Spirituality vs. Religion: Is one better for us than the other?

[Sunstone]

Spirituality versus Religion: Is one better for us than the other?

I recently came across an article on a speech given by an old professor of mine. Literally old! He's 72 this year. I did coursework in Comparative Religious Studies with him 30 years ago.

At any rate, Paul has come to the at least provisional conclusion that humans have two kinds of religiosity (Oddly enough, I've come to the same conclusion independently of him). Religious people, according to Paul, are open to authority -- after all, they must rely on it for such details as the names of their gods.

Spiritual people, on the other hand, take a more or less disagreeable attitude towards authority unless "the authority" is squarely grounded in logic, empirical experiment, and/or observation.

The first kind of religiosity produces people who attend church or mosque, synagogue or temple, and who tend to worship with others. As noted, they get their beliefs mostly from Holy scriptures, other writings, and from authority figures like their local clergyman or woman.

The second kind of religiosity produces people who attend the lakes and woods, the quiet corners of the public parks, their own rooms, or whatever places they find suitable -- but they tend to practice their religiosity privately. And they might have no formal practice of it at all. Last, they might study holy scriptures, but ultimately they rely on their own experience for guidance. Their experience is their trump card.

Paul has a more elaborate theory worked out than that, but that seems to be the gist of it.

So, which if either religiosity is the best for us? Should we strive to be religious? Should we strive to be spiritual? Should some of us go one way, and others of us another? Should we avoid both? What do you think? And why do you think it?

 

[Storm]

By those definitions, I don't think either is superior, though spirituality is more appealing to me personally.

 

[Desert Snake]

To OP, Wow... that seems so accurate... I think your professor may have nailed it. If it's "natural" for some of us to be 'spiritually' inclined yet avoid churches and organised religion, that would not only explain the situation but it would make it o.k. to be percieved as non-religious.
Personally, yeah, no, not a church goer.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Religion is dogma: a set of rules about morality. While these aren't bad per se, when you try to make a "one size fits all" morality, you start to run into issues.

Spirituality is more open. It might not even have rules on morality. You can be spiritual and believe the world is nothing but a cold unfeeling void. It's more the ability to find beauty and peace anywhere.

I prefer your second definition of religiosity. Personal experience is the best way to test and affirm your views. If it works, keep it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Religion is dogma: a set of rules about morality. While these aren't bad per se, when you try to make a "one size fits all" morality, you start to run into issues.

Spirituality is more open. It might not even have rules on morality. You can be spiritual and believe the world is nothing but a cold unfeeling void. It's more the ability to find beauty and peace anywhere.

I prefer your second definition of religiosity. Personal experience is the best way to test and affirm your views. If it works, keep it.

I prefer to think of these different ways of expressing spirituality as equally valid. Highly religious expressions through art, churches, formal worship, these all have their place. I think it really is just 'diffrent strokes for diffrent folks'.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I prefer to think of these different ways of expressing spirituality as equally valid. Highly religious expressions through art, churches, formal worship, these all have their place. I think it really is just 'diffrent strokes for diffrent folks'.

Well, yeah. It's like High and Low Magic. High is all ritual and formalities, which is all well and good until you lose the meaning. Low Magic may be grungy and freeform, but it's much more personal.

 

[Storm]

Religion is dogma: a set of rules about morality.

Disagree. Dogma is a common feature of religion, but it isn't definitive.

While these aren't bad per se, when you try to make a "one size fits all" morality, you start to run into issues.

Absolutely!

 

[Badran]

Although what i'm going to say doesn't answer your question, i'm just saying it basically to clarify something and understand this conclusion more. I think people can be both, i think i'm both.

I'm not sure if thats recognized in the conclusion or not, but i didn't see anything that indicates so.

 

[Sunstone]

Although what i'm going to say doesn't answer your question, i'm just saying it basically to clarify something and understand this conclusion more. I think people can be both, i think i'm both.

I'm not sure if thats recognized in the conclusion or not, but i didn't see anything that indicates so.

That's fascinating. I don't know what Paul would say, Badran. The article I read seemed to be to have been written by a student reporter was not really all that knowledgeable about what she was reporting on. So it was kind of garbled in places. The article didn't make it clear if Paul saw the two kind of religiosities as compatible or not.

However, the article did say -- or at least hint -- that Paul thought spirituality was needed to moderate the influence of religions.

 

[bain-druie]

I was in the midst of replying to this half an hour ago, and then my computer restarted itself because of a(NOTHER) frikkin Windows update. It's been doing this every day for a few days now. Arrrghhh! :computer:

OK, on topic: I agree with what others have said thus far. Both religion and spirituality have potential for good; what I'm not certain of is whether the potential of religion for evil (which has been realized fairly often in our sad history) outweighs its potential for good (which, to be fair, has also been realized in some measure at some times).

Most people who are drawn toward a structured sort of spiritual practice, and prefer institutionalized religion to the unstructured individualism of spirituality, will live in a rational manner in reasonable harmony with their fellow humans. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

However, where there is structure and authority, there will also be abuse of power and mob mentality. The psychology of a group is pretty frightening at times; I've seen Benny Hinn hypnotize an entire stadium of willing victims, who will thereafter believe, repeat, and act on just about anything he says. This is not uncommon, and it is extremely dangerous and, I believe, unhealthy for everyone involved.

I'm not dogmatically saying dogmatism is bad, but I'm not ruling it out either. reach:

 

[Desert Snake]

I was in the midst of replying to this half an hour ago, and then my computer restarted itself because of a(NOTHER) frikkin Windows update. It's been doing this every day for a few days now. Arrrghhh! :computer:

OK, on topic: I agree with what others have said thus far. Both religion and spirituality have potential for good; what I'm not certain of is whether the potential of religion for evil (which has been realized fairly often in our sad history) outweighs its potential for good (which, to be fair, has also been realized in some measure at some times).

Most people who are drawn toward a structured sort of spiritual practice, and prefer institutionalized religion to the unstructured individualism of spirituality, will live in a rational manner in reasonable harmony with their fellow humans. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

However, where there is structure and authority, there will also be abuse of power and mob mentality. The psychology of a group is pretty frightening at times; I've seen Benny Hinn hypnotize an entire stadium of willing victims, who will thereafter believe, repeat, and act on just about anything he says. This is not uncommon, and it is extremely dangerous and, I believe, unhealthy for everyone involved.

I'm not dogmatically saying dogmatism is bad, but I'm not ruling it out either. reach:

Heh, yes but humans always find some dogmatic ideology to follw, herdlike, regardless of whether it's based on religion, or a myriad of other ideas... I really think that if the potential for "mob mentality" is there, religion is only one vehicle for it.

 

[Sunstone]

Badran, I have a story about Paul that I think you will appreciate better than almost anyone. But first, you should know that Paul is anything but egotistical. Students routinely comment that he treats them like equals, values their contributions to class discussions, and will spend time with them if they need it.

So, Paul's doctorates are in Islam and Hinduism. One year, I'm taking a course in Hinduism with him. He's -- typical for him -- demanding a paper a week from us on various topics. So, at some point I write a paper on the second or third chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. A week goes by, I get a handwritten letter on Department Stationary in the mail. I open it up fearing the worse -- the Department is accusing me of something evil.

It's a note from Paul thanking me for my paper on the Gita, telling me it's one of the most profound papers he's read -- published or unpublished -- on the chapter I wrote on, and that, while it doesn't really make much difference to the Cosmos themselves, he just wanted me to know I'd done some good work. You can imagine how I felt about that.

Badran, that is the kind of person Paul is. He has always been willing to go out of his way for his students. I mean, he could have just written, "Good work" on my paper and handed it back with a decent grade. But Paul thought to do something special. And that was typical of him in the time I knew him.

The guy's name, by the way is Mundschenk. Paul Mundschenk. He's on facebook. Go friend request him. He loves to meet new people and if I'm any judge of it, he would especially love to meet you.

 

[sojourner]

We need both. As I have so often advocated here, one cannot worship by oneself, because worship entails a connection with the rest of humanity. If spirituality does its "thing" by helping us to draw connections with our deepest selves, I don't see how those connections can be accurately drawn if we choose to disconnect ourselves spiritually from those who play a part in shaping and defining us.

 

[Sunstone]

Most people are better than their religions, but some are not. No one is better than their actual spirituality, though. And, as Einstein said, the extent and manner in which one has obtained liberation from the self is the truest measure of a person's worth as a human.

 

[Noaidi]

Interesting OP, Sunstone.
Is the article available online?

 

[Sunstone]

Interesting OP, Sunstone.
Is the article available online?

It's the most pathetically garbled damn thing. The woman who wrote the article appears to have either not taken accurate notes fast enough, or to have dozed off in the middle of Paul's speech. But here it is anyway.

 

[bain-druie]

Heh, yes but humans always find some dogmatic ideology to follw, herdlike, regardless of whether it's based on religion, or a myriad of other ideas... I really think that if the potential for "mob mentality" is there, religion is only one vehicle for it.

Oh, agreed. :yes: But the fact that humans have always engaged in a certain behavior so far does not mean we must always continue to engage in it. We have a relatively short history on the planet, and all in all I think we can be moderately enthusiastic about our ability to change our behavior and modify our society.

I'm thinking dogmatism is another thing that should go away.

 

[Noaidi]

But here it is anyway.

Thanks for that, Sunstone.

 

[bain-druie]

We need both. As I have so often advocated here, one cannot worship by oneself, because worship entails a connection with the rest of humanity. If spirituality does its "thing" by helping us to draw connections with our deepest selves, I don't see how those connections can be accurately drawn if we choose to disconnect ourselves spiritually from those who play a part in shaping and defining us.

Agreed insofar as it is healthiest for us as social animals to engage in both group and solitary activities - spiritual or otherwise.

But I disagree that one 'cannot' worship alone; it is possible that I disagree because I define worship differently than you do. For me the connections are drawn in solitary spiritual practice just as effectively as in group practice; just in different ways. Both are needed for a well-rounded experience. But then I don't focus primarily on intraspecies connections.

I'll give an example: in my druidic order, we hold a full moon meditation for peace every full moon. Wherever you are, whether alone or in a group, the point of it is to meditate on peace for the whole world - between humans, yes, but also between our species and other species, between the animate and inanimate natural world, and so on. Holding this alone is no more or less effective than holding it in a group; it's just different.

 

[Yes Man]

which if either religiosity is the best for us?

They both have their merits and downfalls, it seems. The first community-centered religiosity has the advantage of sharing of knowledge and experience, as well as the benefit of having support through difficult times. On the negative side, there can be an excessive desire to conform and blind faith in moral standards espoused by an authority.

The second allows time for quiet introspection and time away from people that might guide one away from one's true beliefs.

Should we strive to be religious? Should we strive to be spiritual?

I think there's an imbalance leaning religiosity versus spirituality in the world. We need more spirituality imho.