In a discussion group, we reviewed a Venn diagram, with one circle demarcated as "spiritual" and the other "religious". In the middle ground, where the circles converged, we found "both". We had, by this point, already worked through our varying definitions of these topics, and now were attempting to conceptualize the relationship between these two, so defined.
My first point: we have a human aptitude and need to make sense of our experience and reality through the construction of models, metaphors, theories, theologies, systems, and the like.
In my view, this activity plays a positive role in that it 1) creates a sense of purpose, direction, and meaning to our lives, which tends to content us; and 2) leads to the evolution of our great knowledge and cultural traditions, from the sciences to the arts to family dinner.
With all my respect and appreciation for these outcomes, I nevertheless felt a bit discontent as I stared at that Venn diagram. Yes, certainly we can - for example - differentiate between our conception of spirituality and our conception of religion. We can create an internal coherence of these terms, a rational understanding that fits together the pieces, however defined. Moreover, as the type of person that enjoys the activity of simply thinking, it is great recreation to build grand mansions of thought, constructing rock solid rational systems and analytical regimes and problematizations to bring coherence to the relationships between our models and metaphors and theologies. What fun!
The fact of the matter is that my critique here is in fact not a critique, but simply the activity in itself. And, in my view, that is the second point: it is significant to always be mindful that our human conceptions are just that.
On the Venn diagram, we distinguish between two conceptions, and can well do so, while achieving a certain purpose, by differentiating along a horizontal axis. Within the bounds of that plane, we can further distinguish along a vertical axis as well: neither spiritual or religious, in this case. But I could not help but wonder: What is the third dimension, the dimension emerging from the flat plane of paper, the dimension undefined?
This brings us to the third point, which may well be a non-point: I don't know.
A common response here is belief. However, from the safe terrain of the flat land, it is clear that belief does not exceed a planar existence, because it is dependent on a construction (namely, that there is a reason to believe or something to believe in - humanistic or supernatural). That does not make "belief" good or bad, it just leaves me feeling discontent.
Another response here is to shrug off this whole enterprise as irrelevant. Why does any of this matter? That may do just fine for some, but the fact that we have the capacity to come to this point means that turning back is a difficult thing (for me) to do. I have no defense other than to say I am compelled to explore.
A third response is to "live for the moment," which often means to do what feels good, with a focus on ourselves and our limited reign of influence. If this rabbit hole keeps going down, we may as well enjoy the ride.
A fourth response is to focus our energies on not knowing, or trying to not know. This is an activity that I find insightful, but perhaps I have not attained a high enough level of awareness, because I can't escape the fact that I know that I cannot know.
Frustration: nothing here on this page - as fancy as it may sound - exceeds the planar existence. It is all practical in itself and important, yet limited. I could go on and on, round and round.
At times like these, I like to look at the depths of blue in the sky and the infinite contours of the clouds. I feel peace.
...
Post Script: Therein, I suppose, is my commentary on the relationship between spirituality and religion.
