On God and Spirituality

Published on August 11, 2005 By philomedy In Religion

On a different thread, the idea that a belief in God and spirituality are not the same came up, albeit briefly, and I was encouraged to elaborate on the point in a separate article. Here goes:

I think the best way to present my point of view on the subject is to state, directly, the point from which I start: God and spirit are not the same thing. I think the relationship between God and spirit is like the relationship between Christianity and religion, or the relationship between Judaism and religion, or the relationship between Islam and religion: Namely, one is part of the other, and one is far more universal than the other.

When it comes to spirit, there are many religions in the world that can be said to be spiritual but not deistic. The most well-known of these is probably Buddhism. As I understand it, the goal of Buddhism is to attain Nirvana and escape the cycle of birht and rebirth, which one does by following the Noble Eightfold Path, whose specific eight points I used to know but can't remember right now.

The idea of birth and rebirth implies a "recycling of souls," if you will, a sort of ongoing amusement part of life. We are the guests, life is the roller coaster, and our bodies are the cars that take us up and down. An attempt to break the cycle of birth and rebirth is, to me, an attempt to get off the rides and go home. Every time we're born, we're strapped into a ride. Every time we die, we're let off a ride. However, if you have not attained Nirvana, you have no choice but to get on another ride. No matter how sick or tired you are, you keep getting on rides, over and over and over again. The rides might be different, they might get more modern, or bigger or smaller, but at the end of the day you're still at the amusement park and you're still riding roller coasters and eventually you're gonna get tired and want to go home. To me, the quest for Nirvana begins at the point you decide you want to go home. You don't want to ride anymore. You want to walk around, sit on a bench, have a hot dog, go home, and take a nap. You are tired from switching from car to car, from body to body. Buddhism is about escaping the body and the world through knowledge of the self, through recognition of the purest, truest, and simplest essence that makes us who we are. There is no God here, but there is a spirit.

I mention Buddhism only as a specific and mainstream example of how a belief in God is not the same thing as spirituality. Allow me to now elaborate what my personal and specific thoughts on the subject are.

I believe spirituality to be far more universal than a belief in God, a point which I think I made rather clearly in the last three paragraphs. This is not to say that I don't think God and spirituality can be connected, just that they don't have to be. For some who believe in God, the spirit is a "holy spirit," or the "spirit of God," the part of Himself that God put into each and every person on this Earth. For others who believe in God (and I fall into this group), the spirit is not a part of God inside me, but my sense of who I am as a person. My spirit is the reason I wake up in the morning and know that I am me. My spirit is that feeling we all have, that odd, indescribably, but very real feeling that lets us all know in no uncertain terms that we are the same person that we were the day before, and the day before, and the day before that. To me, my spirit is what allows me to gain weight, lose weight, grow a beard, cut my hair, or otherwise alter my entire look and still know, without having to look in the mirror, or perhaps in spite of looking in the mirror, that I remain the same person I always was. How did this spirit, this sense of who I am, get inside of me? I don't know. Could God have put it there? Sure.

But in my estimation, it is not my belief in God that makes me spiritual, it is the fact that I have spent time thinking about and recognizing my spirit, and that is something tha tall people, theist and atheist alike, can do.

***As a side note, let me just say that I had never really thought about how spiritual I am until I wrote this, and that I've come to the conclusion that I'm not all that spiritual. This has inspired another article about the importance of spirituality, and the role it plays in being a good person and leading a good life. Stay tuned.

Comments (Page 1)

bakerstreet

on Aug 12, 2005

IN terms of the discussion we were having previously, I don't differ with this much. My use of the word God was offhand, and you called me on it legitmately.

I would kind of take issue with the idea that buddhism has no god, though. When I have talked with Buddhists, it is almost like they substitute 'God' with a universal spirit, an "everything". I mean, there has to be a guiding force, a system as it were. True, most don't personify it, but is there a fundamental difference?

There are still rules, something, even if it is a system instead of a mandate, and it still punishes us for our wrongs. I suppose most Buddhists would take issue with "punishment" and prefer it just to be thought of as consequences, but I have heard the same thing come from Christians, in that the rules, "the Word" as it were, is really the scale we are wieghed on and the consequences are really out of God's hands because of free will.

I guess that is why I tend to use the word God so loosely. To me, there is little difference, though to some there is. I wonder if we could really slide into someone else's shoes, how much real, tangible difference there is between a system of Karma and a personified God.

philomedy

on Aug 12, 2005

I think there is a fundamental difference, simply because the guiding force, or system, that a Buddhist follows is derived from a person no different than you or I. The way I understand Christianity, the "system" is a set of guidelines handed down by God which tell us how we should live. In Buddhism, the "system" is a set of guidelines written down by a man who, at the time when he wrote them, was no more enlightened than anybody else.

For the most part, I agree with your statement about God and an universal spirit. However, I do not think they are interchangeable. Instead, I think the position that God occupies for Christians is occupied by the universal spirit for Buddhists. The difference, I think, is that no matter how closely a Christian person follows God's system, that person will never be God. The person will be saved, and accepted into Heaven, but will always remain a separate entity from God. In Buddhism, an enlightened person who has managed to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth, effectively becomes a part of that universal spirit. Any one of us, through hard work and dedication, can be part of the universal spirit. That's why I think this is a prime example of spirituality without a God.

philomedy

on Aug 12, 2005

Even if the consequences are out of God's hands, it is still He that established them. I think the difference lies in that the rules, when mandated by God, are not suggestions, they are laws, and laws are, in effect, threats. A mandate from God is the equivalent of a ruler saying "Do x, or y will happen." The rules of Buddhism are, as you pointed out, a system, not a mandate. They are not laws handed down by a superior, they are suggestions offered by people who have gone through what you're going through. Since these people did not establish the consequences, they are not threatening you with them. They are simply telling you what they are.

philomedy

on Aug 12, 2005

I wonder if we could really slide into someone else's shoes, how much real, tangible difference there is between a system of Karma and a personified God.

Like I said before, in my opinion, the difference lies in that once you establish a personified God, you are establishing a being whose level cannot be attained. No matter how well we live, we will never be on equal footing with God. With a system of Karma, employing a universal spirit, living a good life ensures a spot on the uppermost rung of the ladder.

bakerstreet

on Aug 12, 2005

I agree with you, but looking at Christianity from within I see a lot of the same "vibe", though the words are different. I don't know many people who really think of God as a big guy with a beard anymore. I think the personification, the anthropomorphism is quickly becoming a thing of the past, held to mostly by apologists.

I dunno, maybe it is a matter of how we view religious authority in our brains. Maybe buddhists see it more as a sense of place, or of event, than entity. No, Christians for the most part don't believe that we can *be* God, and that is a big difference. I think the idea of Heaven is something very few Christians will ever agree on, though, and for some it might not be that much different than the concept of achieving Nirvana. God personified, Heaven as place or non-place, you probably get what I mean.

It's hard to describe, but there is something deeper, and a lot more alien, about the Christian concept of God than comes across in the translation. We make sense of the abstract by likening it to what we know. I think Buddhists left it more abstract, and Christians have centuries of people who wanted to foist authoritarianism in the name of "King" to thank for most of our modern anthropomorphism.

I think to many people, myself included, though, we aren't that much different. I can't see God as a person, or even as an 'entity' as we would define Him. The omnipresent, omniscient, omnipowerful aspects of God fly in the face of such, and our apparently boundless amounts of free will bruise the idea of regal authority.

This is a lot of talk for no disagreement, but I am just trying to get across that while one guy may see a forest as a system, and someone else names it and talks to it while they walk in it, it is still a forest, nonetheless. I think it is different ways of getting our heads around the same thing.

philomedy

on Aug 12, 2005

I dunno, maybe it is a matter of how we view religious authority in our brains

I think this is very true. Insightful, even.

.

philomedy

on Aug 12, 2005

By the way, are we agreeing on something? Great Ezekiel's Ghost!!! Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series after all...

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 12, 2005

In Buddhism, the "system" is a set of guidelines written down by a man who, at the time when he wrote them, was no more enlightened than anybody else.

If you're referring to the Buddha's "system," he never wrote it down, but at the time he passed it on verbally, he WAS "enlightened." After he died, a great many got together and rehearsed what they considered "acceptable" copy of his teachings (which he taught while fully enlightened.) This teaching was passed on verbally for some 400 years before being written down, so if you were not referring to the Buddha himself, then you are correct. The man that ultimately did the first writing was likely not enlightened at the time.

As a Buddhist, my understanding is that Buddhism, as a religion, has no deity figure nor anything that abstract or otherwise could be described as a deity.

The closest thing to it would be the Buddha himself, but since that same Buddha was pretty adamant about making sure everyone knew he was just a man like any other, this makes it tough to call him a deity-like being.

In my experience it isn't that Buddhists have an abstract concept of deity, it's that a deity is not required to validate their beliefs. All that is required for Buddhist doctrine to make sense is thought, so it isn't that they don't have one, or that they do have one, it's that the existence of a deity is unnecessary and serves no purpose.

Perhaps Chak will show up and say that better than I have. I hope so

Dr Guy

on Aug 12, 2005

Excellent, and very thought provoking. Your spirit is what Freud called the Id. And I have no problem with that. But yes, I am one of those button-holed christians (and in this case, I do not mind the stereotype as it is exactly true), so I see it as a part of God that is in me.

By the way, are we agreeing on something? Great Ezekiel's Ghost!!! Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series after all...

But while you and Baker had a very interesting dialogue (and you were agreeing), there aint a snowball's chance in hell of he Cubs winning! We have already had the miracle of the 21st century last year when the Bosox won!

DrDonald

on Aug 12, 2005

I enjoyed your perspective. My own concept of spirituality is that, contrary to religion, it is a personal rather than a shared experience. I see a need for both in my life. My spirituality is the result of my need for direction and strength in my life. In my case I get that strength and direction from God. Prayer and/or meditation seem to be necessary requirements.

philomedy

on Aug 12, 2005

To me, my spirit is that part of me that seeks God, that yearning for reunification, for wholeness, for completion.

A definition of spirit I believe I overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.

The closest thing to it would be the Buddha himself, but since that same Buddha was pretty adamant about making sure everyone knew he was just a man like any other, this makes it tough to call him a deity-like being.

I think this is the main point that I was trying to make, but you made it a lot better than I.

Your spirit is what Freud called the Id.

Finally! I have a name for it!

My spirituality is the result of my need for direction and strength in my life. In my case I get that strength and direction from God.

I think this is what LW said too, and a possibility that I overlooked. As I understand it, you're saying that you need God for strength and direction, and that need is what begets your spirituality, so in essence, your spirituality is the medium you use in order to get strenght and direction from God. Is that right?

Dr Guy

on Aug 12, 2005

As I understand it, you're saying that you need God for strength and direction, and that need is what begets your spirituality, so in essence, your spirituality is the medium you use in order to get strenght and direction from God. Is that right?

I am not answering for the poster, just for myself. But my Spirit is not the medium, but the essence. I can deny it, and live a life of evil. Or I can embrace it (while falling off the wagon on occassion) and live a good life.

But that is another interesting insight.

DrDonald

on Aug 12, 2005

Yes, and more. Spirituality shows me not only how I am connected to God, but also with others. I become more willing to identify with others and less apt to compare.

For example, when I am disturbed most by a weakness or character defect in someone, it is often because I recognize that problem unconsciously in myself. When I recognize the need to change that problem in myself, I begin a process of positive change.

By the same token, if someone's behaviour is harmful to themselves or to others, if I truly identify with and love them, I should not protect them from the natural consequences of their behaviour, merely to selfishly obtain their approval.

DrDonald

on Aug 12, 2005

not the medium, but the essence

Yes, I'd have to agree. Sorry, I can't resist: maybe the "medium is the message" - Marshal McLuhan

Dr Guy

on Aug 12, 2005

Yes, I'd have to agree. Sorry, I can't resist: maybe the "medium is the message" - Marshal McLuhan

Do not appologize! Your response was very thought prevoking. And of course the quote is very ironic too.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!