To have a spiritual life or not? That's not the question. It’s how
you populate or furnish it. Religious people cotton to the notion of a master
plan. Everything is as it’s supposed to be. They believe in an anthropomorphic
notion of God as the ultimate telephone operator in the sky accommodating
individual wants and needs. However this is only one of a number of
possibilities. There are lots of words
with the root “theo”--“theodicy,” “theocracy,” “theology." And
the concept of belief might afford little more than more than the occasion to
commune with others and experience the solace of awe in the presence of the
inexplicable—especially at times of tragic loss. Many people confuse religion
and spiritual. There’s an old expression “religion is for those who want to go
to heaven and spirituality is for those who have been to hell.” However having a spiritual
life of some sort, which means finding meaning in something, is not really debatable. It's almost qualifies as a
biological need. Harry Harlow did a famous series of experiments about attachment with Rhesus monkeys. The mental health and hence survival chances of those animals who were deprived of maternal love were less than those who received maternal love. The same can be said of the spiritual
condition of human beings who have to live on bread alone. Man is not only a
social animal but a spiritual animal and he is diminished when deprived of some
overarching sense of purpose or belief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.