.
a spiritual person i think, is more capable of being a humanist, which is the core of humanity.
perhaps from my tone, i do not like religious who are detached from the reality of the sufferings of the world, and put themselves a step above others.
STACEY: Who you are and how you live is what you see as being most important. At the same time, you question whether "religious" is the right word to denote this attitude, since you're not much of a believer.
I wonder what others think about that...
CRYSTAL:Yup, that's the book. It's complete and will be available later this year.
I'd be interested in what you and/or the Jesuit saw as the distinction between religion and spirituality.
MATT: Good to see you! Yeah, "sis" is a good site designer. Lucky for me it's what she does for work.
IAMNASRA: Good to be back. So do you tend to see "humanists" as "religious?"
GAUTAMI: You and Stacey are in agreement on what matters most. You go on to say that on the one hand, you don't see religion as important; on the other, you believe in a "supreme power."
I'm wondering what your concept of "religion" is, since many people would see "belief in a supreme power" as central to religion...
MISTIPURPLE: To me, your comment points to religion's dark side - when people become, as you say, religious "fanatics" and lose their "humanistic qualities."
What do people think makes that happen?
so in summary, i think some religious are blinded in their religious pursue and forget what the end of the road is about. and that is not being spiritual, which is ironically, what it should lead to.
The source of one's motivation. If I do good to my fellow man to be seen and to be thanked, my religion is empty.
I think words like religion and spirituality can be hindrances, trying to define something that cannot be defined. Still, traditionally, when we think of religion, we think of an organized entity with an enforcement of rules. Whereas, spirituality seems to imply a more personal, subjective experience. I spent 30 years in the former, but it was like wool against my skin, I could never find a comfort level within myself. I would be loathe to call myself spiritual now, I don't like labels. But if I were to call myself anything, it would be student.
it's kind of long, but here is what I saw on spirituality/religion at one Jesuit's blog ....
Spirituality is very much at the heart of Jesuit life, and we take it seriously. Of course, spirituality is more attractive to many people today than religion. The main distinction between the two is how one encounters God, through a communal experience or a more individual one. It is a commonplace now for many people to say, “I am a spiritual person, but not a religious one.” (Which means I search for God but don’t belong to any one church.) Actually, both spirituality and religion are necessary. Spirituality without the communal commitment of religion can become narcicisstic and self-centered. Religion without the conversion experience of spirituality can become formalistic and external. Some people like the freedom of choice of picking and choosing only the things you like from the marketplace of tradition. (“I’ll take a bit of Ignatius, along with a dollop of St. Francis, and a side order of Buddhism, thank you.”)
It is hard work trying to be both very contemporary and yet faithful to the authentic roots of a tradition such as the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. And that is my interest. I have been suggesting to Jesuits who work in communication that we should focus much more on the Spiritual Exercises than we have tended to do, and especially on how one lives out the consequences of the Exercises in everday life.
Especially since you seem to be singing the same song on this point: that religion, whatever its outward forms of ritual/celebration/institution, requires people to experience something for themselves or it's hollow - and here's where you're inclined to maybe use the word "spiritual"
One added point that's interesting to me in Crystal's quote is that the speaker suggests that serious committment in this area requires participation in some form of religious community. Spirituality minus such participation becomes narcisisstic or otherwise misguided...
That's why Jess was a Humanist in practice and how I'd synopsize teh NT if it weren't for all the residual, lingering psychopathy unrelated to even any of the quasi-biographical stuff on the man.
That and the Judas business are a nasty counterbalance to "turn the other cheek" philanthropically humanist aspects.
I only recently stopped using spiritual to describe myself, but it's only because there are no spirits except in the minds of brilliant animals such as us.
Good to see you back, Mr President. {-;
And yet it seems when I meet someone that labels themselves as religious, I find that they actually know very little about what they profess to believe.
I am a cultural Armenian who calls herself spiritual. I have dedicated my life to helping ALL of God's children that come into my classroom, and I do not need to be a part of a church's intricate, systematic, intolerant, and political scheme in order for me to know that I am a good person.
BENJAMIN, glad you're still blogging and have stopped by. My sister did the site - she happens to do web design for a living... much to my benefit here...
HEATHER: I do know what you mean. For example, I've known Christians who seem to have little awareness of the broader tradition or of how their own denomination represents one particular reading or interpretation of Christianity.
THURSDAYNEXT: In talking about the church as intolerant and politicized, it sounds like you're pointing to the rise of the far right. I've also found that very often (but with some exceptions) it is difficult to impossible for fundamentalists, whether Christian or Muslim, to engage in dialog with people who don't share their interpretation of what it is to be a Muslim or a Christian.
The rest of your comment brings up something new: if I'm reading you correctly, instead of identifying being religious with holding to a set of beliefs, you're identifying it with dedication and passion. It makes me think of, say, Martin Luther King. From what I've heard of his speeches they were not about exhorting people to subscribe to his religious belief system, but about caring enough to take action here and now.
appreciate Crystal's def of spirituality and religion. the term spirituality always confuses me. often when someone uses it they appear to be taking the high ground.
am an atheist, and not seeking, so I guess neither religious nor atheist.
am in love with life, and obey the unwritten commandment to help whom I may, be they human or animal. we are all creatures here on earth together, and I fail to understand why one life form should be valued above others. I respect my nature as an omnivore, but am careful to not take life carelessly.
A gardener, I try to create a nurturing environment for all of us: plants, microorganisms, birds, earthworms, etc. Yet - I draw the line at snails? I am flawed......
Perhaps I worship the sun, who gives us life.
It is Sunday morning and I decided against (once again) going to mass. I could say it hurts to attend. Sitting, standing, and kneeling in prayer and contemplation over the homily. But that would be a lie. Hurt would be a feeling and I feel nothing except the sense of a loss of faith.
It is Sunday morning and I declined (once again) to place my prayer held hands to brow in zen like moving meditation. I could say it hurts to do the yoga. But that would be a lie. Hurt would be a feeling grounding me to myself, and I want to feel a sense of something more. Like faith.
It is Sunday morning and I am wrapped in fleece watching "Keeping the Faith". Again. I could say it's because it's a fun distraction. But it's not, it doesn't hold my attention well enough to distract me or make me laugh. I could say it's because it's on topic for a Sunday morning post about "religion" and "spirituality", but it's not.
In fact, "Keeping the Faith" is less about faith in religion and spirituality than it is about the quest for faith in love and friendship. Within the contrived construct of religion and spirituality.
You ask:
"Is it possible to be religious without being spiritual - or spiritual without being religious?"
The simple answer, I would say, is "Yes" and "No". Yes to both and No to both.
I am struggling with this notion, as well you may have guessed, that neither religion nor spirituality are anything but a contrived construct without faith. Where is the question of faith in your question and this discussion, Paul?
HAYDEN: Glad you kept trying. That word "seeker" is an interesting one. Seekers look for answers - and often with the expectation that they will be found "out there" in some sense. If the answers are not to be found out there, then often the seeker believes that the only conceivable alternative is something subjective and unreliable.
LADY WORDSMITH: For me, faith is a dimension of spirituality in the sense that I'd want to use that term. For many people, faith means belief of a special kind: not premised on empirical evidence or rational thought. For myself, I draw a distinction between faith and belief.
In my own experience, the kind of struggle you're alluding to, when honest and sustained enough, leads to faith and other good things.
'll look for more insightful posts from ya..
cheers
Gangadhar Varma
http://ganga.wordpress.com
As to my personal view of this, it's tough to get at in such a short space. In a sense, my whole book is about the most basic religious vocabulary words, like love, faith, and God, and looking closely at what they mean. Religious vocabulary has such a variety of connotations that it can be easy for people to talk past each other on these topics.
On the other hand, we might each separately and communally have things to sort out, so as to reconcile our private experience with our public awareness.
Wonderful to have you back, Paul!
your comments led me to look at the two and try to define the difference; to understand what qualities I might have conflated in this leap of mine.
HAYDEN: It sounds like you're pretty clear about what's involved with being a good person - the moral domain - but less certain about the area of faith.
I don't understand the need for faith in god, nor do I understand why so many think that only the fear of god makes us good.
I think the idea that only the fear of God can lead us to behave morally is demonstrably false. I can't imagine that any serious research demonstrates that believers behave better than atheists and agnostics.
Post a Comment