31 May 17
1 edit
Please, explain to me what is the difference between spirituality and religion.
Is spirituality a part of religion, or is it the other way around?
Can a person be spiritual and be non-religious at the same time?
I use the two synonymously, but I suspect I am wrong. Am I?
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe way I see it, a person's spirituality can be religious or non-religious. I guess this means I view religion as a subset of spirituality.
Please, explain to me what is the difference between spirituality and religion.
Is spirituality a part of religion, or is it the other way around?
Can a person be spiritual and be non-religious at the same time?
I use the two synonymously, but I suspect I am wrong. Am I?
One can connect or commune on a 'spirit' level without that requiring the worship of a deity.
I think the full human experience of 'spirituality' is more of a continuum than a set, confining, 'definition'. For example, one may feel a connection to a pet, perhaps even a feeling of a 'kindred spirit', without involving a deity of any kind, which I think is required for a 'religion'.**
EDIT: ** Even though there are religions in the human experience not involving a deity, like Buddhism, I believe Buddhists consider the totality of the universe to fill a similar role of 'deity', or perhaps a target 'condition' fulfilling the ultimate desired end of the religion, such as acquiring 'nirvana' and/or a 'oneness' with all. Of course, as always, I invite those who understand it better than I to school all of us in the particulars.
Even though this question was put forward in this forum, it is probably not the place for it, so perhaps the discussion could be pursued in the Spirituality Forum, unless your reason for posting here was to avoid the aggravation of that forum.
31 May 17
Religion is about being a member of a group and following the teachings of others, who may be considered spiritual leaders.
Spirituality is about finding one's own path, which may require the assistance of religious practices or spiritual leaders, but which can also be achieved alone or through unconventional means.
wording from:
http://recomparison.com/comparisons/101393/religion-vs-spirituality/
Neither require the other.
31 May 17
Originally posted by Suzianne...Science is about more than physics. Psychology, for example.
Even though this question was put forward in this forum, it is probably not the place for it, so perhaps the discussion could be pursued in the Spirituality Forum, unless your reason for posting here was to avoid the aggravation of that forum.
31 May 17
Originally posted by Suzianne"The way I see it, a person's spirituality can be religious or non-religious. I guess this means I view religion as a subset of spirituality."
The way I see it, a person's spirituality can be religious or non-religious. I guess this means I view religion as a subset of spirituality.
One can connect or commune on a 'spirit' level without that requiring the worship of a deity.
I think the full human experience of 'spirituality' is more of a continuum than a set, confining, 'definition'. For ...[text shortened]... rituality Forum, unless your reason for posting here was to avoid the aggravation of that forum.
So even if I'm not religious at all, I can nevertheless be spiritual or have spiritual experiences? Hmmm, worth thinking of.
The part 'spirit' in 'spiritual' hints to me that there are something super-natural about it. And super-natural means above the laws of physics. Therefore I don't use the word about my own personal experiences. I know that there is a scientific explanation of everything, even if I not (yet) know what it is. Comment...?
"Even though this question was put forward in this forum, it is probably not the place for it, so perhaps the discussion could be pursued in the Spirituality Forum, unless your reason for posting here was to avoid the aggravation of that forum."
You're totally right. I think I will learn more in this forum than theirs.
Thank you for your input! 🙂
31 May 17
Originally posted by apathist"Religion is about being a member of a group and following the teachings of others, who may be considered spiritual leaders."
Religion is about being a member of a group and following the teachings of others, who may be considered spiritual leaders.
Spirituality is about finding one's own path, which may require the assistance of religious practices or spiritual leaders, but which can also be achieved alone or through unconventional means.
wording from:
http://recomparison. ...[text shortened]...
Neither require the other.
Science is about more than physics. Psychology, for example.
With this, do you mean that to be religious cannot never be individual? Religion is always done in groups? Individual and personal religions are impossible?
On the other hand is spirituality on the other hand always individual experiences and never within groups (other than coincidences)?
"Science is about more than physics. Psychology, for example."
Alfred Noble (he with the prize) said that math is the foundation of everything. Physics is depended upon math. Chemistry is depended of physics. Biology/Medicine is depended upon Chemistry. I say that psychology is depended upon Biology/Medicine. But psychology is so complicated so it borders with philosophy a great deal. But psychology is anyway treated as science, isn't it?
I think rather that science is about how the subject is treated, i.e. its methodology. Like falsification and such. Religion cannot be treated this way. So Psychology treated with scientific methods are science. Else it is just quasi-science. Like homeopathy, curry-lines, telepathy etc. Religion cannot be treated with scientific methods, as I see it.
Right or wrong?
31 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasBoth words have a wide range of meaning that overlaps. I would say it depends on context.
Please, explain to me what is the difference between spirituality and religion.
Christianity is a religion. It is not 'a spirituality'. But then one could equally say 'being on time is his religion'. To me, religion speaks more of doctrine. So if you are talking of rules that someone adheres to, that is religion whether on an individual level or shared as a group.
Spirituality could refer to belief in the supernatural, or it could refer to merely the life of the conscious and aspects thereof. Our appreciation of the blue sky is not easily described in scientific terms, and even if it was, that would not necessarily aid understanding. Understanding of appreciation of beauty is via shared experience. That can be termed a 'spiritual experience'. Thus spirituality can refer to the aspects of consciousness that are experienced rather than studied methodologically.
Cheneys beliefs as expressed in this thread are largely religion. They are doctrine. He is not talking of his personal experience but claiming that what he sees is available to scientific scrutiny and rational argument.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29978
31 May 17
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead"Understanding of appreciation of beauty is via shared experience. That can be termed a 'spiritual experience'."
Both words have a wide range of meaning that overlaps. I would say it depends on context.
Christianity is a religion. It is not 'a spirituality'. But then one could equally say 'being on time is his religion'. To me, religion speaks more of doctrine. So if you are talking of rules that someone adheres to, that is religion whether on an individual level o ...[text shortened]... rience but claiming that what he sees is available to scientific scrutiny and rational argument.
I don't think that follows. - Firstly, why is understanding or appreciation of beauty necessarily a shared experience? And secondly, why the dramatic leap to labelling such a 'spiritual' experience?!
Why is the 'life of the conscious' spiritual? - Isn't that merely sentience?
31 May 17
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes of course. Spirtuality can be discussed/debated in scientific terms as well; this from the late, great Dr. Carl Sagan in his excellent book The Demon Haunted World:
So even if I'm not religious at all, I can nevertheless be spiritual or have spiritual experiences? Hmmm, worth thinking of.
“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word “spiritual” that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
31 May 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI am not saying that spirituality has to do with shared experience but that some things can only be experienced to be understood. The 'sharing' was to demonstrate that you cannot easily write down the exact feeling of wonder at seeing something beautiful.
"Understanding of appreciation of beauty is via shared experience. That can be termed a 'spiritual experience'."
I don't think that follows. - Firstly, why is understanding or appreciation of beauty necessarily a shared experience? And secondly, why the dramatic leap to labelling such a 'spiritual' experience?!
Why is the 'life of the conscious' spiritual? - Isn't that merely sentience?
'spirit' and 'sentience' are closely related words. Your spirit is your sentience.
31 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you say that the definitions of 'religion' and 'spirituality' is more like taste or context? Are the two words coupled in any way, do you think? Or is it possible to have spiritual experiences without being religious?
Both words have a wide range of meaning that overlaps. I would say it depends on context.
Christianity is a religion. It is not 'a spirituality'. But then one could equally say 'being on time is his religion'. To me, religion speaks more of doctrine. So if you are talking of rules that someone adheres to, that is religion whether on an individual level o ...[text shortened]... rience but claiming that what he sees is available to scientific scrutiny and rational argument.
To be 'religious' is stronger than just to be 'spiritual', I use to think. Like a degree of fundamentalism, so to speak.
Do you think (like me) that there is a border between religion and science? Or are there situations in science where religion is useful? Or situations in religion where science is useful?
31 May 17
Originally posted by wildgrass“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.”
Yes of course. Spirtuality can be discussed/debated in scientific terms as well; this from the late, great Dr. Carl Sagan in his excellent book The Demon Haunted World:
“Spirit” comes from the Latin word “to breathe.” What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary impli ...[text shortened]... that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Yes, and the old Greeks thought that the first breath a newborn takes is when he breath in a spirit, a soul. Before that it is not living, but from then on he has a soul and lives until he dies and exhale the spirit again for it to search for a new baby to give life to.
Nah, this sounds too much religion for me to accept as truth. Beautiful and spiritual thoughts, perhaps, but has nothing to do with how life starts and ends in a human being.
31 May 17
Originally posted by apathistI don't understand how Houdini did it, but it has nothing to do with supernatural.
"Supernatural is just nature we don't understand yet."
apathist
But what happens with the soul after the death *is* supernatural and cannot ever be understood, nor be treated with science. Right? 😉
31 May 17
The conscience is described as an 'inner sense' of what is right and wrong. It's this inner sense that should make one pause to consider that this is not merely a product of evolution. Being spiritual could just be a matter of recognizing that 'something else is higher than us, and is responsible for this inner sense'.