What is the Difference Between Religion and Spiritual Philosophy?

Philosophy of Religion
1

I began my own philosophical journey from the basis of trying to understand religious thinking, especially in the form of Catholicism. However, I was aware of many different perspectives of ‘truth’, ranging from Western and Eastern forms of religious traditions, as well as forms of atheism. It seemed to me to be rather daunting but exciting, as a philosophical quest.

At the present time, I am not convinced that any one perspective has the monopoly of ‘truth’. Religious traditions have often evoked fear, with concepts of heaven and hell. This has been demystified philosophically.

There is a possible problem of ideas of an afterlife being seen as a prospect for those who are not acting according to the commandments of the divine. It is often presented in the form of ideas of life after death and potential retribution. Similarly, the Eastern idea of karma, as the notion of cause and effect beyond the physical aspects alone is significant.

In questioning the distinction between religion and spirituality I am wondering about underlying aspects, especially mind, consciousness and spirit. To what extent are these ideas of significance in approachireligious and spirituality? To what extent is inner reality’ significant as a source of understanding and philosophy? How may spirituality be considered as a subjective or objective search for understanding the nature of 'reality, as a basis for living be considered as an aspect of existential philosophy? I am not sure how the existential and scientific perspectives can be integrated.

1 Like
2

You’re on a noble quest there and neither the first nor the last to do so. Religion holds some truths to it but one mustn’t be too dogmatic, truth can sometimes shift and if our perspective remains the same then we’re out of date therefore it’s an ever evolving concept for sure. The world is constantly evolving and with it too scientific perspective, old gets replaced with the new. It doesn’t necessarily mean that old ideas are not truthful but that our understanding is incomplete. Take for example the emergence of quantum mechanics as an explanatory power instead of Newtonian mechanics brilliant though he was he had no chance to read Einstein who came later.

3

What may be significant is how human beings draw upon ideas, especially for self interest and ego repated attachment to ideals and ideas.

4

I am sorry as I got cut off without being able to edit and finish my reply. As I understand life, models are being developed and are likely to be partial, both those arising in religious and scientific perspectives. It may be about different languages and framrs.

Initially, as a child of about 10 or 11, I came across ideas of evolution which contradicted the teachings I was learning at church. I later discovered that many religuous people were trying to reconcile ideas from religion and science.

For some, this may seem to be about the rigour of scientic description and explanation. I do not wish to underplay this, but understanding of the scientific picture of the Cartesian-Newtonian picture of ‘reality’ may be a rather narrow picture as descriptive explanation.

5

Well, we could worship curiosity. God is whatever draws us toward the unknown.

That’s the closest I’ve come to a theology, at any rate.

6

The debate between existenialism and science may belong in the category of the debate between romanticism and realism. The perspective of realism may hold so much weight in current thinking of rational thinking.Curiousity may be too much of the unknown which may leave the doors of rational thinking too ajar for science and its search for objectivity and clear prediction. Certainty of knowledge is another matter indeed.

7

Thanks for the message.

Could you expand this thought. Why would curiosity interfere with rational thinking?

Yes, I’ve seen it do lots of damage to the world and to individual minds.

8

I think that the essential difference is that religion is followed by groups. If a religion has one member only, it is not a religion. This doesn’t exclude that anybody can create their own personal and unique religion, but, in that case, that religion wouldn’t be socially recognized as a real religion. On the contrary, spiritual philosophy can be more easily imagined as something followed by single persons.

Another difference is that usually religions have rituals, practices, recurring activities. It is not excluded that a spiritual philosophy can have rituals, but it is something not so usual.

Another one is that usually religions are more static, something established, well defined, sometimes even with huge institutions, burocracy and laws. Spiritual philosophy is more dynamic, it is a research, more open to change.

Another difference is that religion is usually perceived as something more external, objective, with an architecture that explains how the world works. Spiritual philosophy is more intimate, subjective and its architecture is more about internal dynamics in your soul, rather than about the world.

Another difference is that religion is less dependent on rationality. Rather, it depends on events, revelations of great truths. Spiritual philosophy relies much more on reflection, rationality, research.

I said this because you said “spiritual philosophy”, where the central word is “philosophy”, while “spiritual” gives just a qualification. “Philosophical spirituality” would be different: it would be essentialy a spirituality, although inspired by philosophy.

9

I’m an older generation to you, but in my day, the Adyar Bookshops were still open. They were started by the Theosophical Society, which was originated in the 19th Century by the mysterious Madame Blavatsky (widely considered a charlatan nowadays, but still…) Theosophy at one stage was a world-wide movement, and in the 1920’s had a large headquarters in what is now the financial district of Sydney. But they’re really a bygone institution now, still hanging on but the majority of their members are now very aged. The bookshops, nearly always staffed by kindly older women, became submerged by Amazon.

Anyway the Adyar Bookshop always smelled of sandlewood, and had a plethora of books on spirituality, philosophy and consciousness. Just standing there between the shelves was a consciousness-raiising experience! Many of the best books in my collection go back to those days.‘Theosophical’ apart from being the name of the Society, is actually a word that means something like ‘divine (theos) wisdom (sophia)’.

In Western culture, theosophy is represented in Christian Platonism, stemming from Plato but also embraces Pythagoras, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Christian Mystics. In the milieu, philosophy and religion are still distinguished, as philosophy is the province of dialectic, and religion of revealed truth. But they have, as it were, a common border, or places where they meet. That’s where I think the most fruitful grounds are for exploration of such topics.

10

To understand so-called ‘religious thinking’ you first have to understand what the word ‘religious’ means or is referring to, exactly.

Once you understand what ‘that’ is, exactly, then you will also understand that ‘religious thinking’ can apply to people in all fields, including the ‘science’ and ‘academic’ fields. And, sometimes people in these fields think far more ‘religiously’ than people in the ‘theological’ field.

In fact, the human beings are what some call “atheists” can be the most ‘religious thinking’ people.

Understanding ‘religious thinking’ is extremely simple and easy to learn and comprehend, again, once you first learn, understand, and know what the word ‘religious’ means, or is referring to, exactly.

11

There is one perspective that does have the monopoly of ‘truth’.

Really, how has this been demystified philosophically, exactly?

What is that possible so-called ‘problem’, exactly?

Okay.

That would all first depend on how you are defining the words ‘religious’ and ‘spirituality’ here exactly.

What do you mean by ‘philosophy’ here?

Also, if by ‘inner reality’ you are referring to an individual human beings own perspective or reflection of ‘reality’, then ‘this reality’ never necessarily has to have any bearing at all on the One and only actual ‘Reality’.

With all of the unnecessary and undefined words here, your question becomes way to confusing to answer properly and Correctly for you.

Okay, but they can and do very simply and very easily.

12

Human being’s individual and collective truths may sometimes ‘shift’, but they are only the ones that do not align with the actual Truths. Which, by the way, cannot and do not ‘shift’ at all.

Which ‘world’ are you talking about and referring to here exactly?

The ‘created by human being world’, or the ‘earth, solar system, galactic world’?

Has there ever been any human being who ever thought or believed that human understanding was or is complete?

Just like “einstein” had no chance to read what is about to become understood and known either.

13

Once you understand and know ‘God’ the so-called ‘unknown’ becomes known.

14

Will you provide some examples please?

How then could ‘a religion’ have one member only?

How are you defining the ‘religion’ word here, exactly?

Will you provide an example of a ‘spiritual philosophy’, please?

How do you define the ‘philosophy’ word here, exactly?

Great explaining so far, by the way.

15

Sure. If I understood God, then I would know God.

I have always seen God as a thing to chase, not to find.

16

Tribal thinking, religious wars, political extremism.

People justifying their awful behavior because they are soldiers of the One True God.

17

In my opinion, the two are inseparable. The main kicker, though, is the fact that religion focuses on the religious institution itself, while spirituality focuses on the change that religious thinking can bring to an individual with regard to their everyday life. I wrote a post here that discusses my thoughts on it.

I, too, come from a Catholic background. We find several of the teachings of Jesus from the gospels that promote a spiritual philosophy:

“Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” (Mattew 6:26)

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)

“Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:34-36)

“One of the scribes came to Jesus and asked him, ‘Which is the first of all commandments?’ Jesus replied,‘The first is this: Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is like: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.’” (Mark 12:28-34)

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” ( John 13:34-35)

And of course we have the Sermon on the Mount as the penultimate summary of Jesus’ teachings and numerous parables, my personal favorites being the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Pharisee and the Publican. But we also have a train of thought that exists outside of the New Testament canon as well:

Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.” - Gospel of Thomas, saying 3

Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things. I am All: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.” - Gospel of Thomas, saying 77

“His disciples said to him, ‘When will the kingdom come?’ [Jesus said,] ‘It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.’” - Gospel of Thomas, saying 113

I think it is worth exploring the connection between Jesus and Greek philosophy. The Socratic tradition was well ingrained in Roman Judea. I tend to think many devout Christians view Jesus almost as a made-up character in a story and don’t even consider the possibility of him engaging with Greek thought. Burton Mack wrote a book titled The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins that examines the connection between the teachings of Jesus and Cynicism (and I mean the ancient philosophy, not the modern-day idea of being a pessimist). John Dominic Crossan’s book The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant also explores this relationship. While I think that they diverge from traditional Christian theology, which I uphold, they are excellent reads.

Speaking of institutionalized religion, we have several fantastic writers to read: Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Maximus the Confessor, Augustine, and Isaac the Syrian, Medieval thinkers like Psuedo-Dionysius, John Scotus Eriugena, Meister Eckhart (who I would call the real “treasure hidden in the field”), the continuers of his thought like Henry Suso, John Tauler, and The Theologia Germanica, and the theology of Gregory Palamas in the Byzantine world, Reformation era thinkers like Johann Gerhard, Jacob Boehme, the Pietists and the Quakers, Spainish writers like John of the Cross, and French writers like Br. Lawrence. Classic modern examples like Thomas Merton are a good read, too. In my opinion, thinking like theirs is a rebellion against strict dogmatism and puts a focus on how the individual puts the ideas of the Bible into practice.

Of course, spirituality isn’t limited to the Bible or Christianity; Confucius, Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi, and Buddha happen to be some of my favorites to read. And Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and their followers are as spiritual as spiritual can get.

1 Like
18

I forget where I got this from: an empty bowl breaks yet emptiness remains. (Kyoto School I guess …)

“Spirituality” seems to me more of a denial of, or escape from, reality (i.e. death, uncertainty, randomness, impermanence, embodiment, etc) than a “search for understanding …” In this sense speculation on spirit is not “existential” but idealist (pace Kierkegaard, pace Simone Weil).

:100:

1 Like
19

Consider this deathbed comment of the Rabbi of Vilna:

How difficult it is to leave this world of action, where by [the performance of a commandment],as simple as [wearing teffelin], which costs but a few pennies, one can merit [feeling the presence of God]! In the [afterlife], you cannot gain anything anymore." [1, 2]

The material world is not universally seen as a place to escape from or beneath the spiritual world. Embodiment can have value spirituality alone does not.

A critique of one religion isn’t a critique of religion generally.

I’d also say religiousity isn’t measured in terms of spirituality nor required to be considered a religious adherent depending upon the religion.

20

The actual Truth is God reveals Itself, to ‘you’, if, and when, ‘you’ have been and are ‘prepared’ for Its revelation and coming.