Thoughts:

Suppose that spirit is a potential state of matter, a sort of panpsychism where matter contains within itself the potential possibility to be alive, or spiritual. A subjective ontological state that can't be reduced to an objective state without loss of the causal nature we describe as life or spirit. Here spirit/life is a different level of description of a property of matter, as a realized state of matter.

I like Geertz's description of religion, it contains no mention of spirit:

"(1) a system of symbols (2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men (3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations

"And so it is that the Transcendent is clothed in the terms of being, with shape and form on things that have neither, and numerous symbols are employed to convey the varied attributes of what is an imageless and supra-rational simplicity."

The Divine Names, Pseudo-Dionysius

I myself find it rather bizarre when I come across someone who categorizes all religious folk as being sky daddy worshiping young Earth nutcases, but will, on the other hand, see no issue when a person might label themselves "spiritual, but not religious." What exactly does that labeling even mean, especially in the modern context? In my experience, "spiritual, but not religious" usually boils down to "I don't know, and I don't really care." — Heister Eggcart

I think 'Jehovah' is really pretty much the same meaning as 'Jupiter'. The name 'Jupiter' is derived from an Indo-european root, namely, 'Dyaus-Pitar' - which means 'Sky Father'. And I think the idea of a 'Sky Father' is an archetypal image, which harmonises very well with (for example) the Lord's Prayer (our father in Heaven), and ancient ideas of the Heavens being in the 'super-lunerary' sphere (before science discovered its physical nature.)

The name of Jehovah is a Anglicisation of 'Yaweh'. And Yahweh, in turn, is derived from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, comprising four consonants.

The tetragrammaton (/ˌtɛtrəˈɡræmətɒn/; from Greek Τετραγράμματον, meaning "[consisting of] four letters")[1][2] is the four Hebrew letters יהוה‎, commonly transliterated into Latin letters as YHWH. It is one of the names of God used in the Hebrew Bible.[3][4][5] The name may be derived from a verb that means "to be", "to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass".[1]

Wikipedia

The esoteric significance of this word-form is that it cannot be pronounced.

The Vatican issued a statement on the significance of this fact in the not too distant past:

“As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, (the name) was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: `Adonai,’ which means `Lord,'” the Congregation said.

That practice continued with Christianity, the letter explained, recalling the “church’s tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred Tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.”

So the point of this is that the original intent of the tetragrammaton was to convey the unsayable (hence unthinkable) nature of God. But through cultural evolution this name has become identified with the Sky Father archetype.

There's nothing intrinsically the matter with that. People relate to religious ideas on a lot of levels, and not many of them are monks or mystics. The problem is, I think, in modern post-industrial culture, many of the myths and archetypes which traditional religion appeals to are no longer intelligible to the 'metropolitan intelligentsia'.That is what leads to the widespread dismissal and ridicule of traditional religion. It is more like a kind of cultural/cognitive dissonance. But religious themes, ideas and motifs turn up in popular culture all the time - look at Star Wars. It's only that, being presented in terms of space travel, it is something that today's urban masses can relate to. That's the way archetypes operate. (This is also related to the fact that George Lucas leaned very heavily on Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces for the original Star Wars story.)

"Spiritual but not religious" is one of those almost meaningless phrases lots of millennials like to use to describe themselves, which basically means that they don't formally belong to any religious tradition, owing to a distrust of authority and institutions, but still maintain certain vague beliefs about the transcendent while expropriating various practices historically associated with a religious tradition. I would say it's related to Ietsism and moralistic therapeutic deism.

The issue for a lot of people, like myself, is that we cannot accept the proscribed dogmas. I was raised Anglican, and I think still I have a lot of Anglican 'memes'. But I can't recite the Nicene Creed in good faith, because I don't believe in some of its key phrases. I also would not take the Eucharist. I also don't believe that any single religion has a monopoly on truth. My beliefs are syncretic - I don't see any choice, in a global and pluralistic culture such as the one we live in. So I have no hesitation in describing myself as spiritual but not religious, and I find it quite meaningful.

Religion as an institution or force of influence, power, and authority is what people mean, I think also, when they say they aren't "religious". Religions possess bar none the most significant things you need to know about how to get by, but as institutions, the stewards of that info throughout history have acquired prestige along with the message, and find themselves in positions of influence and opportunity.

No one is good. Growl growl.

So I have no hesitation in describing myself as spiritual but not religious — Wayfarer

But you're not being quite honest here, for you have said on numerous occasions that you identify with a particular Japanese school of Buddhism. The "spiritual but not religious" people don't do "organized religion," but you're clearly an adherent of an organized religion. Feel free to correct me.

but I also don't believe that any single religion has a monopoly on the truth — Wayfarer

That isn't the issue. One could believe this and yet still be part of a particular religion, as you do in fact.

My beliefs are syncretic - I don't see any choice, in a global and pluralistic culture such as the one we live in — Wayfarer

So you're a relativist? Why would you let contingent cultural prejudices determine what's true for you? Just because we know more about different religions than in the past doesn't mean they all have to be transmogrified into one giant universalist system. Nor is it impolite to suggest that only one religion is true, its similarities with other religions notwithstanding. Ironically, universalism amounts to a religion for one person, the person doing the transmogrifying, in that he is not limited by any particular scriptural canon or doctrinal authority when choosing what beliefs and practices to accept and embody. But this is just narcissism pretending to be religion, which fails to take seriously the robust and mutually exclusive truth claims of different religions. I simply don't understand the paternalistic-sounding desire to "unite" the world religions based on shared characteristics.

I suppose you might be proof of Ronald Knox's quip that the study of comparative religions is the best way to become comparatively religious. I'm guilty of this as well, but I have increasingly found that the Burger King "have it your way" approach to religion is malignantly useless. It leaves one just as isolated and crestfallen as if one had done nothing at all. This is true of me at least.

Not generally a fan of College Humor, but this is on the money.

Words are labels describing names, actions, concepts, etc. Each word creates a different image in each of our minds, according to our accumulated experiences of life. Within a culture the differences are small.

The word spirituality has different meanings for each of us. Spirit by definition is the essence of us. This spirit is not perceptible by senses, it can only be perceived by our mind proportionally to our self awareness. Therefore, staunch followers of doctrines of religions attribute magical properties to it, associating it with blind obedience, discarding logic.

Everything in this universe has a reason, and it becomes cause of something. To me logic permeates all. To me spirituality is logical, only of a very high tier. In this sense I believe in spirituality. It tends to save me from the pitfalls of life. But I abhor the word spirituality in the popular sense.

Why bicker about a label? let us face it; the goal of life is happiness. Let us use logic, to climb up the pyramid step by step. As I increase my self awareness, I climb further steps. I don't know, if there is an end to the journey, and if there is, I don't know that I will ever reach the pick. But I don't care. The additional fruit each step up brings me is very sweet.

I myself find it rather bizarre when I come across someone who categorizes all religious folk as being sky daddy worshiping young Earth nutcases, but will, on the other hand, see no issue when a person might label themselves "spiritual, but not religious." — Heister Eggcart

I think that in general the people who do that categorisation you describe are not going to sneer any less at self-described SBNRs. That is my experience at least.

There are plenty of people that reject the dogmas of the institutional religions, but still are spiritual in temperament and practice. I think I fit into that category. I would not describe myself as SBNR because I would say I am religious but do not accept the dogmas of any institutional religion. I think we recently agreed to disagree because for you 'religion' means organised religion, whereas for me it doesn't (unless that was somebody else in which case I apologise for misidentifying you).

In talking to somebody for whom 'religious' means affiliated with a particular religious institution I would have to say I am SBNR in order to avoid misunderstanding.

But I would not suggest that all people affiliated with mainstream religions are skydaddy-worshipping simpletons. I only did that in my radical atheist phase, which was several years ago. Now I'm not really a radical anything, except greeny.

But you're not being quite honest here, for you have said on numerous occasions that you identify with a particular Japanese school of Buddhism. The "spiritual but not religious" people don't do "organized religion," but you're clearly an adherent of an organized religion. Feel free to correct me. — Thorongil

I identify with it, but I don't attend it. I conduct a solitary, self-maintained meditation practice which is guided by those principles. If I lived in San Fransisco, I think I would probably attend the SFZC. But, I realised when I started to practice meditation, it's religious in the sense that you have to adopt an attitude of unconditional commitment to it - you 'sit with no idea of gaining something' was the way it was described to me. So if you're engaged in that kind of training, then it's 'religous' in that sense.

But the difference between the Buddhist and Christian view is that the foundation of the path is not adherence to belief. You're trained to understand the dynamics of how suffering is caused by unskillful cognition and action. That discipline entails living by principles and standards, but it's different to the Nicene Creed.

(It's interesting that the hallmark of Christian faith is 'orthodoxy' meaning right belief or right worship, whereas the first step of the Buddhist path is 'samma ditthi', 'right understanding' or 'right view'. And actually it amounts to a subtly but genuinely different understanding of what 'religion' means.)

but I also don't believe that any single religion has a monopoly on the truth
— Wayfarer

That isn't the issue. — Thorongil

It certainly is. A Christian is obliged to affirm that theirs is 'the way, the truth and the light'. There are inter-faith initiatives within Christianity, but the bottom line is there is only one way, as far as the Christian church is concerned. There are Buddhists (and Hindus and Muslims) that are like that, also, but I don't think it's the way Buddhists ought to see it.

And furthermore, I honestly believe that insofar as I am able to live the Buddhist path, I don't see a contradiction between it and the spiritual principles espoused by Christianity. The bodhisattva ethos is, I think, identical in essence to the Christian path, even despite the considerable differences in the framework of belief sorrounding it. Accordingly I feel my comprehension of Christian principles has been enhanced through Buddhist practice. (I've noticed a book called Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian, Paul F. Knitter, although I haven't felt impelled to buy it.)

But this is just narcissism pretending to be religion, which fails to take seriously the robust and mutually exclusive truth claims of different religions — Thorongil

And I think that is patronising in the extreme.

I simply don't understand the paternalistic-sounding desire to "unite" the world religions based on shared characteristics. — Thorongil

Most of my extended family are Christians, as is my wife. So, do you suggest I ought to cut off contact with them? Not go to their funerals? You think we have nothing in common, because of what we believe? You think that a person who practices Buddhism should simply regard Christians as delusional? Would that be preferable in your opinion?

So you're a relativist? — Thorongil

No, definitely not. But I think that the higher truth which is the subject matter of all the religions, is not something easily understood or known. It is real, but it's not a matter for the natural sciences. That is why I regard comparative religion and the 'perennialist' understanding as one way to approach these difficult questions. It doesn't mean I think that all religions are the same, but there's also a sense in which they're all part of a larger picture. I would like to see them as complementing each other, rather than (as atheists invariably argue) all 'cancelling each other out'.

I identify with it, but I don't attend it. I conduct a solitary, self-maintained meditation practice which is guided by those principles. If I lived in San Fransisco, I think I would probably attend the SFZC. But, I realised when I started to practice meditation, it's religious in the sense that you have to adopt an attitude of unconditional commitment to it - you 'sit with no idea of gaining something' was the way it was described to me. So if you're engaged in that kind of training, then it's 'religous' in that sense. — Wayfarer

Alright, fair enough. But now I would question your labeling yourself a Buddhist. You could just be a meditator, which is fine, but that's not what makes one a Buddhist.

That entails living by principles and standards, but it's nothing like the Nicene Creed. — Wayfarer

Yeah, maybe, but there are certain bedrock principles you have to believe in order to be a Buddhist.

So, do you suggest I ought to cut off contact with them? Not go to their funerals? You think we have nothing in common, becuase of what we believe? You think that a person who practices Buddhism should simply regard Christians as delusional? Would that be preferable in your opinion? — Wayfarer

No to all of that, except the second to last question. You can go to a Christian funeral or marry a person of another religion or recognize that religions have some things in common all without thinking that every religion teaches one and the same truth in different ways or is fully in possession of the truth. As for the second to last question, the Buddhist would indeed regard the Christian as delusional to the extent that certain beliefs found in Christianity but not in Buddhism are hindrances to realizing nibbana.

But now I would question your labeling yourself a Buddhist. — Thorongil

As do I! But it's like a 'working title'. Recall 'the simile of the raft' - that the Buddha's teaching is like a raft, put together out of 'grass, twigs, branches and leaves' (sic), for the purpose of 'conveying one across the river' - but then left behind. So the 'raft' itself ought not to be carried around (i.e. idolised or worshipped). One consequence of that, is that there are no 'real Buddhists', because once it's done its job, it's left behind. It's a little like Wittgenstein's ladder.

But while you're climbing the ladder, or crossing the river (to mix metaphors), then you have to climb, or paddle, as the case may be. That's what 'being Buddhist' is about.

the Buddhist would indeed regard the Christian as delusional to the extent that certain beliefs found in Christianity but not in Buddhism are hindrances to realizing nibbana. — Thorongil

Well, it depends. I'm not personally atheist, but I recognise that 'belief in God' is certainly not part of Buddhism. But there are ways of interpreting it that lessen the apparent disparity.

When meditation and training lead to the natural arising of deep gratitude, words such as Cosmic Buddha, Lord of the House, or God just naturally arise too. The deepest respect for the Truth is true reverence and devotion. This too has expression in Buddhism and was a favorite topic of D. T. Suzuki. Of the Cosmic Buddha, or Dharmakaya, he wrote:

'The Dharmakaya is a soul, a willing and knowing being, one that is will and intelligence, thought and action. It is not an abstract metaphysical principle like Suchness, but it is a living spirit that manifests in nature as well as in thought. Buddhists ascribe to the Dharmakaya innumerable merits and virtues and an absolute perfect intelligence, and make it an inexhaustible fountainhead of love and compassion.'

(Outlines of Mahāyāna Buddhism, New York, McMillan, 1972, pg. 59)

Kyogen Carlson, Cosmic Buddha

(Mind you, I probably wouldn't post that quotation at DharmaWheel. ;-) )

If you step back a bit, religion has three rather separate components: personal belief, doctrine, and ritual. Most people have problems with orthodox doctrines, and quite a few have little tolerance for ritual in the haste of the modern world. So 'spirituality' became a way to legitimize personal beliefs without the other two components.