essay about spirituality begins when religion ends

What Are Religion and Spirituality? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Spirituality, questioning, works cited.

Human beings are unique creatures characterized by the constant thirst for cognition, self-investigation, and unique beliefs that are an integral part of our mentality. The existence of these phenomena is the main feature that differs from the rest of animals and contributes to the further rise of human society and the appearance of numerous questions related to the nature of our conscience, mind, and soul. Therefore, the issue of the soul is closely connected to such phenomena as religion and spirituality. They are interrelated, but could also go alone at the same time. Very often a person might consider himself/herself to be spiritual but not religious and on the contrary. Moreover, these definitions might be confused. That is why improved comprehending of these issues is vital.

As for religion, it comes from the Latin word religio which means to tie together (Finucane 19). The given definition shows the essence of this unique phenomenon perfectly as people who belong to the same religion are tied together by the common beliefs. values, approaches, etc. From this perspective, religion could be defined as a set of ideas and concepts followed by a group of people who take these as the main guide. However, in a broader meaning of this very term, family, work, or occupation could also be considered religion (Finucane 20). A person might appreciate family values and consider them to be the most important thing in his/her life.

Besides, spirituality is different. All human beings are spiritual (Finucane 21). It means that they have a complex inner organization and can sympathize, feel some sophisticated feelings, emotions, etc. However, spirituality might be expressed through the idea of belonging to something more. An individual might also have an idea about powers that impact our lives and contribute to the appearance of one or another phenomenon. It could also be referred to as spirituality (Mueller et al. 26). At the same time, it is closely connected to religion which is often considered a form of spirituality as both these notions tie us together and contribute to the appearance of common inclinations, values, or desires.

Furthermore, spirituality and religion are the main cognition tools that a person uses to investigate the universe and find answers to the most important questions. However, there is a tendency to associate religion and faith, doubting the allowability of questioning as if a person believes, he/she should have no doubts. The given idea contradicts human nature. Curiosity and thirst for knowledge are its basic elements that contribute to the evolution of our society. That is why only asking questions an individual can understand the most important aspects of things, including religion and spirituality. In other words, the way to God or improved comprehending of spirituality should consist of numerous questions, and when a person can find answers, he/she will also be able to understand the real nature of religion or spirituality.

Altogether, religion and spirituality often come together, comprising an essential part of any individual. However, they should not be confused. Religion is a set of beliefs and values appreciated by a person and taken as the most significant thing when spirituality creates the basis for the appearance of these feelings and contributes to the development of sophisticated ideas, emotions, and feelings. However, both these unique phenomena help individuals to cognize the world and find answers to the most important questions.

Finucane, Dan. “Introduction. Religion, Spirituality, and the Question of God.” Theological Foundations Concepts and Methods for Understanding Christian Faith , edited by John Mueller, Anselm Academic, 2007, pp. 17-26.

Mueller, John et. al. Theological Foundations . Saint Marys Press, 2007.

• Spirituality in the Workplace Environment
• Spirituality Application in Family Therapy
• Spirituality in Toyota Corporation
• Religion as a Group Phenomenon and Its Levels
• Christian Doctrine of Sin and Women's Leadership
• "The Reverend and Me" by Robert Wineburg
• Church Discipline and Restoration
• Perception of Women in the Old Testament
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, August 28). What Are Religion and Spirituality? https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-are-religion-and-spirituality/

"What Are Religion and Spirituality?" IvyPanda , 28 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/what-are-religion-and-spirituality/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'What Are Religion and Spirituality'. 28 August.

IvyPanda . 2020. "What Are Religion and Spirituality?" August 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-are-religion-and-spirituality/.

1. IvyPanda . "What Are Religion and Spirituality?" August 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-are-religion-and-spirituality/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "What Are Religion and Spirituality?" August 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-are-religion-and-spirituality/.

Where Religion Ends Spirituality Begins

Where Religion Ends, Spirituality Begins

Exploring the intersection of religion and spirituality, my #1 recommendation: how to attract health and abundance into your life. (click here).

The human experience is a complex tapestry, woven with threads of belief, introspection, and the search for meaning. At the heart of this journey lies the interplay between religion and spirituality, two distinct yet interrelated concepts that have captivated and divided humanity for centuries.

Defining the Divide: Religion vs. Spirituality

Religion, as commonly understood, is often associated with organized systems of belief, rituals, and practices that are typically institutionalized and passed down through generations. It provides a structured framework for understanding the divine, the afterlife, and the moral principles that guide one's life. Religion, in its various forms, offers a sense of community, tradition, and a shared experience of the sacred.

On the other hand, spirituality is a more personal and individualistic pursuit. It is the exploration of one's inner self, the search for a deeper connection with the divine, the universe, or a higher power. Spirituality is not bound by the constraints of organized religion; it is a journey of self-discovery, often characterized by a sense of interconnectedness, transcendence, and a pursuit of personal growth and enlightenment.

The Blurring of Boundaries

In the modern world, the lines between religion and spirituality have become increasingly blurred. Many individuals find themselves drawn to a more eclectic and personalized approach to their beliefs, drawing inspiration from various religious and spiritual traditions. They may identify as spiritual but not religious, or they may seek to integrate elements of different belief systems into their own unique spiritual practice.

This blending of the sacred and the personal has given rise to a new generation of seekers, who are more concerned with finding their own path to fulfillment and meaning than adhering to rigid dogmas or institutional structures. They are exploring alternative forms of spiritual expression, such as meditation, mindfulness, and holistic practices, often in conjunction with or as a complement to their religious affiliations.

The Evolving Landscape of Spirituality

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected and diverse, the landscape of spirituality is constantly evolving. The rise of globalization and the exposure to a wide array of belief systems have encouraged a more inclusive and pluralistic approach to spiritual and religious exploration.

Many individuals are now embracing a syncretic approach, blending elements from different traditions to create a personalized spiritual framework that resonates with their unique experiences and worldviews. This openness to diverse spiritual perspectives has led to a greater appreciation for the common threads that unite various belief systems, such as the quest for inner peace, the pursuit of transcendence, and the desire for a deeper connection with the divine or the natural world.

The Transformative Power of Spiritual Exploration

Ultimately, the journey from religion to spirituality is a deeply personal and transformative experience. By stepping beyond the confines of organized belief systems, individuals are able to engage in a more introspective and holistic exploration of their own inner landscapes. This process can lead to a heightened sense of self-awareness, a deeper understanding of the human condition, and a greater appreciation for the interconnectedness of all things.

As one delves into the realm of spirituality, the potential for personal growth, healing, and the expansion of consciousness becomes increasingly palpable. It is a journey of self-discovery, where the boundaries between the physical and the metaphysical, the material and the divine, are transcended, and a new, more expansive perspective on the nature of existence emerges.

: The Ongoing Dialogue

The relationship between religion and spirituality is a complex and ever-evolving dialogue, one that reflects the diverse and dynamic nature of the human experience. As individuals continue to navigate this terrain, they may find that the true essence of their spiritual journey lies not in the rigid adherence to a particular belief system, but in the willingness to explore, to question, and to embrace the boundless possibilities that lie within the human spirit.

Transcending Dogma: The Journey to Spiritual Awakening

Unveiling the essence: embracing spiritual transcendence.

In the realm of human experience, the dichotomy between religion and spirituality has been a subject of deep contemplation and debate. While religion often encompasses a structured set of beliefs, practices, and rituals, spirituality transcends the confines of dogma, inviting us to embark on a profound journey of self-discovery and connection with the divine.

Transcending Dogmatic Limitations

As individuals, we often find ourselves compelled to seek meaning, purpose, and a deeper understanding of our existence. Religion, with its well-defined systems and hierarchical structures, can provide a sense of community, moral guidance, and a framework for understanding the divine. However, for some, the rigidity of religious dogma can become a hindrance to their spiritual growth, limiting their ability to explore the boundless nature of the human experience.

Awakening the Spiritual Self

The journey to spiritual awakening begins with the recognition that the essence of our being extends far beyond the confines of organized religion. It is a path of self-exploration, where we shed the layers of preconceived notions and open ourselves to the vastness of the inner and outer realms. This process of transcendence allows us to connect with the universal energy that permeates all existence, fostering a profound sense of interconnectedness and a deeper understanding of our place in the cosmic tapestry.

Embracing the Mystical Dimension

As we venture beyond the boundaries of religion, we encounter the mystical dimension of spirituality. This realm encompasses the exploration of altered states of consciousness, the tapping into intuitive abilities, and the cultivation of a heightened awareness of the divine presence within and around us. Through practices such as meditation, mindfulness, and contemplation, we can access the subtle energies that shape our experience and unlock the secrets of our true nature.

The Dance of Duality

Spiritual awakening is not a linear process; it is a constant dance between the known and the unknown, the tangible and the intangible. By embracing the inherent duality of our existence, we can navigate the tensions between the rational and the mystical, the material and the ethereal, and ultimately find a harmonious balance that nourishes our spiritual growth.

Cultivating a Holistic Worldview

As we transcend the boundaries of dogma, we begin to cultivate a holistic worldview that acknowledges the interconnectedness of all things. This perspective allows us to see the world through a lens of compassion, understanding, and reverence for the sacredness of life. By letting go of rigid beliefs and preconceptions, we can embrace the fluid nature of existence, finding beauty and wisdom in the ever-changing tapestry of the universe.

The Path of Self-Realization

The journey to spiritual awakening is a deeply personal one, and each individual's path is unique. By honoring our own intuition, listening to the whispers of our soul, and cultivating a deep sense of self-awareness, we can uncover the hidden layers of our being and embark on a transformative process of self-realization. This journey may be marked by moments of profound insight, spiritual epiphanies, and a growing sense of alignment with the divine.

Embracing the Unknown

Ultimately, the realm of spirituality is vast and enigmatic, offering endless opportunities for exploration and discovery. By embracing the unknown, we can surrender to the mystery of existence and allow ourselves to be guided by the wisdom that transcends the boundaries of our rational understanding. In doing so, we open ourselves to the possibility of profound transformation, a renewed sense of purpose, and a deeper connection to the source of all life.

Navigating the Divide: Exploring the Nuances of Faith and Spirituality

Discovering the intersection of faith and spirituality.

In the intricate tapestry of human experience, the realms of faith and spirituality have long been intertwined, yet distinctly different. While faith often refers to a specific belief system or religious doctrine, spirituality encompasses a more personal and subjective exploration of the divine, the sacred, and the underlying essence of existence. As individuals navigate this complex landscape, understanding the nuances between these two profound concepts can be a transformative journey.

Defining the Boundaries: Faith vs. Spirituality

At the heart of the matter lies the fundamental distinction between faith and spirituality. Faith typically involves a set of beliefs, practices, and moral codes that are often codified within the framework of a particular religion. It provides a structured and communal approach to the divine, offering a sense of belonging and a roadmap for navigating life's challenges. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a more individualized and experiential pursuit, wherein one seeks to connect with the sacred on a deeper, more personal level.

The Nuances of Spiritual Exploration

Spiritual exploration often transcends the boundaries of organized religion, allowing individuals to embrace a more holistic and inclusive understanding of the divine. This may involve practices such as meditation, mindfulness, contemplation, or a deep connection with nature – all of which aim to cultivate a sense of inner peace, self-awareness, and a profound understanding of the interconnectedness of all things. Whereas faith may provide a sense of certainty and belonging, spirituality encourages a journey of self-discovery, questioning, and personal growth.

The Intersection of Faith and Spirituality

While faith and spirituality may seem at odds, they can, in fact, coexist and even complement one another. Many individuals find that their religious beliefs provide a framework for their spiritual exploration, grounding their experiences in the context of a larger faith tradition. Conversely, a purely spiritual approach may lead some seekers to revisit or reinterpret the tenets of their faith, finding new meaning and depth in the familiar.

The Challenges of Navigating the Divide

Navigating the divide between faith and spirituality can be a complex and, at times, daunting endeavor. Societal and cultural norms may pressure individuals to conform to a particular belief system, making it challenging to explore the nuances of their own spiritual journey. Additionally, the perceived conflict between the structure of faith and the fluidity of spirituality can create internal tensions, leading to a sense of dissonance or even a rejection of both.

Embracing the Holistic Approach

The key to reconciling the apparent divide between faith and spirituality lies in adopting a holistic approach that celebrates the richness and diversity of human spiritual experience. By acknowledging the unique path of each individual, we can create a more inclusive and accepting dialogue that encompasses the full spectrum of belief systems and spiritual practices. This openness to the sacred in all its manifestations can lead to a deeper understanding of the human condition and a greater appreciation for the profound mystery that lies at the heart of existence.

As we navigate the complex interplay between faith and spirituality, it becomes clear that the true power lies in embracing the nuances and finding the common ground that unites us all in our search for meaning, purpose, and connection with the divine. By cultivating an open and curious mindset, we can embark on a transformative journey that transcends the boundaries of belief and opens us up to the limitless possibilities of the human spirit.

Embracing the Unknown: The Transformative Power of Spiritual Exploration

The intersection of religion and spirituality.

In a world where the boundaries between religion and spirituality can often seem blurred, it's important to understand the nuances that distinguish these two profound human experiences. While religion typically involves adherence to a specific set of beliefs, rituals, and practices within an organized framework, spirituality is a more personal and introspective journey of self-discovery and connection to the divine or the greater universe.

Uncovering the Essence of Spirituality

Spirituality is the exploration of the inner realms of the human experience, where individuals seek to connect with something greater than themselves. This can manifest in various ways, from meditation and contemplation to the pursuit of mystical experiences and a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Spirituality is often characterized by a sense of awe, wonder, and a desire to transcend the limitations of the physical world.

Expanding Beyond Religious Boundaries

While many religions provide a structured path for spiritual growth, some individuals find that their spiritual journey transcends the confines of organized religion. They may resonate with the teachings and practices of multiple faiths or develop their own unique spiritual framework that aligns with their personal beliefs and experiences. This exploration of the unknown and the embrace of the mysterious can be a powerful catalyst for transformation and self-discovery.

When individuals embark on a spiritual journey, they often encounter profound shifts in their perspectives, values, and lived experiences. The act of questioning, exploring, and embracing the unknown can challenge long-held beliefs, open up new avenues of understanding, and facilitate personal growth. This transformative power of spiritual exploration can lead to a greater sense of inner peace, purpose, and connection with something larger than the individual self.

Navigating the Challenges of Spiritual Awakening

The process of spiritual awakening, however, is not without its challenges. Individuals may encounter resistance from their social or cultural environments, as well as inner doubts and fears that arise as they confront the unknown. It is essential to approach this journey with compassion, patience, and a willingness to embrace the uncertainty and vulnerability that often accompany spiritual transformation.

Integrating Spirituality into Daily Life

Ultimately, the intersection of religion and spirituality is a deeply personal and unique experience for each individual. Whether one finds fulfillment within the structure of a religious tradition or through the more fluid exploration of spiritual practices, the key is to integrate these insights and experiences into one's daily life. This can involve cultivating mindfulness, engaging in contemplative practices, and striving to live in alignment with one's values and higher purpose.

In a world that often prioritizes tangible, measurable results, the embrace of the unknown and the mysterious can be a radical and transformative act. By cultivating a openness to the spiritual dimension of human existence, individuals can unlock new realms of understanding, growth, and connection that transcend the boundaries of the material world. This journey of spiritual exploration, with all its challenges and transformations, can ultimately lead to a deeper sense of purpose, meaning, and wholeness.

Redefining Purpose: Discovering Meaning Beyond Organized Religion

Transcending the boundaries of organized religion.

In a world increasingly defined by uncertainty and fragmentation, many individuals find themselves grappling with the search for purpose and meaning. While organized religion has historically been a source of guidance and community for many, a growing number of people are seeking to redefine their spiritual journey, venturing beyond the confines of traditional religious structures.

Embracing the Spiritual Realm

As society evolves, the distinction between religion and spirituality has become increasingly blurred. Whereas religion often emphasizes adherence to specific beliefs, rituals, and dogmas, spirituality is a more personal and multifaceted exploration of the human experience. This shift has opened up a realm of possibilities for those seeking a deeper connection with the divine, the self, and the world around them.

Personalized Spiritual Paths

One of the hallmarks of this spiritual renaissance is the embrace of personalized spiritual paths. Rather than blindly following the dictates of a particular religious institution, individuals are taking a more active role in curating their own spiritual practices and beliefs. This may involve drawing from a variety of traditions, incorporating elements of meditation, mindfulness, and contemplative practices, or even cultivating a deeply personal relationship with the divine.

The Search for Meaning and Purpose

At the heart of this spiritual exploration lies the universal human desire to find meaning and purpose in life. As traditional religious institutions struggle to resonate with the diverse needs and experiences of modern society, many are turning inward, searching for a deeper sense of fulfillment and connection that transcends the boundaries of organized religion.

This journey of spiritual discovery often involves a willingness to embrace the unknown and the mysteries of the universe. Rather than clinging to rigid dogmas or fixed belief systems, those on the path of spiritual enlightenment are learning to navigate the complexities of the human experience with a spirit of curiosity and open-mindedness.

Connecting with the Divine

For many, the search for meaning and purpose ultimately leads to a deeper connection with the divine, whether that be conceived as a higher power, a universal energy, or a deeper essence within the self. This connection can manifest in a variety of ways, from contemplative practices to mystical experiences, all of which serve to expand one's understanding of the nature of consciousness and the human experience.

Redefining Community

As individuals embark on their personal spiritual journeys, they are also redefining the nature of community and belonging. Rather than relying solely on traditional religious institutions, many are finding solace and support in diverse spiritual communities, where like-minded individuals can share their experiences, explore new perspectives, and engage in collective practices.

The shift from organized religion to a more personalized and dynamic spiritual landscape is a testament to the human spirit's resilience and adaptability. By embracing the freedom to explore and define their own spiritual paths, individuals are discovering a deeper sense of purpose, connection, and fulfillment, ultimately redefining the boundaries of what it means to live a meaningful life.

As we have explored, the line between religion and spirituality is often blurred, yet the distinction is crucial. While religion provides a structured framework for belief and practice, spirituality transcends the confines of dogma, inviting us to embark on a personal journey of self-discovery and connection with the divine. The transition from religion to spirituality is a profound and transformative experience, one that challenges us to confront our preconceptions and embrace the unknown.

At the core of this transition lies the recognition that spirituality is not merely a set of beliefs or rituals, but a deeply personal and introspective exploration of the human condition. It is a realm where we can shed the shackles of societal expectations and conventional wisdom, and instead, delve into the depths of our own consciousness, seeking to uncover the profound truths that lie within.

This journey of spiritual awakening is not without its challenges, as navigating the nuances of faith and spirituality can be a complex and often daunting task. Yet, it is precisely in this exploration of the unknown that we find the potential for profound personal growth and transformation. By embracing the mysteries of the spiritual realm, we open ourselves up to a world of infinite possibility, where the boundaries of our understanding are constantly expanding.

Redefining our purpose and finding meaning beyond the confines of organized religion is a crucial aspect of this spiritual journey. As we transcend the dogmas and rigid structures of traditional belief systems, we are empowered to cultivate a deeper sense of inner purpose and connection with the divine. This shift in perspective can lead to a profound realization that our true purpose lies not in the pursuit of external validation or material wealth, but in the pursuit of personal growth, self-awareness, and a profound sense of connection with the world around us.

In this era of increasing individualism and fragmentation, the need for a shared understanding of the spiritual realm has never been more pressing. As we navigate the complexities of modern life, the longing for a deeper sense of meaning and purpose has become a universal human experience. It is in this context that the exploration of spirituality beyond the confines of religion becomes particularly vital, as it offers a pathway to a more holistic and fulfilling existence.

Ultimately, the journey from religion to spirituality is a deeply personal and transformative process, one that challenges us to confront our own preconceptions, embrace the unknown, and cultivate a deeper connection with the divine. By embracing this journey, we open ourselves up to a world of endless possibilities, where the boundaries of our understanding are constantly expanding, and the true essence of our humanity is revealed in all its magnificent complexity.

Abby Addison

Related articles.

Does Spirituality Have A God

What Does The Number 6 Mean In Spirituality

Spiritual But Not Religious Picture

How To Identify Your Spiritual Gifts Pdf

• Spirituality
• Dream Interpretation
• Signs & Symbols
• Advertise With Us

Understanding and following Spirituality via Buddhism

Image source

Spirituality is a widely misunderstood term in common perception. People often attribute spirituality in terms of religion and religious practices. Many times, spiritual progress is assessed on a scale that is based on rituals, routine practices, and the search for an unknown divine being. The divine wisdom of Shri Ram Chandra, the founder of Raja yoga is quite remarkable when he says that ‘Spirituality begins when religion ends’. These words are significant in the essential philosophy of Buddhism.

Siddhartha Gautama- the first Buddha developed a path of self-inquiry and not a religion based on dogmas. At a time when the whole world was indulged in outward rituals, he devised meditation or ‘Dhyana’ as the door to knowing thyself. In the history of spirituality, this became a watershed movement permeating all the existing wisdom ever known to man.

 Being Spiritual

The practice of spirituality in any religion requires deep faith and persistence. Every tradition has its own set of practices both ritualistic and non-ritualistic, helping the follower to permeate the ordinary experience. Following these practices meticulously with an open mind exposes the individual to spiritual experiences that are beyond our imagination. In Buddhism, this is a mix of both mind and body working together in tandem achieving a balance. But there is no one-stop- solution for attaining this psychomotor balance. Each individual has to explore and seek this experience through an inward journey.

Roots of Buddhist Spirituality

The roots of Buddhist spirituality evolves from the personal experience of Siddhartha Gautama, a prince with all his luxuries haunted by the hollowness of seeing worldly sufferings. This led him to the path of self-discovery, leaving behind all his material possessions and relationships. Owing to this Buddhist spirituality often directs towards understanding the basic existential paradoxes. The religious belief until that time emphasized too much on repentance based on rituals prescribed by high priests. It divided the entire society based on caste often marginalizing the poor ones. Buddha understood that the whole point of life itself is to escape the continuous cycle of birth and death that causes suffering.

Buddhism is also different from other religions primarily because it doesn’t believe in a particular entity/ power as a god. It doesn’t belong to the category of revealed religions with a specific messenger of God. The spiritual traditions in Buddhism put the onus on an individual to seek the ultimate truth by proper actions and not worship. It heavily relies on practice and experimentation for attaining the truth and breaking the karmic bondage. He urged his followers to experiment by saying “ Believe nothing until you have experienced it and found it to be true. Accept my words only after you have examined them for yourselves- do not accept them simply because of the reverence you have for me ”.

It is a constant journey of trial and error and an intense urge to reach the truth. Such a journey requires discipline and the foremost step for achieving this is by becoming aware. Awareness about the surroundings and the individual (self) as a part of the bigger system. This awareness will normally raise a lot of questions within the individual- a kind of self-talk. The very self-talk is the reason behind the formulation ‘ 4 Noble Truths’ in Buddhist spirituality.

1) Dukkha – The truth of suffering

2) Samudya – The cause of suffering

3) Nirodha -The cessation of suffering

4) Magga – The path to the cessation of suffering

The 4 th Noble truth paved the way for the eightfold path that Buddhism considers as the complete guide to living a fulfilled life. A life that is blissful, compassionate, and radiating with grace. The eightfold path can be seen as the practical application of the noble truths by which a person can escape the endless cycle of suffering. Collectively the eightfold path covers various aspects such as consciousness, knowledge, morality, and contemplation.

Attaining Buddha hood- Knowing Thyself

The great philosopher Osho said “Before Buddha, all religious quests were concerned with searching a God who was unknown and invisible. Aspects of spiritual growth such as liberation and ultimate truth were also to be searched outside an individual”. Buddha created a spiritual rebellion by asking people to search within themselves.

Buddhism as a philosophy believes that everyone is born with the potential to be an enlightened individual- becoming a Buddha. But this inherent capacity has to be nurtured and manifested through constant practice and detachment. Buddhist spirituality also considers the aspect of the impermanence of all creatures. According to this, everything in life is dependent, momentary, and relative. This implies that clinging to a thought process is not at all worth it. This negation of extreme beliefs can be understood from the aspect of embracing a middle path in life. The path that doesn’t get attached or detached too much to anything on this earth.

Our minds have an inherent tendency to wander through different thoughts all the time. The major process in attaining a middle path is to understand the mind and become its master. Every action is originated in the mind before we execute it. In this context, Buddha clarifies that “Mind is everything. What you think you become”. Even though Buddhism is an action-oriented (Karmic) practice, the initial emphasis is on understanding, focusing, and orienting ones’ mind on the right path. But remember that, the process is orienting your mind not controlling it. Usually, Buddhist monks follow a step-by-step routine process to attain this focus and the key to achieving this is becoming mindful.

Mindfulness is now a celebrated term in all meditative techniques. But this goes beyond the usual clichés and auto suggestions. Mindfulness is not a separate practice. It is a dedicated effort of becoming aware of every action we perform. The ability to become the doer and the observer all at the same time. It is not an easy practice at all. The moment a person decides to be mindful, the mind naturally starts to wander. Mindfulness can be achieved by following the Buddhist spiritual practices consistently. Different Buddhist schools of thought have their own methods for achieving this. Initially, it is advisable for an individual to seek the guidance of a spiritual master for understanding and following this path. The spiritual master through his/her experience can guide the seeker to the correct path and help in making constant progress towards the end goal.

Buddhism in Daily Life

Buddhism and its practices are not confined to a group of monks or celibates. The wisdom from Buddhist spirituality is open for all and any layperson can practice it for attaining spiritual progress. The basic practices of Buddhist spirituality are focused on enriching the mind and achieving a perfect balance with the body. Various practices for following Buddhist spirituality is given below,

1)Meditation: it covers a major aspect of Buddhist practices with a goal of achieving mindfulness and peace of mind for an individual. Different types of meditation techniques in Buddhism are breath meditation, mindfulness meditation, transcendental meditation, etc. Meditation doesn’t require any particular tools for it is completely a mind technique. A beginner can start practicing as little as 5-10 minutes of sitting still and gradually progress towards a deep meditative experience. Most of the meditative techniques are premised on observing the breath and gradually acknowledging its rhythm. Consistent practice of meditation calms the mind and helps achieve a balance necessary for spiritual attainment.

2) Mantra (Chanting): repetitive chanting of mantras or sacred verses from the Buddhist texts is also a common practice intended to focus and calm the mind. The repetitive action creates a vibration paving the way for the flow of divine energy throughout a person’s body. “ Om Mani Padme Hum ” is a famous Buddhist mantra that is often referred to as compassion mantra. Repeated chanting of this mantra is believed to develop intense compassion in the individual.

3) Offering: a spiritual person not only dwells in the mind practices but should support his fellow beings with necessary material support in times of despair. A person can dedicate weekends or free time for voluntary activity without expecting any monetary benefits. This can be teaching unprivileged kids, nursing senior citizens. Apart from their valuable time, a person may donate food, money, or other essentials to monks or spiritual practitioners.

4)Practicing Dharma: the practices for spiritual attainment should bear fruits in our daily actions. The practice of dharma or righteousness in our day-to-day life at the home, office, etc is very important while following this path. Showing empathy and compassion to all fellow beings will eventually elevate our spiritual experience. Refraining from unfair practices, controlling anger, and practicing frugality are all such practices that increase spiritual power in daily life.

5)Studying Sacred Texts: Buddhist texts are huge treasures of wisdom. Most of these original scriptures are in Pali and Sanskrit languages. A practitioner can start learning them by referring to commentaries on these scriptures written by famous Buddhist monks in English. It is also advisable to take part in regular sermons given by the monks either in person or through online media.

Buddhist spirituality is unique in its beliefs and practices as it puts the individual on the center stage of spirituality. Moksha or attainment of liberation is the ultimate responsibility of an individual and is not connected to any religious beliefs or priestly rituals.

Similarly, it doesn’t even project the idea of god but encourages and individual to attain self-awareness. This awareness will naturally blossom the divine energy in each individual and breaks the bondage of birth and suffering. It is a way of life that welcomes any person irrespective of their class, caste creed, and nationality to be a part of that journey.

About author

You might also like, did jesus die spiritually an in-depth discussion, how you can use the bible to grow your spiritual self, the role of religion in a relationship, all you need to know about biblical angels, recent posts.

• Spirituality What Is Ego Death? Understanding the Concept of Losing One’s Self
• Spirituality The Role Of Music In Spirituality
• Spirituality God Loves The Broken: How Does Spiritual Brokenness Bring Us Closer to God?
• Spirituality What is New Age Spirituality? (Explained)
• Spirituality How To Build Your Meditation Garden (An Easy Guide)

Popular Posts

• 1 Signs & Symbols What is The Spiritual Meaning of Your Left Ear Ringing? September 25, 2020
• 2 Signs & Symbols What is The Spiritual Meaning of Your Right Ear Ringing? October 17, 2020
• 3 Signs & Symbols What does it mean spiritually if your left ear is hot January 15, 2021
• 4 Life What happens after Kundalini Awakening November 9, 2020

Friday essay: what do the 5 great religions say about the existence of the soul?

Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Philip C. Almond does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

A recent survey found almost 70% of Australians believed in or were open to the existence of the soul — meaning they believe we are more than the stuff out of which our bodies are made.

The soul can be defined as the spiritual or non-material part of us that survives death.

Western pop culture is currently bewitched by what happens to us after death with TV shows such as The Good Place and Miracle Workers set largely in the afterlife. And the Disney film Soul depicts the soul of a jazz pianist separating from his earthly body to journey into the afterlife.

Read more: Disney Pixar's Soul: how the moviemakers took Plato's view of existence and added a modern twist

The five great world religions — Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism — all believe in some version of a “self”, variously named, which mostly survives death. But they imagine its origin, journey, and destination in some quite different and distinctive ways.

The origin of the soul – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

These three religions all believe there was a time when souls were not. That is to say, before God created the world, there was nothing at all.

Within Christianity, how the soul was united with its body was a matter of uncertainty. But all were agreed that the soul was present within the foetus, if not at the moment of conception, then within the first 90 days. When it comes to contemporary Christian debate about abortion, this moment is a crucial one. Most Christians today believe the soul enters the body at the time of conception.

Christianity adopted the Greek philosopher Plato’s view that we consist of a mortal body and an immortal soul . Death is thus the separation of the soul from the body.

According to Judaism, the soul was created by God and joined to an earthly body. But it did not develop a definitive theory on the timing or nature of this event (not least because the separation between body and soul was not an absolutely clear one). Modern Judaism remains uncertain on when, between birth and conception, a human being is fully present.

Similarly, in Islam, the soul was breathed into the foetus by God. As in Christianity, opinions vary on when this occurred, but the mainstream opinion has it that the soul enters the foetus around 120 days after conception.

For all three religions, souls will live forever.

The origin of the soul – Hinduism and Buddhism

Within Hinduism, there has been never been a time when souls did not exist. All of us have existed into the infinite past. Thus, we are all bound to Samsara – the infinite cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.

Our souls are continually reincarnated in different physical forms according to the law of karma — a cosmic law of moral debit and credit. Each moral deed, virtuous or otherwise, leaves its mark on the individual. At the time of death, the sum total of karma determines our status in the next life.

Like Hinduism, Buddhism accepts there was no time when we were not bound to the cycle of birth and rebirth. But unlike Hinduism, it does not believe there is an eternal, unchanging “soul” that transmigrates from one life to the next. There is nothing permanent in us, any more than there is any permanence in the world generally.

Nevertheless, Buddhists believe our consciousness is like a flame on the candle of our body. At the moment of death, we leave the body but this flame, particularly our flame of moral credit or debit, goes into a new body. In Buddhism, this “karmic flame of consciousness” plays the same role as the “soul” in other religions.

The destiny of the soul – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Within Christianity, it is believed the soul continues its existence immediately after death. Most believe it will do so consciously (rather than in a sleep-like state). At the point of death, God will determine the soul’s ultimate fate — eternal punishment or eternal happiness .

Still, by the end of the first millennium, there was a recognition that most of us had not been sufficiently good to merit immediate happiness, nor sufficiently evil to merit eternal misery. Catholicism thus developed an intermediate state — purgatory — offering the slightly or moderately wicked a chance to be purified of their sins. All souls will be reunited with their resurrected bodies on Judgement Day when Christ returns and God finally confirms their destiny.

Judaism remains uncertain about the consciousness of the dead in the afterlife, although the dominant view holds that, after death, the soul will be in a conscious state.

Orthodox Judaism is committed to the idea of the resurrection of the body on Judgement Day and its reunion with the soul, together with heavenly bliss for the saved. Liberal forms of modern Judaism, like modern liberal Christianity, sit lightly on the idea of the resurrection of the body and emphasise spiritual life immediately after death.

Within Islam, souls await the day of resurrection in their graves. It is a limbo-like state: those destined for hell will suffer in their graves; those destined for heaven will wait peacefully.

There are two exceptions to this: those who die fighting in the cause of Islam go immediately into God’s presence; those who die as enemies of Islam go straight to hell.

On the final Day of Judgement, Muslims believe the wicked will suffer torments in hell. The righteous will enjoy the pleasures of Paradise.

The destiny of the soul – Hinduism

In the modern West, reincarnation has a positive flavour as a desirable alternative to the traditional Western afterlife. But the Indian traditions all agree it is the ultimate horror — their aim is to escape from it.

They do, however, differ radically in their views of the destiny of the soul beyond the eternal cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Within Hinduism, we can distinguish four different schools of thought on this.

In the first of these, known as Samkhya-Yoga , the aim is to realise the essential separateness of the soul from its material body, thus enabling us to live in the here and now without attachment to the things of the world. At death, the liberated soul will exist eternally beyond any further entanglements with the world. Modern Western postural yoga derives from this, although it is intended, not so much to remove us from the world, as to enable us the better to function within it.

The second view, known as the Dvaita Vedanta school, is completely focused on the soul’s loving devotion to God, which will help liberate souls beyond death. As George Harrison sang , by chanting the names of the Lord (Krishna and Rama) “you’ll be free”. This is the dominant philosophy underlying the Hare Krishna movement and of all the Indian traditions, most closely resembles Christianity.

The third view is that of the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta school. Here, liberation occurs when the soul enters into the oneness of God, rather as a drop of water merges into the ocean, while paradoxically maintaining its individual identity.

The final view of the destiny of the soul within Hinduism is that of the Advaita Vedanta school. Liberation is attained when the soul realises its essential identity with Brahman — the impersonal Godhead beyond the gods.

The destiny of the karmic flame – Buddhism

Although there are divinities galore in Buddhism, the gods are not essential for liberation. So, it is possible to be a Buddhist atheist. Liberation from endless rebirth comes from our realisation that all is suffering and nothing is permanent, including the self.

In Theravada Buddhism (present in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos), the realised person enters Pari-Nirvana at death. The flame of consciousness is “extinguished”. The “soul” is no more.

In Mahayana Buddhism (in Japan, Vietnam and China, including Tibet)), liberation is attained when the world is seen as it really is, with the veil of ignorance removed — as having no ultimate reality. This means that, although at one level the many gods, goddesses, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas can assist us on the path to liberation, they too, like us, have never really existed.

At the everyday level, we can distinguish between truth and falsity. But from the perspective of what is ultimately real, there is only Emptiness or Pure Consciousness. Liberation consists of coming to know that the idea of the individual soul was always an illusory one. In short, the individual soul never really was. It was part of the grand illusion that is the realm of Samsara.

The practice of Buddhist “mindfulness”, now becoming popular in the West in a secular form, is the continual attentiveness to the impermanence or unreality of the self and the world, and the suffering caused by thinking and acting otherwise.

The meaning of the soul

Within the Christian tradition, the idea that each individual was both mortal body and immortal soul distinguished humans from other creatures.

It made humanity qualitatively unique; ensuring the life of each individual soul had an ultimate meaning within the grand, divine scheme. However, even without a belief in the transcendent, atheistic humanists and existentialists still affirm the distinct value of each human person.

The question of souls is still one that matters. It is, in effect, wrestling with the meaning of human life — and whether each of us has more ultimate significance than a rock or an earthworm.

This is why the belief in souls persists, even in this apparently secular age.

• Christianity
• Friday essay
• Reincarnation

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Data Manager

Research Support Officer

Director, Social Policy

Head, School of Psychology

Contemporary Spirituality

Spirituality is about the hunger in the human heart. It is a commitment to immersion in God, to the seeking that has no end. —Joan Chittister

The question that has dogged Joan Chittister her entire life is: What does it mean to live a spiritual life today?

It is the question that drives her prolific writings, her teachings and her public conversations with both church and society. As part of that search she founded Benetvision: a research and resource center for contemporary spirituality.

An outreach of the Benedictine Sisters of Erie, PA, Benetvision has served people internationally for over 30 years with publications, retreat offerings, book discussions, a ministry to prisoners, and a store where select books, newsletters and recorded teachings are available to all.

It is also the question that led her to focus her greatest spiritual passion on the plight of women worldwide. A fearless advocate for women’s rights, she has consistently confronted the patriarchal church on its sin of sexism and championed equality for women in all of society. A strong feminist, she has insisted that feminism is necessary to ensure the healthy spiritual development of both men and women. A visionary leader, she has shown the connections between justice for women, for world peace, and for the environment As co-chair of the Global Initiative for Women, Sister Joan has traveled the globe to weaken reactionary forces and campaign tirelessly for increased religious access for women in all religions.

As theologian Chung Hyun Kyung noted, “Joan Chittister showed us how a woman with integrity could reconcile faith and feminism and thrive in one’s own religious tradition no matter how oppressive it is. She taught us how to own our power and act from that power for greater justice, peace, and democracy."

• Media Gallery
• Being to Becoming
• How to start meditation?
• Let's Meditate
• Chennai Floods
• Seeking Spirituality
• What is Spirituality?
• Religion & Spirituality
• Why Spirituality?
• Why Meditate?
• Introduction
• Why Sahaj Marg?
• Masters of Sahaj Marg
• Fundamental Principles
• Tracing the Roots
• Prayer Meditation
• Universal Prayer
• Constant Remembrance
• Find a Centre
• Featured Celebrations
• Lalaji's Birthday
• Copenhagen, Denmark
• Chennai, India
• Featured Centres
• Johannesburg, South Africa
• Kanha Shanti Vanam, India
• Paris, France
• Timisoara, Romania
• Satkhol, India
• Shahjahanpur, India
• Vrads Sande, Denmark
• Retreat Centre Overview
• Malampuzha (India)
• Panshet (Pune, India)
• Retreat Centre, Kharagpur
• Vrads Sande (Denmark, Europe)
• Shukla Tirth, Malaysia
• CREST Overview
• CREST, Bangalore
• CREST, Berlin
• Student organizations
• United Nations DPI
• Essay Event
• Announcements
• Clarifications
• Correspondence Guidelines
• Visiting an Ashram
• Application Forms
• Introductory Brochures
• Relaxation Techniques
• Scholarship Award Programme - International
• Values Education
• Abhyasi Self Learning
• Account Instructions
• Youth Seminar
• Online Bookstores
• Subscriptions
• E-Books
• Featured Articles
• Research Articles
• Index of SM Literature
• A Whisper A Day
• Whispers Archive
• Bulletin - Abhyasis
• Echoes Newsletters
• SMSF Newsletters
• History and current organization
• Newsletters

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter

7 (page 114) p. 114 Conclusion: leading a spiritual life

• Published: November 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Spirituality is widespread and increasingly influential. There is a growing use of the term ‘spiritual capital’ with reference to the potential value of spirituality in everyday lives. What does this term mean? Capital means wealth so spiritual capital is a kind of wealth, that we do not spend, but one we live by. It stimulates creativity, encourages moral behaviour, and motivates us to live a more meaningful life. We have the related term ‘spiritual intelligence’. This provides access to our deepest meanings and motivations. All humans have innate potential to access their spiritual intelligence and lead a spiritual life. So what is a spiritual life? Has spirituality a future?

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Essay on Religion And Spirituality

Students are often asked to write an essay on Religion And Spirituality in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Religion And Spirituality

Understanding religion.

Religion is a system of beliefs that people follow. It includes rules about how to behave, what to eat, and how to worship. Some well-known religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These religions have holy books, like the Bible or the Quran, which guide their followers.

Exploring Spirituality

Spirituality is more about a personal journey. It’s about finding inner peace and understanding the deeper meaning of life. It’s not tied to a specific set of rules or a holy book. Some people find spirituality through meditation, nature, or art.

Religion and Spirituality: The Connection

Religion and spirituality are often linked but they are not the same. Religion can be a path to spirituality. For example, praying can help people feel more connected to something bigger than themselves. But you can also be spiritual without following a religion.

Differences Between Religion and Spirituality

The main difference between religion and spirituality is freedom. With religion, you follow a set of rules. With spirituality, you make your own path. Some people prefer the structure of religion. Others prefer the freedom of spirituality.

Combining Religion and Spirituality

Many people combine religion and spirituality. They might follow a religion but also have their own spiritual practices. This can help them feel more connected to their religion and find more meaning in their lives.

250 Words Essay on Religion And Spirituality

Understanding religion and spirituality.

Religion and spirituality are two terms often used together, but they have different meanings. Religion refers to a set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a group of people. These beliefs often involve a higher power or deity. On the other hand, spirituality is a personal journey. It involves a person’s connection with their inner self, the world around them, and sometimes, a higher power.

Religion: A Group Experience

Religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism have many followers. Each religion has its own rules, rituals, and holy books. These guide how people should live their lives. For example, Christians read the Bible and Muslims read the Quran. These books give people a path to follow to live a good life.

Spirituality: A Personal Journey

Spirituality is different. It is not about following a set path. It is about finding one’s own path. This could involve meditation, spending time in nature, or helping others. Some people may even choose to follow parts of different religions. The goal is to find peace and happiness within oneself.

The Connection Between Religion and Spirituality

Religion and spirituality can be connected. Many people find spirituality in their religion. They feel a deep connection with the higher power they worship. Others may not follow a religion but still be spiritual. They may find a connection with the world around them or within themselves.

In conclusion, religion and spirituality are two sides of the same coin. They both seek to answer big questions about life, purpose, and connection. Each person chooses their own way to explore these questions. Whether through religion, spirituality, or both, the journey is a personal one.

500 Words Essay on Religion And Spirituality

Religion and spirituality are two terms often used together. They may seem the same, but they are different in many ways. Let’s try to understand them in simple terms.

What is Religion?

Religion is a set of beliefs, rituals, and practices that people follow. These are often shared by a group or community. Religions usually have holy books, like the Bible for Christians or the Quran for Muslims. These books guide people on how to live their lives. People who follow a religion often go to a special place, like a church or a mosque, to pray or worship.

What is Spirituality?

Spirituality is more about personal experience. It is about finding your own path and making sense of your life. It does not have set rules like religion. Some people find spirituality in nature, while others find it in art or music. It is a personal journey that is different for everyone.

Difference Between Religion and Spirituality

The main difference between religion and spirituality is that religion is organized and shared among people, while spirituality is personal and unique to each person. Religion often involves following rules and rituals. Spirituality, on the other hand, is more about personal growth and self-discovery.

Connection Between Religion and Spirituality

While religion and spirituality are different, they are also connected. Many people find spirituality through their religion. They use their religious beliefs to guide their spiritual journey. At the same time, some people who do not follow a religion still consider themselves spiritual. They may not follow a set of religious rules, but they still seek meaning and purpose in their lives.

Importance of Religion and Spirituality

Both religion and spirituality play a big role in people’s lives. They can provide comfort, guidance, and a sense of purpose. They can help people cope with difficulties and make sense of the world around them. They can also bring people together and create a sense of community.

In conclusion, religion and spirituality are two sides of the same coin. They are different but also connected. They can both play a big role in helping people find meaning and purpose in their lives. It is important to respect and understand both, as they can offer different paths to the same goal: understanding ourselves and the world around us.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Reparations For Slavery
• Essay on Reservation Boon Or Bane
• Essay on Responsible Use Of Social Media For Students

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Eternity in Christian Thought

The term “eternity” plays a key role in discussions about how the God of Western theism relates to time. These discussions have a long and venerable history. They are also of lively contemporary interest.

The reason for this long-standing and continued interest is straightforward. How one sees God’s relationship to time has repercussions throughout philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. How much and in what ways does God’s relationship to time, and thus his nature, differ from ours? How much can meaningfully be said about what God is like, as opposed to how God is not? How, if at all, can an unchanging God interact with the world, affect history, or respond to petitionary prayer? And even, how should one think of the relation between science and theistic religion; can empirical findings (dis-) confirm theism? Thus, a conception of how God relates to time is a defining element of any conception of God.

This entry provides an overview of some key positions on God and time and discusses arguments for and against divine timelessness. The final section outlines some other philosophical contexts in which the concept of eternity can play a role.

1. Terminology

2. methodology, 3.1 the loci classici, 3.2 sources in antiquity, 3.3 medieval thinkers, 4.1.1 pure atemporalism, 4.1.2 atemporal duration, 4.1.3 the time of timeless eternity, 4.2.1 pure temporalism, 4.2.2 relative timelessness, 4.2.3 timeless without and temporal with creation, 4.2.4 metrically amorphous time, 5.1 arguments from divine omniscience and tensed facts, 5.2 arguments from divine action, 5.3 arguments from divine personhood, 6.1 arguments from divine perfection, 6.2 arguments from divine foreknowledge, 6.3 arguments from relativity theory, 7. other debates about eternity, other internet resources, related entries.

“Theism” will here refer to the view that there is a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, who created the world, and who is still actively involved in the world.

In philosophical discussions about God and time, the term “eternity” has been used in different ways. On one usage, which will be followed here, “eternity” stands for the relationship to time that God has, whatever it is. When used in that way, the term is neutral between different ways of spelling out what God’s relationship to time is. Western theists agree that God is eternal; the task is to formulate and assess conceptions of what this eternality might amount to.

Broadly speaking, there have been two rival views of what God’s eternality consists in. On the first, God is timeless (divine timelessness); on the second, God is in time (divine temporality). Sometimes the term “eternity” is used to denote timelessness, but as mentioned, we will here use it as neutral between the timeless and temporal views. The term “everlasting” (or “sempiternal”) on the other hand, is mostly associated with the temporal view. On the temporal view, God is in time and thus exists at every time; there is no time at which God doesn’t exist.

This discussion inherits the complexities of two very intricate philosophical debates (about God, and about time). Given the nature of the topic, it is perhaps not unreasonable to wonder what methodology can be fruitfully employed here.

As the topic is the God of Western theism, there are constraints arising from relevant passages in Western Scripture. Much of the discussion focuses on the Judeo-Christian, especially the Christian, tradition. (But note that specific Christian doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation, while closely related, are not the focus here; for more on these, see, e.g., (Le Poidevin 2023).) The Bible contains many passages calling God eternal, as well as ones that elaborate on God’s eternality. For example, there are passages telling us that God’s “years have no end” (Ps. 102:27, all quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version) and that God exists “from everlasting to everlasting” (Pss. 90:2, 103:17). God says, “let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years” (Gen. 1:14), and “I am the first and I am the last” (Isa. 44:6). Moreover, we are told that God promised us eternal life “before the ages began” (Titus 1:2), and that “He himself is before all things” (Col. 1:17). These passages require interpretation, and that’s where the philosophical work begins (see, e.g., Leftow 2005 for a formulation of constraints based on these passages).

One broad methodological choice concerns whether or not to let one’s theological commitments determine one’s views about the metaphysics, or even the physics of time. A salient alternative would be to do the opposite, for example by taking as one’s starting point the metaphysical view of time suggested by our best physical theories and then drawing out any theological implications. A third approach might involve giving equal weight to both poles and seeking to come to a coherent and adequate conception of both time and God as part of the same endeavor. There probably exist a variety of stances across the philosophical and theological landscapes (for explicit reflection on related methodological questions see, e.g., Murray & Rea 2008: 47; Mullins 2016: Ch. 1).

3. Brief Historical Remarks

Until recently, the timelessness view dominated in both philosophy and theology. For that reason, much of the historical discussion revolves around that view.

The loci classici are to be found in Book XI of the Confessions of Augustine (354–430) and Book V of Boethius’s (480–c.525) The Consolation of Philosophy . (The extent to which the Platonism of Philo of Alexandria [c. 25 BCE–CE 40], particularly as applied to the idea of creation [for example, in his De opificio mundi ] was influential, is not clear.) However, the styles of these two thinkers are very different. Boethius presents the idea of timeless eternity as straightforward and relatively problem-free. Augustine wrestles with the idea and expresses continual puzzlement at the idea of time itself and with it the contrasting idea of timeless eternity.

In Boethius, the contrast is between timeless eternity, which only God enjoys, and everlastingness, which (following Plato) the world itself possesses.

It is the common judgement, then, of all creatures that live by reason that God is eternal. So let us consider the nature of eternity, for this will make clear to us both the nature of God and his manner of knowing. Eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life; this will be clear from a comparison with creatures that exist in time. …for it is one thing to progress like the world in Plato’s theory through everlasting life, and another thing to have embraced the whole of everlasting life in one simultaneous present. (Boethius Consolation , V.VI., transl. V. E. Watts 1969)

Boethius uses his view of eternity to address the problem of divine foreknowledge (see section 6.2 ). If God knows beforehand what we will do then how can we act freely? His answer is that this problem dissolves in the face of the fact that God does not know anything beforehand but has an immediate, atemporal knowledge of all things.

In Boethius, we find several analogies for timeless eternity. One is that between timeless eternity and the centre of a circle. The thought is that the centre bears the same relation to any point on the circumference of the circle, and in the same way timeless eternity bears the same relation to anything in time. (Aquinas develops this analogy later.) Another analogy is that between God’s timelessly eternal vision and someone at the summit of a hill taking in at a glance what is taking place beneath her.

Augustine connects God’s timeless eternity to God’s being the cause of all times and God’s immutability.

What times existed which were not brought into being by you? Or how could they pass if they never had existence? Since, therefore, you are the cause of all times, if any time existed before you made heaven and earth, how can anyone say that you abstained from working? (Augustine, Confessions , XI. xiii (15)). It is not in time that you precede times. Otherwise you would not precede all times. In the sublimity of an eternity which is always in the present, you are before all things past and transcend all things future, because they are still to come. (Augustine, Confessions , XI. xiii (16)). In you it is not one thing to be and another to live: the supreme degree of being and the supreme degree of life are one and the same thing. You are being in a supreme degree and are immutable. In you the present day has no ending, and yet in you it has its end: “all these things have their being in you” (Rom.11.36). They would have no way of passing away unless you set a limit to them. Because “your years do not fail” (Ps.101.28), your years are one Today. (Augustine, Confessions , I. vi (10))

As mentioned, Boethius finds the source of his conception of eternity in Plato. In the Timaeus (37E6–38A6) Plato contrasts the eternal forms with the time-bound created world, the world of change and becoming. Time was created along with the heaven (38B5)—meaning at least that time is the measure of change, and perhaps that it is identical with the movements of the heavenly bodies (a view later critiqued by Augustine ( Confessions , Book XI. xxiii)). Plato’s idea of eternity in the Timaeus seems to be that of a timeless duration. The Forms endure in the temporal order in which “time is the moving image of eternity”. One can trace a similar idea of timeless eternity back to Parmenides (though exactly what he means is the subject of scholarly dispute).

While (in some places at least) Plato connects the necessary character of the Forms to timelessness, in Aristotle the connection is between necessity and everlastingness. What is necessary is what exists at all times. What is contingent is what at some time is not. God, being necessary, is everlasting. It may be said that the everlasting is not bounded by time (though it is unbounded in a weaker sense than Plato ascribes to the Forms) in that what exists everlastingly cannot age ( Physics 221b30). Philo of Alexandria is thought to be the first to ascribe timelessness to God, to the God of the Jewish Scriptures. In Plotinus (ca. 185–254) timelessness and life are for the first time identified. Nous is eternal and beyond time, enjoying duration without succession.

Anselm (c. 1033–1109) presents a view similar to that of Boethius and Augustine.

Suppose, on the other hand, that it exists as a whole in individual times severally and distinctly. (A human being, for instance, exists as a whole yesterday, today and tomorrow.) In this case we should, properly, say that it was, is and will be. In which case its time-span is not simultaneously a whole. Rather it is stretched out in parts through the parts of time. But its time-span is its eternity and its eternity is precisely itself. The supreme essence, therefore, would be cut up into parts along the divisions of time. (Anselm, Monologion , Ch. 21)

For Anselm, the timeless eternity of God follows from God’s being that than which nothing greater can be conceived (cf. section 6.1 ). In the Proslogion , Anselm articulates a “grammar” of the divine powers, which determines what it makes sense to say of the most perfect being, including that being’s timelessness.

In the medieval period, the discussion embraces not only Christian but also Jewish and Islamic thinkers. In keeping with the sharp line drawn between the Creator and creation, Aquinas and the Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides (1131–1204) (who greatly influenced Aquinas) argue that God’s timeless eternity ought to be understood primarily in negative terms. For Aquinas, God’s timeless eternity is unending, lacking both beginning and end, and an instantaneous whole lacking succession. It is a correlate of divine simplicity (see the SEP entry on divine simplicity ), and it is incapable of being defined or fully grasped by a creature. For Aquinas too, timeless eternity constitutes part of the “grammar” of talking about God. Since God is timelessly eternal it does not make any sense to ask how many years God has existed, or whether he is growing old, or what will he be doing later on in the year.

Despite differences with Thomas Aquinas regarding the nature of God’s relation to time, Duns Scotus (c.1266–1308) seems to have upheld divine timelessness (though see Leftow 1991: 228). In general, it would seem that commitment to divine simplicity, widespread if not universal in the medieval period, entails a commitment to divine timelessness (Mullins 2016: Ch. 3).

4. Some Views on God and Time

It has recently been suggested that there are actually two orthogonal issues regarding God’s relationship to time: (1) whether God is located in our spacetime—the spacetime investigated by modern physics; and (2) whether God is eternal or everlasting. (Note that this is the terminology not employed here.) God could be eternal, with a life that’s not marked by temporal succession, while being located at every spacetime point. Conversely, God could be everlasting while not located in physical spacetime at all (Murray & Rea 2008: Ch. 2).

At first sight, this distinction can seem to leave the second issue somewhat mysterious: if it is not being located in our, physical spacetime, then what is it? What can it mean to say that an entity is everlasting, or exists at all times, if that doesn’t commit one to a view on whether that entity is located in spacetime? What then are times—are they not somehow to be understood in terms of spacetime, ultimately?

But there are two distinct issues in the vicinity. One is about God’s life, or, for want of a better phrase, the nature of God’s experience. Whether or not a being experiences succession, and more generally, what the (a)temporal features of its experience are, is distinct from whether or not that being is located in spacetime.

However, there are also connections between these issues. The beings we are most familiar with, such as ourselves, are spatiotemporal and experience temporal succession; and for us, these facts are related. It is partly because we are located in spacetime that we experience succession, and there are interesting questions about the details of this connection.

This section outlines some views on God and time, with a focus on the contemporary literature; further reading suggestions appear at the end of this section. Each view may involve claims both about whether God is located in time/spacetime, and about (a)temporal features of God’s experience. Specifically, timelessness views may involve both the claim that God is not located in time/spacetime, and the claim that God’s life is atemporal, for example in the sense that God doesn’t experience succession. Similarly, temporal views may involve both the claim that God is in time/spacetime and that God’s life is temporal, for example in the sense that God experiences succession.

4.1 Divine Timelessness

On this view, God is not located in time and God’s life does not have any temporal features. This is a natural first gloss of the timelessness position. However, few defenders of divine timelessness sign up to this view. It has been suggested that Maimonides and Schleiermacher may hold it (Leftow 2005; actually, the view Leftow attributes to these authors is that God has no “typically temporal properties” (TTPs); see the end of section 4.1.3 ).

Boethius has strongly influenced the contemporary landscape. Much of this influence flows through work by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann (hereafter S&K 1981, 1987, 1992).

Recall Boethius ( Consolation , V.VI., here in a different translation, by Stewart et al. 1973): “Eternity […] is the whole, simultaneous, and perfect possession of boundless life”. Or again, eternity is the complete possession all at once of illimitable life.

Stump and Kretzmann distill four ingredients from this claim.

• A timeless being has life (of a non-biological kind), i.e. is alive. That is, abstracta (if there are any), like numbers or sets, don’t count. Neither would the world, even if it was sempiternal.
• The life of a timeless being is without limit and cannot be limited. It cannot begin or end. It is impossible for it not to have infinite duration.
• The life of a timeless being therefore involves a special sort of, atemporal, duration.
• A timeless being possesses its life all at once, completely. That is, it doesn’t experience succession. This, according to Stump and Kretzmann, is what makes it the case that a timeless being is outside of time. By contrast, a living being in time experiences succession, only ever possessing one moment of its life at a time.

Not only does a timeless being not experience succession, but its life’s events don’t involve succession. Since change requires succession, a timeless being doesn’t change. But a timeless being is still presently alive in some sense of “presently”. Moreover, the events in that being’s life are simultaneous in some sense, both with each other and with temporal items.

To show how, Stump and Kretzmann coin the notion of Eternal-Temporal Simultaneity (“ET-simultaneity”). First, define an “eternal present” to be an infinitely extended, pastless, futureless duration (strictly speaking, on the terminology used here, it should be “timeless present”). Then let Temporal Simultaneity (“T-simultaneity”) be existence/occurrence at the same time, and let Eternal Simultaneity (“E-simultaneity”) be existence/occurrence at the same eternal present. Each involves only one mode of existence, namely either the temporal or the eternal. ET-simultaneity, by contrast, relates items in different modes of existence, one temporal, and one eternal.

Stump & Kretzmann base their definition of ET-simultaneity on notions borrowed from some presentations of special relativity:

Let “\(x\)” and “\(y\)” range over entities and events. […] (ET) For every \(x\) and every \(y\), \(x\) and \(y\) are ET-simultaneous if and only if: i. either \(x\) is eternal and \(y\) is temporal, or vice versa; and ii. for some observer, \(A\), in the unique eternal reference frame, \(x\) and \(y\) are both present—that is, either \(x\) is eternally present and \(y\) is observed as temporally present, or vice versa; and iii. for some observer, \(B\), in one of the infinitely many temporal reference frames, \(x\) and \(y\) are both present—that is, either \(x\) is observed as eternally present and \(y\) is temporally present, or vice versa. (S&K 1981: 439)

They also offer the following image. Imagine two parallel horizontal lines. The lower line represents time, and the upper one represents timeless eternity. Presentness is represented by light. The temporal present is represented by a light that moves steadily along the lower line, while the eternal present is represented by the upper line being lit all at once. Each dot in the lower line, when it is temporally present, is ET-simultaneous with the whole of the upper line. Or at least this is so from the viewpoint of that time. From the viewpoint of eternity, the entire lower line is lit up; each time “insofar as [it] is temporally present” is ET-simultaneous with the whole upper line (S&K 1992: 475).

Since, by definition, two items can only be ET-simultaneous if one is temporal and the other eternal, and since any given item is only one of these, ET-simultaneity is not reflexive; in fact, it never holds between an entity and itself. Nor is it transitive; in fact, when \(x\) and \(y\) are ET-simultaneous and \(y\) and \(z\) are too, \(x\) and \(z\) never are. The non-transitivity of ET-simultaneity is needed to solve a pressing problem. If \(t\) is simultaneous with eternity, and eternity is simultaneous with \(t'\), then \(t\) is simultaneous with \(t'\). So, all times collapse into one:

But, on St. Thomas’ view, my typing of this paper is simultaneous with the whole of eternity. Again, on his view, the great fire of Rome is simultaneous with the whole of eternity. Therefore, while I type these very words, Nero fiddles heartlessly on. (Kenny 1979: 38–9)

The Stump & Kretzmann proposal has generated much discussion. Here are three questions that have been raised.

First, is the notion of an atemporal duration coherent? (See Fitzgerald 1985; also Craig 1999; Nelson 1987; Helm 1988: 35.) What licenses speaking of a duration here? The eternal present is supposed not to be pointlike, but to involve an infinite stretch or extension of some kind. This suggests that it should possess some of the formal features of extension. For example, it should be possible for two particulars to have the same or different amounts of the extension. If this is not the case with atemporal duration, then how is it a duration? And if it is the case, then how is it not a temporal duration?

A proponent of this view may insist that such features are not possessed by atemporal duration, because such features are had only if the extension in question is divisible (S&K 1987, 1992). And the eternal present is not. In support of this, they may suggest that not even all temporal extension is divisible. Consider our temporal experience on short time scales and the doctrine of the “specious present”. On that doctrine, temporal experience involves a temporally extended content. Perhaps this is not even conceptually divisible, even though it’s a temporal extension (S&K 1992: 468). The comparison is particularly apt if one wants to think of the eternal present as God’s specious present encompassing all of time (Alston 1984, also Leftow 1991: 143; though see Oppy 1998, in Other Internet Resources, for a critique of this idea).

Moreover (they may add), even if all temporal extension is divisible, this doesn’t show that all extension is. Pressed to justify their use of the term “extension” and explain its connection to ordinary usage, they point to other cases in theology of irreducibly analogical predication (see Rogers 1994 for objections to this move).

Second, what can it mean for something eternally present to observe something as in the temporal present, and vice versa? (See Lewis 1984; also Nelson 1987; Padgett 1992: 69; Swinburne 1993.) Suppose something eternal observes something as temporally present. If that means it observes something that comes to be, then doesn’t the observation itself come to be, making the being temporal? Conversely, how can a temporal entity observe something as being eternal? How can it observe anything without bringing that thing into the temporal series? After all, the event of \(x\)’s observing \(y\) at \(t\) is identical with the event of \(y\)’s being observed by \(x\) at \(t\).

Consider this revised definition of ET-simultaneity:

Does this provide an answer to the objection, or does it rely on one? As pointed out by Brian Leftow in a similar context (Leftow 1991: 173; also Fales 1997), on the view proposed, the temporal and the eternal can enter into causal relations only if they are in some sense simultaneous. That is the reason ET-simultaneity is invoked. If one then relies on a notion of ET-causality in the definition of ET-simultaneity one faces a problem of circularity.

Third, what role, if any, is special relativity playing in the proposal? The intended role is a considerable one. Considerations of the relativity of simultaneity are supposed to show that the difficulties with the notion of ET-simultaneity are “by no means unique” and “cannot be assumed to be difficulties in the concepts of ET-simultaneity or of eternity themselves” (S&K 1981: 439). But it is hard to see how they could show this. Stump and Kretzmann emphasize the finding that simultaneity is a three-place relation and present it as a response to a threat of incoherence (two distant events being both “simultaneous […] and not simultaneous” (S&K 1981: 437)). But the difficulties with ET-simultaneity arise whether it is two-place or three-place. They pertain to spelling out what an eternal present and the unique eternal frame of reference might be, and how there can be causal relations, including observational ones, between a being in it and us. No comparable difficulties are involved in special relativity (Fales 1997; also Padgett 1992: 71; Craig 2009).

For Brian Leftow, the central idea is that all things in time are also, with God, in timeless eternity. He finds this idea in Anselm. Like in the Stump and Kretzmann proposal, the idea is given a contemporary twist through appeals to the notion of a reference frame and special relativity.

Consider the claim that God has no spatial location. Since there can be a spatial distance only between things or locations in space, this implies that there is no spatial distance between God and things in space. From this, Leftow infers that the distance between God and any thing in space is zero (the “Zero Thesis”) (Leftow 1991: 222).

The Zero Thesis says not only that the distance between God and any spatial thing is zero, but also that it always is zero. Therefore nothing ever moves with respect to God. Moreover, all change supervenes on motion, e.g., change in color supervenes on motion in microparticles. So there is no change with respect to God (Leftow 1991: 227). Therefore, God and all spatial things share a frame of reference, the reference frame of eternity, in which nothing changes. In this reference frame, all events are simultaneous, including God’s actions and their effects. That is, they all occur at eternity, and eternity is something like another time, so they are all simultaneous. But in other, temporal reference frames, this is not the case. In these, God’s actions occur at eternity but their effects occur at particular points in time. So in these frames, they are nonsimultaneous. And this is where special relativity comes in. After all, the relativity of simultaneity shows that events simultaneous in one frame of reference may be nonsimultaneous in others.

Unfortunately, the Zero Thesis and Leftow’s case for it are problematic. From the fact that there is no spatial distance between spatial things and God, it does not follow that the spatial distance between spatial things and God is zero. A similar inference leads one to claim that all spatial things are spatially contiguous with yellow and the number 3. Leftow is of course aware of this consequence, and accepts it as a surprising finding about yellow and the number 3; he argues that the Zero Thesis only seems problematic because one fails to notice that a distance of zero is just an absence of distance (Leftow 1991: 225). However, a distance of zero would seem to be a distance, not an absence of distance (Oppy 1998, in Other Internet Resources).

As before, it’s hard to see how talk of reference frames and appeals to the relativity of simultaneity can be helpful or even relevant. A reference frame is a system of physical devices such as measuring rods and clocks that allow an observer to fix the positions of events. It’s not clear how timeless eternity can be such a system. Nor is it clear how timeless eternity can, in addition, be (like) a time, simultaneity with which can be the outcome of measurements.

Before turning to further elements of Leftow’s view, it is useful to pause to describe some background on the metaphysics of time (see also the SEP entries on time , John M.E. McTaggart , and being and becoming in modern physics ). McTaggart distinguished between the A-series and the B-series of events. The A-series runs from the future through the present and into the past, while the B-series runs from earlier to later (McTaggart 1908). This distinction survives in the form of the contemporary opposition between the B-theory and (various versions of) the A-theory of time.

According to the B-theory (tenseless theory, block universe view), (a) all times and/or events exist and are equally real (this is known as eternalism—not to be confused with divine timelessness which has also sometimes gone by the same name); and (b) there is a complete tenseless description of temporal reality. A tenseless description is one that stays accurate, because it mentions only such things as which events happen when, and how they are temporally related to one another. So it mentions only facts about B-relations like simultaneity and succession. Call these tenseless facts. The B-theory combines eternalism with the claim that there is a complete description of temporal reality, a description of temporal reality at its most fundamental, that doesn’t mention any tensed facts, like that it’s 12:00 now.

Opposed to this are various versions of the A-theory, which deny one or both of (a) and (b). What these A-theoretic views (including eternalist and non-eternalist ones, like presentism or the growing block view) have in common is that they metaphysically privilege one time. Fundamental tensed facts capture this privilege. One prominent motivation for the A-theory is the conviction that time passes (robustly—i.e. in a sense that goes beyond mere B-theoretic temporal succession (see Skow 2015: 2); in what follows that’s what I mean by “temporal passage”). As time passes, the tensed facts change: first it’s a fundamental fact that it’s 12:00, then that it’s 12:01.

Now return to Leftow’s view. Let A-occurring be occurring now, and let B-occurring be occurring at a certain temporal location t that is now. (This is intended to be continuous with McTaggart’s distinction.) B-occurring entails A-occurring: if something occurs at a temporal B-location t that is now, it occurs now. But not vice versa. Something can occur now without occurring at a temporal B-location t that is now. Something can, that is, A-occur without B-occurring. Now define A-simultaneity as occurring “at the same now”. B-simultaneity, by contrast, is having the same temporal B-location in some B-series. If two events are B-simultaneous and they B-occur (i.e. they are located at the same B-temporal location that is now), they are A-simultaneous. And if two events occur at the same atemporal now and A-occur (i.e. occur now), they are also A-simultaneous.

The upshot is that

the A-simultaneity that obtains between a timeless God and temporal entities is univocal with the A-simultaneity that obtains between temporal entities. (Leftow 1991: 239)

This would make the relation between temporal entities and the timeless God less mysterious than it is on the Stump & Kretzmann proposal, on which ET-simultaneity is sui generis, obtaining only between one temporal and one eternal relatum.

But this seems to be an advance that was gained by stipulation, because the discussion started thus: “[L]et us so understand ‘now’ that occurring now does not entail having a position in a B-series of earlier and later events. That is, let us in effect take ‘now’ and ‘occurring now’ as primitive terms univocally applicable to temporal and eternal or timeless things” (Leftow 1991: 239). It’s not surprising that given this initial stipulation, the ensuing definitions allow one to say that the A-simultaneity that obtains between temporal entities is the same relation that obtains between a timeless God and temporal entities.

According to Leftow, there can be no change in (timeless) eternity, and in eternity, all events happen (A-) simultaneously. However, in some places eternity is instead described as involving succession, namely as consisting of a number of different B-series corresponding to different temporal reference frames (Leftow 1991: 239). Prima facie , these are different, incompatible ideas. B-theorists, who hold that time, fundamentally, consists of events standing in B-relations of precedence and simultaneity, do not also hold that all of time collapses to a single time.

This is relevant to the notion of Quasi-Temporal Eternality (QTE, Leftow 1991: 120–2). Unlike Stump & Kretzmann, Leftow holds that atemporal duration, understood as QTE, involves distinct points but not parts. These points are (at least in some sense) earlier and later than one another, but they do not stand in the relation of succession. This seemingly paradoxical claim is partly defended via appeals to the B-theory. The idea is that Boethian eternity is like an extension in B-time, and that a QTE being’s life contains earlier and later points with no succession between them. In this respect, we are told, it is like life in B-time, only without an illusion of temporal passage.

There is a danger here of misinterpreting the B-theory. While the B-theory doesn’t posit temporal passage, it does posit succession. Relatedly, the traditional project of squaring our temporal experience with the B-theory is about explaining away an illusion of temporal passage, not about explaining away an illusion of temporal succession (see the SEP entry on the experience and perception of time ). Since the B-theory posits succession (a B-relation), an experience of succession is non-illusory, on the B-theory. This makes trouble for Leftow’s appeals to the B-theory. After all, Leftow holds that a QTE being’s life, in which all times are experienced at once, is what a non-illusory experience of B-time would be like (Leftow 1991: 122). In other words, the thought is that an experience of temporal succession is illusory, on the B-theory.

Leftow also suggests that the sense in which QTE involves earlier and later points is not a temporal one, but a logical one. However, logical priority is not temporal priority, nor is it relevantly like temporal priority (Rogers 1994: 11).

A more recent idea is that of a typically temporal property (TTP). A property is a TTP if a term predicating it is “part of a definition of being temporal or figures appropriately in the right sort of nondefining sufficient condition for being temporal” (Leftow 2002). The right sort is for example “necessarily, whatever is past was temporal” rather than “necessarily, whatever is a pig is temporal”. The thought is that just like being bipedal helps make us human without being sufficient for making us human, so, e.g., being present helps make things temporal without being sufficient for making things temporal (and so there can be an timeless eternal present a la Boethius).

4.2 Divine Temporality

In recent times, there has been a notable shift away from divine timelessness. There are many different kinds of views that fall under the heading of divine temporality; many of these could also be classified as “intermediate” views. As in 4.1, the list is of course far from exhaustive.

Note that while Open Theism has been part of the shift away from divine timelessness, the position arises specifically in relation to the topic of divine foreknowledge. Open Theism says that God does not know which choices we will freely make in the future, because there is nothing yet to be known; here, free choice is understood along libertarian lines and the future is taken to be genuinely open in some metaphysically significant sense. For more on Open Theism, see Pinnock et al. 1994, Zimmerman 2010, Rice 2020, Rissler (Other Internet Resources), and the SEP entry on divine foreknowledge .

On this view, God is located at all times, God experiences succession, and God has lived through and will live through a non-finite past and future. The idea here is that God is in (our, physical) time/spacetime, and God is a temporal being in just the way we are, except that the temporal extent of God’s life is infinite. Compared to other temporal views, this one is conceptually straightforward. Arguably, however, it is in tension with current cosmology, which suggests that the universe has a finite past. Insofar as the view implies that God is bound by, or has no power over time, it may also be at odds with some of the constraints arising from Western Scripture (see section 2 ). The view is found at least in process theologians like Charles Hartshorne (Hartshorne 1947).

On Alan Padgett’s view, God changes, so God is temporal. However, timelessness is not abandoned; instead, it is redefined.

[…] I have not abandoned timelessness. Instead, I have redefined “God is timeless” to mean that God is relatively timeless, i.e. he is not measured by time nor is he affected by the negative aspects of temporal passage. (Padgett 1992: 146; also 2001)

The idea is that God’s time is non-identical with our, “Measured Time”.

“Measured Time” is “the specifically human time of our history and our universe: the time of seconds, days, and centuries; the time of our space-time” (Padgett 1992: 130). In that sense of “time”, God is timeless. However, God is not timeless in the strict sense in which “time” refers to any kind of temporality, because God is in his own time. Does that mean God is only in his time and not in ours? No, he is in our time too (p. 131—at least saying this is “philosophically acceptable” (p. 126)), as we are in his. It’s just that he transcends our time. What does it mean to transcend our time? It means that God is the ground of time, that he is not negatively affected by the passage of time, and (things get a little circular here), that he is relatively timeless.

One question one might have about this is what “Measured Time” and “God’s time” are, and how plausible it is to think there are both. Padgett maintains that in everyday speech, “time” refers “not to an ontological category” but to “the human time of our history and our universe” (1992: 130). The distinction is supported by appeals to the differences between this sense of “time” and “the strict ontological sense of ‘time’ used in philosophy” (p. 140). But this may still leave one wondering about the distinction. For one thing, few contemporary ontologists take themselves to be investigating a time distinct from “the human time of our history and our universe”. Nor do they tend to think of the time of the universe as specifically human. For another, there are a number of different philosophical views about time.

William Lane Craig’s view is that God is timeless without creation, and temporal with creation (Craig 2000). God exists timelessly “without” creation rather than before creation, because there isn’t literally a before. And so it can’t literally be the case that God becomes temporal, since becoming anything involves being first one thing and then the other. Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ”, God “enters time at the moment of creation” (Craig 2000: 33). God exists changelessly and timelessly, but by creating, God undergoes an extrinsic change “which draws Him into time” (Craig 2000: 29).

The problem is that even extrinsic change still presupposes a before and after (Leftow 2005: 66). Craig is aware of the difficulty:

[O]n such a view, there seem to be two phases of God’s life, a timeless phase and a temporal phase, and the timeless phase seems to have existed earlier than the temporal phase. But this is logically incoherent, since to stand in a relation of earlier than is by all accounts to be temporal. (Craig 2000: 32)

His solution is

that “prior” to creation there literally are no intervals of time […] no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.

And this state, he says, “looks suspiciously like a state of timelessness” (Craig 2000: 33).

But this solution looks suspiciously like a re-statement of the view. The problem was that we could only talk of a “before” in quotation marks. Yet we needed there to literally be such a before on the view in question. (This is unless we decline to make literal sense of all this, but that is not Craig’s approach.) What can it mean to say God underwent a change at the end of which God was temporal? Craig’s answer seems to be that there is timelessness before time’s beginning, or rather, “before” time’s beginning.

Craig endorses Padgett’s distinction between “Measured Time” and “Ontological Time” (God’s time). Unlike Padgett, he identifies the latter with Newton’s absolute time. He defends a “neo-Lorentzian” interpretation of special relativity, according to which there is a privileged reference frame that is in principle undetectable due to the effective Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws. In addition, he points to the cosmic time of some general relativistic spacetime models as a candidate for absolute time. Each of these claims is made in support of a strong prior commitment to the A-theory, shared with Padgett. However, each claim faces problems, and their connection is unclear, since the “neo-Lorentzian” approach to special relativity doesn’t allow for as natural a development in the direction of general relativity as does the standard approach (see, e.g., Balashov & Janssen 2003, Wüthrich 2013).

Craig and Padgett differ over whether cosmic time gives a “proper measure” of God’s time, and thus effectively over whether, on this kind of view, we have any epistemic access to God’s time (which we are also in). Craig answers in the affirmative, but still hesitates to identify cosmic time with God’s time, preferring instead to say that the two “coincide” (Craig 1990: 344).

Richard Swinburne originally defends timelessness (Swinburne 1965), but then switches allegiance to a temporal view. According to his later view, before creation God lives alone in a metrically amorphous time (Swinburne 1977, 1993, 1994). (Padgett also describes God’s time as metrically amorphous.) Once God creates the world and institutes the laws of nature, time acquires a metric. There then begin to be facts of the matter about how long temporal intervals are.

Further Reading:

• Defenses of Divine Timelessness: Helm 1988, 2001; Yates 1990; Rogers 2000, 2007; Dolezal 2017; Duby 2022.
• Defenses of Divine Temporality: Lucas 1973, 1989; Wolterstorff 1975, 2000a,b, 2001; Hasker 1989, 2002; Zimmerman 2002; DeWeese 2002, 2004; Mullins 2016.

5. Arguments against Divine Timelessness

Recall that the theistic God is omniscient. Presumably then, God knows what temporal reality is like at its most fundamental. If there are fundamental tensed facts (like that it’s 12:00), God knows them. But since these facts change, what God knows changes constantly. So God changes constantly; so God is in time.

Therefore, if the A-theory is true, then God is temporal. (From (4), (5), (6), (7))

Various versions of this argument have been defended (Craig 2000, 2001; DeWeese 2004; Hasker 2002; Kretzmann 1966; Padgett 1992, 2001; Wolterstorff 1975; Mullins 2016: Ch. 4). Since many participants of the debate think the A-theory is true, it is treated as an argument for divine temporality. In response, advocates of timelessness challenge one or more of the argument’s premises (Wierenga 1989, 2002; Alston 1989a; Ganssle 1993, 1995, 2002). Others respond by giving up on the A-theory and accepting the B-theory (Helm 1988, 2001; Rogers 2000). The thought is that this argument can’t be run for the B-theory, since on the B-theory, the fundamental (tenseless) temporal facts don’t change. The parallel argument would get stuck at the analogue of step (5): it’s not the case that if God knows fundamental tenseless facts, then what God knows changes. So while the argument itself is silent on whether the B-theory allows one to combine timelessness with omniscience, part of the point of making it is that the parallel argument can’t be run for the B-theory.

One might, however, wonder whether there are arguments in the vicinity of Argument 1 that can be run on the B-theory too. Consider first the following, somewhat similar argument.

Therefore, God is temporal. (From (5′), (6), (7))

Unlike in the case of Argument 1, the connection to the A-theory here is not straightforward. There is certainly a sense in which (4′) is true on the B-theory, even though there is, on the B-theory, no change in the fundamental temporal facts. At each time, that time is present—not in the absolute, metaphysically privileged sense of the A-theory, but in a relative, perspectival sense. Each time is present at itself, just like each spatial location is here relative to itself. Moreover, on a standard B-theoretic account of tensed language (e.g., Mozersky 2015; but see Torre 2010 for an alternative account), at each of those times, a temporal subject S can know, and have a true belief about, what time it is. At noon, S believes that it is noon; that belief is made true by a tenseless fact, such as that S holds the belief at (a time simultaneous with) noon. At 12:01, S believes truly that it is 12:01, where this belief is made true by another tenseless fact, such as that this later belief is held by S at (a time simultaneous with) 12:01, and so on.

Admittedly, it is not the case, on this B-theoretic account, that knowing what time it is (at different times) involves knowing different things at different times. The reason is that the tenseless contents that are believed can be believed by S at all times equally (and typically will be). So while, at each time, S has a tensed belief with a tenseless content that differs from the tenseless content of S ’s tensed beliefs at previous times, S may not come to believe, or know, anything new. This suggests that the same applies to God, and that (5′) doesn’t follow from (3′) and (4′).

However, what matters is not just what S knows and believes, but how S knows and believes it. Tensed beliefs have rather different cognitive significance from the corresponding tenseless ones. What matters for timely action is believing the tenseless content via a tensed representation, by having a true tensed belief (“it is noon (now)”). The point is a more general one that applies equally to indexicals other than “now”, such as “I” or “here”: the cognitive significance of indexical beliefs differs from that of the corresponding non-indexical ones.

Therefore, if a B-theoretic subject S knows (at more than one time) what time it is, then they undergo changes. The reason is that how they believe what they believe changes. They need to keep track of their temporal perspective by having appropriately varied tensed beliefs (“it’s noon”, “it’s 12:01”). At least this is so for anyone whose temporal nature relevantly resembles our own. Does this group include God? If so, then on the B-theory too, there is reason to worry about the combination of omniscience with timelessness.

Therefore, God is temporal. (From (5″), (6″), (7))

One might reason as follows. When God creates the universe, God begins to stand in the relation of coexisting with to the universe, and also in the relation of sustaining it in existence . Acquiring these and other relations to the universe makes God temporal, because it constitutes a change that God undergoes at the moment of creation. Even if God was timeless before, God is temporal after creation (Craig 2009).

The problem with this line of thought is again that it is not clear how to understand the notions of before and after, of acquiring, and of beginning, as applied to a timeless God.

However, the point can be made in another way. God is thought to be causally active in the world, where those causal relations include God’s responding to petitionary prayer and being actively involved in world history. Similarly, God coexists with the world and sustains it in existence at every moment. God loves, and knows about the lives of, God’s creatures. All these are relations. God stands in causal and other relations to a temporal world. Doesn’t this make God temporal (Mullins 2016, Ch. 5)?

Each version of divine timelessness tries to address this concern in some way. One somewhat radical response, given by Aquinas and others, is that while the world is related to God, God is not related to the world.

Suppose that whatever is a person does at least some of the following: remembering, anticipating, reflecting, deliberating, deciding, intending, and acting intentionally. If timelessness precludes one from doing any of these, then being timeless is incompatible with being a person. Since God is a person, God is not timeless.

But is it the case that being a person requires one to do at least some of the above? Instead one might hold that at most, it requires one to be capable of doing at least some of the above. And perhaps a timeless God is capable of doing some of the above, even if God does not do them.

Alternatively, one might question the grounds for thinking that these activities tend to be precluded by timelessness. It is true that they all seem to involve change, namely a change in one’s mental states. But defenders of timelessness may think we should leave room in our conceptual scheme for a timeless, changeless version of each of these activities (Craig 2009; Murray & Rea 2008: Ch. 2).

6. Arguments for Divine Timelessness

There are a number of considerations speaking in favor of divine timelessness that arise out of perfect being theology. Perfect being theology is the approach to theology that involves figuring out what God is like on the basis of God’s being the most perfect (or greatest possible) being. A general argument goes as follows. The most perfect being, God, has the most perfect mode of existence. But temporal existence is a less perfect mode of existence than timeless existence. Therefore, God has a timeless mode of existence.

Why think that temporal existence is less perfect than timeless existence? Note that we’re here mostly concerned with the second issue distinguished at the beginning of section 4 , namely the nature of God’s experience (rather than the first, namely whether or not God is located in time/spacetime). The thought is that ordinary temporal experience involves gain and loss, and an awareness of the inescapable passage of time. Relatedly, for ordinary temporal beings, neither the distant past nor the future are perceptually accessible. We remember parts of the past, but imperfectly, and we merely anticipate the future. We know much less about the future than the past. We can’t change or re-experience the past, nor can we skip ahead to later moments, except one at a time.

But then again, God is no ordinary temporal being. The defender of temporality can reply that while God’s life has temporal features, in that God experiences succession, God’s temporal experience is otherwise very much unlike ours (Mullins 2014). For example, God is omniscient, so God forgets no part of the past and already knows all about the future. It’s true that experiencing succession means experiencing things one at a time. But, the defender of temporality might add, this very feature is necessary for, e.g., the ability to enjoy music, which is good and therefore something the most perfect being would have.

There are more indirect ways of arguing from perfection to timelessness. For example, suppose that the most perfect mode of existence involves immutability, and that immutability requires timelessness. Or suppose that perfection requires divine simplicity, and that simplicity requires timelessness (for more, see the SEP entries on divine simplicity and immutability ).

One line of thought is that complete knowledge of future contingent events is impossible for beings in time. Since God is omniscient, and therefore knows all that will happen, God is timeless.

Another line of thought is that while God is omniscient, and therefore knows all that will happen, some of our actions are genuinely free. But these two facts are in tension with one another, and the tension can be resolved by thinking of God as timeless.

Here is this line of thought in more detail. First consider an argument for theological fatalism, the view that divine foreknowledge and freedom are incompatible (Pike 1965; Murray & Rea 2008: Ch. 2). God is omniscient. So God knows all that is true and believes nothing false. Now consider the proposition p that you will read this section 1,000 years hence. Suppose p was true 1,000 years ago. Then God believed p then. And you never had a choice about whether God believed p 1,000 years ago. Nor have you ever had a choice about anything that follows from God’s believing p 1,000 years ago, including that you read this section today. So you never had a choice about whether you read this section today, which means you’re not doing it freely.

One proposed solution is to deny that p was true 1,000 years ago. (Aristotle responds in this way to a similar, non-theological argument for logical fatalism.) For more on this solution, see the SEP entries on foreknowledge and free will and fatalism .

A defender of divine timelessness may attempt another solution (inspired by Boethius). God is not located in time, so God does not know or believe things at times. So it is not the case that God believed p 1,000 years ago. Rather, all temporal events are before God’s mind “at once”, or in an atemporal present. However, some argue that a similar problem still arises (Zagzebski 1991: Ch. 2).

God is immaterial. Suppose it follows from this that God is not in space. Then one might argue that relativity theory implies that God is not in time either, because according to relativity theory, anything that is in time is also in space (Leftow 1991: 272).

While the basic thought is clear enough, one might worry about the details of this argument. In relativity theory, there are no such things as times or spatial locations, at the fundamental level. So it would be at least misleading to say that according to relativity theory, anything that is located at times is located at spatial locations. But a defender of the argument probably has in mind precisely this implication of (special) relativity, that spatiotemporal regions are fundamental, because there is no unique decomposition of spacetime into space at times. Presumably the lesson of relativity theory for the present debate can be suitably reformulated.

Further Reading on God and Time: Pike 1970; Braine 1988; Yates 1990; Gale 1991; Mawson 2008; Craig 1998, 2001, 2009; Murray & Rea 2008; Leftow 2010; Tapp & Runggaldier 2011; Oppy 2014; Mullins 2016; Melamed 2016; Deng 2019; Schmücker, Williams and Fischer 2022; Moravec (forthcoming); and Ganssle (Other Internet Resources).

Both timelessness or atemporality, and permanence or everlastingness, are widely applicable concepts. This section outlines a few non-religious philosophical debates in which the concept of eternity, in the sense of atemporality, can play a role (McDaniel 2016).

Consider questions about the nature of propositions, mathematical objects, or other abstracta. Perhaps these are atemporal entities, existing outside of time/spacetime, and not standing in any spatiotemporal relations to other entities. What sorts of considerations might bear on whether they are or not? Take propositions, the true or false things sentences express. Take a sentence that changes its truth-value over time (e.g., “It’s sunny”). Does such a sentence express different propositions at different times (that it’s sunny at \(t_1\), that it’s sunny at \(t_2\), etc.)? Or does it express the same proposition over time (that it’s sunny)? If it’s the former, then the propositions expressed don’t themselves change truth-value. If it’s the latter, the proposition (that it’s sunny) itself changes truth-value. In this latter case, that might give one reason think that the proposition is located within time rather than outside of it. On the other hand, it might not. After all, the truth-value also seems to vary with spatial location; yet we may be reluctant to infer from this that the proposition has spatial locations.

As another example, consider the view that time does not exist, for example as argued for by speculative metaphysicians such as McTaggart or F. H. Bradley. On such views, everything is eternal (in the sense of atemporal).

The view that time is unreal was also argued for by Kurt Gödel on the basis of general relativistic considerations (Gödel 1949). Gödel’s starting point is his discovery of solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations that permit the existence of closed timelike curves. Such spacetimes, he argues, do not contain a temporal dimension, since time only exists if there is genuine passage of time, and there cannot be genuine passage of time in such worlds. This in turn suggests that time does not pass, and thus does not exist, in the actual world either (for more on the argument see Savitt 1994; Dorato 2002; Yourgrau 2005).

More recently, some physicists and philosophers of physics working on approaches to quantum gravity have entertained the view that spacetime may not be fundamental (see the SEP entry on quantum gravity ). Of course, whether the concept of atemporality applies in this context depends on how the claim that spacetime is not fundamental is best understood.

• Alston, William P., 1984, “Hartshorne and Aquinas: A Via Media”, in John B. Cobb and Franklin I. Gamwell (eds.), Existence and Actuality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press; also in Alston 1989b: 136.
• –––, 1989a, “Does God Have Beliefs?”, in Alston 1989b: 178–193.
• –––, 1989b, Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical Theology , Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
• Anselm, The Monologion , translated by Simon Harrison, in Anselm of Canterbury, The Major Works , edited with an introduction by Brian Davies and G.R. Evans, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
• Augustine, The Confessions , Henry Chadwick (trans.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
• Balashov, Yuri and Michel Janssen, 2003, “Presentism and Relativity”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 54(2): 327–346. doi:10.1093/bjps/54.2.327
• Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy , V. E. Watts (trans.), London: Penguin Books, 1969; also translated by H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, and S. J. Tester, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
• Braine, David, 1988, The Reality of Time and the Existence of God , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Craig, William L., 1990, “God and Real Time”, Religious Studies , 26(3): 335–347. doi:10.1017/S0034412500020503
• –––, 1998, “The Tensed vs. Tenseless Theory of Time: A Watershed for the Conception of Divine Eternity”, in Robin Le Poidevin (ed.), Questions of Time and Tense , Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 221–250.
• –––, 1999, “The Eternal Present and Stump-Kretzmann Eternity”, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly , 73(4): 521–536. doi:10.5840/acpq199973437
• –––, 2000, “Timelessness and Omnitemporality”, Philosophia Christi , Series 2, 2(1): 29–33.
• –––, 2001, Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time , Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
• –––, 2009, “Divine Eternity”, in Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Deng, Natalja, 2019, God and Time , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• DeWeese, Garrett J., 2002, “Atemporal, Sempiternal or Omnitemporal: God’s Temporal Mode of Being”, in Ganssle & Woodruff 2002: 49–61.
• –––, 2004, God and the Nature of Time , Aldershot, Hants.: Ashgate.
• Dolezal, James E., 2017, All that is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism , Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books.
• Dorato, Mauro, 2002, “On Becoming, Cosmic Time, and Rotating Universes”, Craig Callender (ed.), Time, Reality and Experience , (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 50), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 253–276. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511550263.013
• Duby, Steven J., 2023, Jesus and the God of Classical Theism: Biblical Christology in Light of the Doctrine of God , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
• Fales, Evan M., 1997, “Divine Intervention”, Faith and Philosophy , 14(2): 170–194. doi:10.5840/faithphil199714215
• Fitzgerald, Paul, 1985, “Stump and Kretzmann on Time and Eternity”, The Journal of Philosophy , 82(5): 260–269. doi:10.2307/2026491
• Gale, Richard M., 1991, On the Nature and Existence of God , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ganssle, Gregory E., 1993, “Atemporality and the Mode of Divine Knowledge”, International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion , 34(3): 171–180. doi:10.1007/BF01313790
• –––, 1995, “Leftow on Direct Awareness and Atemporality”, Sophia , 34(2): 30–37. doi:10.1007/BF02772290
• –––, (ed.), 2001, God and Time: Four Views , Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
• –––, 2002, “Direct Awareness and God’s Experience of a Temporal Now”, in Ganssle & Woodruff 2002: 165–181.
• Ganssle, Gregory E. and Woodruff, David M. (eds.), 2002, God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195129656.001.0001
• Gödel, Kurt, 1949, “A Remark About the Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy”, in P.A. Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist , La Salle, II1.: Open Court, 1949, pp. 557–562; reprinted with additions and corrections in Kurt Gödel, Collected Works (Volume II), S. Feferman et al. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
• Hartshorne, Charles, 1947, The Divine Relativity , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Hasker, William, 1989, God, Time, and Knowledge , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
• –––, 2002, “The Absence of a Timeless God”, in Ganssle & Woodruff 2002: 182–206.
• Helm, Paul, 1988, Eternal God , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198237251.001.0001
• –––, 2001, “Divine Timeless Eternity”, in Ganssle 2001: 28–60.
• Kenny, Anthony, 1979, The God of the Philosophers , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kretzmann, Norman, 1966, “Omniscience and Immutability”, The Journal of Philosophy , 63(14): 409–421. doi:10.2307/2023849
• Leftow, Brian, 1991, Time and Eternity , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 2002, “The Eternal Present”, in Ganssle & Woodruff 2002: 21–48.
• –––, 2005, “Eternity and Immutability”, in William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470756638.ch3
• –––, 2010, “Eternity”, in Charles Taliaferro, Paul Draper, and Philip L. Quinn (eds.), A Companion to Philosophy of Religion , 2 nd edition, Oxford and New York: Blackwell.
• Le Poidevin, Robin, 2023, And Was Made Man: Mind, Metaphysics, and Incarnation , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lewis, Delmas, 1984, “Eternity Again: A Reply to Stump and Kretzmann”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 15(1–2): 73–79. doi:10.1007/BF00142103
• Lucas, John R., 1973, A Treatise on Time and Space , London: William Clowes & Sons Limited.
• –––, 1989, The Future: An Essay on God, Temporality and Truth , Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Inc.
• Maimonides, Moses, The Guide of the Perplexed , translated with an introduction by Shlomo Pines and an introductory essay by Leo Strauss, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963.
• Mawson, T. J., 2008, “Divine Eternity”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 64(1): 35–50.
• McDaniel, Kris, 2016, “Eternity in Twentieth-Century Philosophy”, in Yitzhak Y. Melamed (ed.), Eternity: A History , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199781874.003.0016
• McTaggart, John M. E., 1908, “The Unreality of Time”, Mind , 17(4): 456–473. doi:10.1093/mind/XVII.4.457
• Melamed, Yitzhak Y., 2016, Eternity: A History , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Moravec, Matyas, forthcoming, Henri Bergson and the Philosophy of Religion , New York: Routledge.
• Mozersky, M. Joshua, 2015, Time, Language, and Ontology: The World from the B-theoretic Perspective , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718161.001.0001
• Mullins, Ryan T., 2014, “Doing Hard Time: Is God the Prisoner of the Oldest Dimension?”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 2: 160–185.
• –––, 2016, The End of the Timeless God , (Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198755180.001.0001
• Murray, Michael J. and Michael C. Rea, 2008, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511801488
• Nelson, Herbert J., 1987, “Time(s), Eternity, and Duration”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 22(1–2): 3–19. doi:10.1007/BF00135431
• Oppy, Graham, 2014, Describing Gods: An Investigation of Divine Attributes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316091807
• Padgett, Alan G., 1992, God, Eternity and the Nature of Time , London: Macmillan.
• –––, 2001, “Eternity as Relative Timelessness”, in Ganssle 2001: 92–110.
• Pike, Nelson C., 1965, “Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action”, The Philosophical Review , 74(1): 27–46. doi:10.2307/2183529
• –––, 1970, God and Timelessness , New York: Schocken.
• Pinnock, Clark H., John Sanders, Richard Rice, William Hasker, and David Basinger, 1994, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God , Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
• Rice, Richard, 2020, The Future of Open Theism: From Antecedents to Opportunities , Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
• Rogers, Katherin A., 1994, “Eternity has no Duration”, Religious Studies , 30(1): 1–16. doi:10.1017/S003441250002268X
• –––, 2000, Perfect Being Theology , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• –––, 2007, “Anselmian Eternalism: The Presence of a Timeless God”, Faith and Philosophy , 24(1): 3–27. doi:10.5840/faithphil200724134
• Savitt, Steven F., 1994, “The Replacement of Time”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 72(4): 463–474. doi:10.1080/00048409412346261
• Skow, Bradford, 2015, Objective Becoming , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198713272.001.0001
• Schmücker, Marcus, Michael T. Williams, and Florian Fischer (eds.), 2022, Temporality and Eternity: Nine Perspectives on God and Time , Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
• Stump, Eleonore and Norman Kretzmann [S&K], 1981, “Eternity”, The Journal of Philosophy , 78(8): 429–458. doi:10.2307/2026047
• –––, 1987, “Atemporal duration: a reply to Fitzgerald”, The Journal of Philosophy , 84(4): 214–219. doi:10.2307/2027159
• –––, 1992, “Eternity, Awareness, and Action”, Faith and Philosophy , 9(4): 463–482. doi:10.5840/faithphil19929433
• Swinburne, Richard, 1965, “The Timelessness of God”, Church Quarterly Review , 116: 323–337.
• –––, 1977, The Coherence of Theism , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1993, “God and Time”, in Eleonore Stump (ed.), Reasoned Faith , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, p. 204.
• –––, 1994, The Christian God , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Tapp, Christian and Edmund Runggaldier (eds.), 2011, God, Eternity, and Time , Aldershot: Ashgate Press.
• Torre, S., 2010, “Tense, Timely Action, and Self-ascription”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 80(1): 112–132. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2009.00312.x
• Wierenga, Edward R., 1989, The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 2002, “Timelessness out of Mind”, in Ganssle & Woodruff 2002: 153–164.
• Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 1975, “God Everlasting” in Clifton Orlebeke and Lewis Smedes (eds.), God and the Good: Essays in Honor of Henry Stob , Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, pp. 181–203.
• –––, 2000a, “God and Time”, Philosophia Christi , series 2, 2(1): 5–10.
• –––, 2000b, “God is ‘everlasting’, not ‘eternal’”, in Brian Davies (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2001, “Unqualified Divine Temporality”, in Ganssle 2001: 187–213.
• Wüthrich, Christian, 2013, “The fate of presentism in modern physics”, in Roberto Ciunti, Kristie Miller, and Giuliano Torrengo (eds.), New Papers on the Present, Focus on Presentism , Philosophia Verlag, Munich.
• Yates, John C., 1990, The Timelessness of God , Lanham: University Press of America.
• Yourgrau, Palle, 2005, A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein , New York: Basic Books.
• Zagzebski, Linda, 1991, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zimmerman, Dean, 2002, “God Inside Time and Before Creation”, in Ganssle & Woodruff 2002: 75–94.
• –––, 2010, “The A-theory of Time, Presentism, and Open Theism”, in Melville Y. Stewart (ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue, Volume Two , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Ganssle, Gregory, “ God and Time ”, entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
• Helm, Paul, “Eternity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/eternity/ >. [This was the previous entry, under a less specific title, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
• Oppy, Graham, 1998, “ Some Emendations to Leftow’s Arguments about Time and Eternity ”, paper available on The Secular Web. (A revised version is incorporated into Oppy 2014.)
• Rissler, James, “ Open Theism ”, entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

Aquinas, Thomas | Augustine of Hippo | Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus | Duns Scotus, John | fatalism | free will: divine foreknowledge and | immutability | McTaggart, John M. E. | quantum theory: quantum gravity | simplicity: divine | space and time: being and becoming in modern physics | time | time: the experience and perception of

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Paul Helm, for graciously giving permission to reuse verbatim some paragraphs from sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the previous entry in this entry’s section 3. Many thanks also to Brian Leftow, Ryan Mullins, Yuri Balashov, Baptiste Le Bihan, Evan Fales, Ulrich Meyer, Ludwig Neidhart, and participants of a workshop in Bonn on “God and Time”, August 2017, for comments on earlier drafts. This work was supported (in part) by the Yonsei University Future-Leading Research Initiative of 2018 (2018-22-0100).

Copyright © 2023 by Natalja Deng < nmdeng @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Science Network

What Einstein got right about science and religion (and a lot he got wrong)

If someone asked you to name the most famous scientist you can think of, I’d bet that nine times out of ten you’ll pick Albert Einstein. If science was an Olympic sport, he’s the GOAT. The German physicist, born in 1879, shot to prominence in the early 20th century with his theories of general and special relativity and his groundbreaking work on the photoelectric effect, paving the way for the development of quantum mechanics.

Less famous than e=mc2 and yet still widely quoted is Einstein’s writing on science and religion. If you’ve ever come across the saying ‘God does not play dice’ or heard someone use the quote ‘science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind’, you’re at least a little familiar with Einstein’s philosophical views. Both committed believers and the most fervent atheists have at different times sought to back up their position by referencing the great physicist.

But what did Einstein really believe about God and His relation to science? And what (if anything) can Christians learn from him?

No conflict

Any believer studying or working in the sciences must surely feel their heart lift at least a little when reading the following extract from one of Einstein’s letters:

‘ Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. ’1

Einstein is clear in his writing on the topic that he sees no inherent conflict between religion and science. In fact, he sees them as complementary, and each in different ways dependent on the other. Religion, he writes, needs science as a practical means of doing good works in the world. Science, which can tell us what is but not what ought to be, needs religious beliefs and values to direct how we use it, as well as inspire the human yearning to understand and explore the universe in which we find ourselves.

' For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. '2

In a society still influenced by the legacy of New Atheism, it’s refreshing to hear a scientist acknowledging that there are important questions out there that science cannot answer. Einstein puts forward a compelling case for why science and theology, or science and personal faith, need to interact and inform one another. Our reasons for doing science cannot come from within science itself: we need a higher goal to direct and motivate scientific endeavour. Awe at the beauty God has woven into his world; a longing to know Him and his creation better; a desire to serve others as Jesus has served us: these are the motivations that should drive Christians towards scientific professions.

A religion lacking substance

Unfortunately, Einstein’s apparent strong start on the complementarity of science and religion comes to an abrupt end when we get to his definition of religion. Despite demonstrating a clear regard for Christianity, the dimension of Christian faith that Einstein seems to admire is less about God, and more about human morality:

‘ The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side , one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind .’2

Notice how Einstein seeks to strip back the ‘religiousness’ of religion to focus on the ‘purely human side’ of Christian tradition. While the general principle of trying to be a good person has merit for Einstein, he takes issue with the very heart of the faith he supposedly admires: a personal God who acts in the world. For Einstein, the idea of a God who actually intervenes in human affairs contradicts the obvious laws of cause and effect we see in operation around us. Later, he goes as far as to state that ‘the main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God’.3

The religion that Einstein sees as so compatible with science is one devoid of God as Christians understand Him: personal, relational, immanent, good. Rather, he sees the focus of religion as ‘cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself’3. Salvation in this religion is not God’s project, but a decidedly human undertaking.

It’s obvious that this kind of religion will fit very neatly with science, isn’t it? Einstein’s religion is a moral system stripped of all claims to outward truth; which will give us guidance on what ‘ought to be’ but wouldn’t dare presume to tell us anything about what ‘is’. For Einstein, science gives us facts; religion gives us values. The two don’t conflict, but neither do they intersect. (Those who’ve read a little bit in the field of science and religion will probably be reminded of Stephen Jay Gould’s model of ‘non-overlapping magisteria’). Take Christ out of Christianity, and you end up with something pretty inoffensive which will sit neatly with any philosophy you please. It’s convenient – but it’s got no power to save.

I wonder whether we’re sometimes tempted to fall into that same trap. In our well-intentioned desire to show the harmony between science and our Christian faith, do we ever run the risk of pushing the living God into the background, reducing our faith to a set of moral values that doesn’t make any claims to objective truth? If we insist that God in no way contradicts or contravenes science, are we limiting God to being less powerful than laws that he himself created?

The fact is, both science and Christianity make claims to objective truth. If Jesus’ death and resurrection aren’t historical fact but just an inspirational myth, our faith is futile. And because science and theology are both attempting to describe actual, objective reality, there’s inevitably a bit of friction.

Take miracles, for example. Water turning into wine does contradict the usual scientific laws. There’s friction there between what science says is possible and what faith says is possible. Of course that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen – we know that if there’s an omnipotent God he’s perfectly free to work using the regular laws of nature most of the time, and make exceptions to them occasionally to show us something (that’s kind of the point of a miracle, right?).

So maybe we need to be a little more comfortable with friction. If science and theology sometimes chafe with each other a little around the edges, let them. It’s a sign that our faith is one that deals with the real world, that cares about how things objectively are and can offer us a concrete hope for the future. Einstein suggests that the Judeo-Christian personal God is simply a man-made deity created in our own image. When asking which is the man-made religion, I’d be far more suspicious of a belief system that makes no real demands of us, has no bearing on the physical stuff of reality and seems to fit with science just a bit too neatly.

Two maps to truth

Fortunately, all is not lost for those of us seeking to integrate our science and our faith into one coherent story. A bit of friction around the edges is not the same as a deep incompatibility. I like the phrasing used by philosopher Alvin Plantinga: between science and theism there is ‘superficial conflict but deep concord’4.

As one example, in his writing on religion and science Einstein often mentions his wonder at the rationality of the universe. In one oft-quoted line he says: ‘the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible’. Of course, the existence of a personal God makes sense of this: the rationality built into the universe comes directly from the rational mind of its Creator. The existence of the kind of God that he denies is precisely the thing that explains Einstein’s observations of the world.

What then might we suggest as a better way of thinking and talking about the relationship between science and theology, that shows their concord and also allows them to interact in the realm of objective reality?

Scientist and theologian Alister McGrath advocates for seeing theology and science as two complementary maps of reality. I like to think of this a bit like the atlases we used to use in high school geography lessons. A chapter on Asia might show a sequence of maps of the same area, each highlighting different features: one showing political boundaries, another revealing the underlying geology, another depicting population density. The maps would look quite different at first glance – it may even be quite tricky to see how they fit together - yet they all tell us something true about the complex geography of Asia.

We might think of theology and science in the same way. The complexity of our world means that we can only get a full picture of reality when we look at it using multiple different angles or maps. Theology and science offer us truth about two different levels of reality: both can simultaneously be true, and neither one negates the other. We can interact with each on its own terms, knowing that both describe the same reality. Both are anchored in real truth about how the world is, not merely human pontification. Together they offer a fuller, richer, more satisfying picture.

Sure, there will be a bit of quibbling about exactly how the two maps align. That’s to be expected – doubtless there is some human error in both our theology and our science (and given the numerous different theological positions within orthodoxy and multitudes of competing scientific theories, we can’t all be right!) But the fault is decidedly with the mapmakers and not with the terrain. God’s reality cannot contradict itself, but we’re more than capable of describing it in terms that seem mutually incompatible.

So Einstein was right on one thing: there is no insuperable contradiction between religion and science. But it doesn’t require us to rip God out of religion for that to be the case. Armed with our two maps, we’re free to explore the rich landscape of reality on multiple levels – scientific, spiritual and everything in between. And along the way, I might be a little more careful about how I quote Albert Einstein.

1 Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New York City. Published in The Christian Register , June, 1948.

2 From an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939

3 From Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941

All available at https://sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

4 Where The Conflict Really Lies, Alvin Plantinga

Enjoyed this article? You might like these other resources on a similar topic:

Book review: Enriching our Vision of Reality

Principles for the Christian mathematician

About the authors

Emma is UCCF's Science Network Coordinator. She lives in Cambridge, where she studied Natural Sciences (specialising in Biochemistry), then stayed on as a Relay worker with the Cambridge Christian …

View all resources by Emma Penwright

Can we set cookies? We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We’d also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. More about cookies .

By clicking the Accept button below you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

Religion and Spirituality in End-of-Life Care

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2022
• pp 4217–4221
• Cite this reference work entry

• Rhonda Shaw 3 &
• Bruce A. Stevens 4  

13 Accesses

End-of-life care ; End-of-life issues ; Palliative care

As the world’s population ages, the number of people requiring end-of-life care will increase raising questions about what constitutes quality and effectiveness of end-of-life care. End-of-life care is defined here as “the part of palliative care that is directed towards the care of persons who are nearing end of life” it focuses on “maintaining quality of life while offering services for legal matters” (Krau 2016 , p. ix–x). Importantly, end-of-life care aims to allow people to die with dignity.

Palliative care providers have adopted a holistic approach to end-of-life care which considers a patient’s physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs. This approach has become known as the biopsychosocial-spiritual model and it provides an alternative to the traditional pathophysical and medicine-based model (Richardson 2014 ). Spiritual care is often based on a definition of spirituality as “…the human search for...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Caralis PV, Davis B, Wright K, Marcial E (1993) The influence of ethnicity and race on attitudes toward advance directives, life-prolonging treatments, and euthanasia. J Clin Ethics 4(2):155–165

Google Scholar  

Daaleman TP, VandeCreek L (2000) Placing religion and spirituality in end-of-life care. J Am Med Assoc 284(19):2514–2517. Retrieved from http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/284/19/2514

Drury C, Hunter J (2016) The hole in holistic care. Open J Nurs 6:776–792. https://doi.org/10.4236/oin.2016.69078

Article   Google Scholar  

Duffy SA, Jackson FC, Schim SM, Ronis DL, Fowler KE (2006) Racial/ethnic preferences, sex preferences, and perceived discrimination related to end-of-life care. J Am Geriatr Soc 54:150–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00526.x

Edwards A, Pang N, Shiu V, Chan C (2010) The understanding of spirituality and the potential role of spiritual care in end-of-life and palliative care: a meta-study of qualitative research. Palliat Med 24(8):753–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216310375860

Fadiman A (1997) The spirit catches you and you fall down: a Hmong child, her American doctors, and the collision of two cultures. Noonday Press, New York

Kennedy C, Cheston SE (2003) Spiritual distress at life’s end: finding meaning in the maelstrom. J Pastoral Care 57(2):131–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/154230500305700204

Koenig HG (2002) A commentary: the role of religion and spirituality at end of life. Gerontologist 42(Special Issue III):20–23. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article/42/suppl_3/20/569210

Krau SD (2016) The difference between palliative care and end of life care: more than semantics. Nurs Clin N Am 51(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2016.07.002

Mebane EW, Oman RF, Krooned LT, Goldstein MK (1999) The influence of physician race, age, and gender on physician attitudes towards advance care directives and preferences for end-of-life decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc 47(5):579–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb02573.x

Pargament KI (2008) The sacred character of community life. Am J Community Psychol 41(1–2):22–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9150-z

Richardson P (2014) Spirituality, religion and palliative care. Ann Palliat Med 3(3):150–159. Retrieved from www.amepc.org/apm

Shaw R, Gullifer J, Wood K (2016) Religion and spirituality: a qualitative study of older adults. Ageing Int 41:311–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-016-9245-7

Stevens BA, Shaw R, Bewert P, Salt M, Ma J (2017) Unique needs: Salvation Army officers in retirement and end-of-life care. J Relig Spiritual Aging. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15528030.2017.1344178

VandeCreek L (2010) Defining and advocating for spiritual care in hospital. J Pastoral Care Counsel 64(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/154230501006400205

Walker A, Breitsameter C (2017) The provision of spiritual care in hospices: a study of four hospices in North Rhone-Westphalia. J Relig Health 56:2237–2250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0396-y

Walter T (2002) Spirituality in palliative care: opportunity or burden? Palliat Med 16:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269216302pm516oa

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia

Rhonda Shaw

Theology, Charles Sturt University, Barton, ACT, Australia

Bruce A. Stevens

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhonda Shaw .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Population Division, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, NY, USA

Department of Population Health Sciences, Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Matthew E. Dupre

Section Editor information

School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Port Macquarie, Australia

Rhonda Shaw Ph.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Shaw, R., Stevens, B.A. (2021). Religion and Spirituality in End-of-Life Care. In: Gu, D., Dupre, M.E. (eds) Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9_150

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9_150

Published : 24 May 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-22008-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-22009-9

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research