Spirituality – something that belongs to church or clergy in ecclesiastical law; a sensitivity or attachment to religious values; the quality or state of being spiritual (relating to the spirit, sacred matters, or supernatural beings or phenomena).

Spirituality is an immense and immensely confusing topic for discussion. In any conversation our ultimate mediator of discussion is rationality. We agree on basic principles, and we can make our way from there with logic in mutual discovery. For example, if I talk about a tree, you know I am referring to a brown and green thing that comes up out of the ground slowly, houses squirrels and birds, and forces you to rake your yard in October. We can discuss how much we love or hate the tree and why because we agree on what a tree is. Spirituality is rooted in faith, i.e. not empirically verifiable. This does not mean there is not a role for logic in discussions on spirituality, but it is important to point out that there is only an extent to which two people might discuss issues of spirituality before each must make his own decisions about what to believe without any air-tight defense.

As a result it can be difficult to carry on any conversation at all over issues of spirituality. I say ‘Christianity’, and you may understand this to mean an archaic and outdated tradition, a social service on steroids, the bane of your existence, or a well-spring of life and hope. The same thing may be said of God or any other religion. So what can we discuss intelligibly regarding religion?

I would not propose avoiding all discussion over religion. We may certainly agree about some things, and conversations may be grounded in areas of mutual agreement. I would propose hesitance in assuming rightness or wrongness about any belief. We do not assume rightness or wrongness about empirically verifiable topics such as gravity or the Big Bang theory, and we have all kinds of concrete support from several academic disciplines for these hypotheses. How much more silly does it seem to presume a correct belief when we cannot support this belief with empiric data nor rationality?

Just because we cannot identify right and wrong does not mean they do not exist. I am not proposing that there are not right beliefs, nor am I proposing that we should not each pursue objective truth and believe when we have found it. But if you ever assume you have got it right and the other guy has got it wrong, you don’t really have much of a leg to stand on, so far as man’s rationality is concerned. The assessment of how right or wrong your beliefs are, or the other person’s, and what points that might get you, I think best left up to another authority.

While rationality is our basis for all conversation, there are some things, spirituality being one, which we cannot approach or treat fully in conversation, i.e. with rationality alone. As a result I find my approach to other’s beliefs, while not necessarily tolerant are less judgmental, less arrogant. I still believe there is objective truth, and I believe I have uncovered some of it, as I expect most people do. If you are interested in Christianity and/or the Bible, I came across this verse, which stimulated my thought process.

I Corinthians 1: 20-25

“ 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.”