Spirituality is a fundamental part of human nature that predates all religions. This article explore why spirituality evolved, how it shaped religion, and what this means for finding meaning.
Spirituality and religion, while often used interchangeably, represent fundamentally different aspects of human experience. Spirituality is humanity’s innate need to understand the world and our place within it—a drive as natural as hunger or the need for connection. Religion, by contrast, is an organized system of beliefs, practices, and institutions designed to address spiritual needs through structured frameworks.
The answer to which came first is both simple and profound: spirituality precedes religion. Our innate spiritual nature is the foundation upon which all religions are built. Spirituality asks the questions; religion provides the answers. This relationship explains not only how religions developed but also why they have taken such varied forms, why they persist despite contradicting one another, and why spiritual seeking continues even as traditional religious affiliation declines in many societies.
Part 1: Understanding Spirituality as Innate Human Nature
Universal Human Characteristics Across Cultures
The evidence for spirituality as an innate human characteristic is overwhelming. Across every continent, among every people, and in every era, humans have engaged in spiritual behavior—seeking knowledge about forces beyond the visible world and attempting to order their lives according to that understanding.
Archaeological evidence reveals that spiritual practices emerged remarkably early in human history. Neanderthals buried their dead with flowers and tools as early as 100,000 years ago, suggesting beliefs about an afterlife or spiritual realm (Pettitt, 2011). Cave paintings dating back 40,000 years depict what appear to be shamanic rituals and spiritual symbols (Lewis-Williams, 2002). These practices emerged independently across geographically isolated populations, suggesting they arise from something fundamental to human cognition rather than cultural transmission alone.
Anthropologists have documented spiritual beliefs and practices in every human society ever studied, without exception. This universality has led some scholars to describe humanity as Homo Religiosus—a species defined not primarily by wisdom or intelligence (Homo Sapiens) but by our shared engagement with spiritual questions and religious activity (Smith, 1991). Even in modern secular societies, where traditional religion has declined, humans continue to grapple with the same existential questions that have occupied our ancestors for millennia.
The universality of spiritual behavior suggests it serves important functions. Evolutionary psychologists propose that the capacity for spiritual thought provided survival advantages to early humans, helping them create social cohesion, transmit cultural knowledge, cope with uncertainty, and find motivation to persevere through hardship (Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008). Whether or not spiritual beliefs correspond to objective reality, the human capacity for spirituality appears to be a product of natural selection.
The Fundamental Questions That Define Spirituality
At the heart of spirituality lie a set of questions that humans across cultures and eras have found impossible to ignore. These questions define the spiritual dimension of human experience:
Why are we here? The question of purpose drives much of human behavior. Unlike other animals that simply exist, humans need to understand why we exist. This search for purpose manifests in everything from career choices to philosophical inquiry to religious devotion. Research shows that having a sense of purpose is strongly associated with psychological well-being, physical health, and longevity (McKnight & Kashdan, 2009).
What happens after death? Mortality awareness—the knowledge that we will die—appears unique to humans and creates profound psychological tension. Every culture has developed beliefs about what, if anything, follows death. These beliefs range from reincarnation to heaven and hell to complete annihilation, but the universality of the question itself reveals something fundamental about human consciousness (Becker, 1973).
How should we live? Questions of ethics and morality arise naturally from our social nature and capacity for abstract thought. Humans don’t simply act on instinct; we reflect on whether our actions are right or wrong, just or unjust, meaningful or meaningless. This moral dimension of human experience has spiritual roots, as evidenced by the fact that most ethical systems are embedded within broader spiritual or religious frameworks (Haidt, 2012).
What is the nature of reality? Humans are driven to understand not just practical matters but the fundamental nature of existence itself. What is the universe? How did it begin? Is there purpose or design in nature? Does consciousness extend beyond the physical brain? These cosmological and metaphysical questions have occupied philosophers, theologians, and scientists throughout history (Sagan, 1985).
Spirituality as the Question-Asker
What distinguishes spirituality from religion is that spirituality represents the asking rather than the answering. Spirituality is the innate human drive to understand, the discomfort we feel with uncertainty, and the need to find coherence and meaning in our experience.
This drive manifests early in human development. Children spontaneously ask spiritual questions—”Where did I come from?” “What happens when we die?” “Why is there something instead of nothing?”—without being taught to do so (Hay & Nye, 2006). These questions emerge from the child’s developing consciousness and capacity for abstract thought, not from religious instruction. In fact, children often ask these questions in ways that challenge or go beyond the religious frameworks their parents provide.
The discomfort humans feel with uncertainty and the unknown is well-documented in psychological research. Studies show that ambiguity and lack of closure create anxiety and motivate people to seek explanations, even when those explanations may be incomplete or incorrect (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). This “need for cognitive closure” helps explain why humans have consistently developed belief systems to address spiritual questions—the alternative, living with unanswered existential questions, creates psychological distress.
Importantly, the spiritual questions themselves are more fundamental than any particular answers. A person can reject all religious answers and still grapple with questions of meaning, purpose, mortality, and the nature of reality. This is why spirituality persists even when religion declines—the questions are intrinsic to human consciousness.
Part 2: Religion as the Response to Spiritual Needs
How Religions Developed Over Time
If spirituality represents humanity’s innate questions, religions represent the answers that cultures developed over millennia. The evolution of religious belief systems follows recognizable patterns across different societies, suggesting that religions emerge naturally from spiritual needs.
The earliest forms of religious expression were likely animistic—attributing spiritual essence or consciousness to natural phenomena like rivers, mountains, animals, and weather (Tylor, 1871). This made intuitive sense to early humans trying to understand and relate to the world around them. If humans have consciousness and agency, perhaps other aspects of nature do as well. Animistic beliefs provided frameworks for understanding causation, predicting events, and feeling connected to the natural world.
As human societies grew more complex, so did religious systems. Shamans and spiritual specialists emerged—individuals who claimed special access to spiritual knowledge or ability to mediate between the human and spiritual realms (Eliade, 1964). These figures served important social functions, providing healing, guidance, conflict resolution, and explanations for otherwise inexplicable events. The role of the shaman eventually evolved into more formal priesthoods in larger, more stratified societies.
The development of writing allowed for the codification of religious beliefs into scripture and doctrine. Oral traditions that had been passed down through generations were recorded, standardized, and given authority. This codification transformed fluid spiritual traditions into more rigid religious systems with defined orthodoxies (Goody, 1986). The major world religions we recognize today—Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam—all emerged during or after the development of writing in their respective cultures.
Religious institutions grew alongside political structures, often becoming intertwined with governance and social control. Temples, churches, mosques, and monasteries became centers not just of worship but of education, charity, art, and community organization (Stark & Finke, 2000). Religion became embedded in the fabric of society, shaping everything from legal systems to daily routines to artistic expression.
Religion as the Answer-Provider
While spirituality asks the questions, religion provides structured answers. This is religion’s primary function and the source of its power and persistence.
Structured responses to existential questions: Rather than leaving individuals to grapple alone with questions of meaning and purpose, religions offer comprehensive frameworks. Christianity teaches that humans were created by God for relationship with Him and that life’s purpose is found in loving God and neighbor. Buddhism teaches that life’s purpose is to achieve enlightenment and escape the cycle of suffering. Secular humanism teaches that humans create their own meaning through reason, ethics, and concern for humanity. Each system provides a coherent answer to the question “Why am I here?”
Creation myths and cosmologies: Every religious tradition includes narratives about the origin of the universe, Earth, and humanity. These stories serve multiple functions: they satisfy curiosity about origins, they establish humanity’s place in the cosmic order, and they often provide moral lessons. The Genesis creation account, the Hindu concept of cyclical creation and destruction, the Big Bang theory embraced by secular worldviews—all serve the same fundamental function of explaining how we came to be (Leeming, 2010).
Moral frameworks and ethical guidelines: Religions don’t just explain reality; they prescribe how to live within it. The Ten Commandments, the Buddhist Eightfold Path, Islamic Sharia, Confucian ethics—these systems provide clear guidance on right and wrong, just and unjust, virtuous and sinful. This moral clarity addresses the spiritual question “How should I live?” and provides the psychological comfort of knowing one is living rightly (Graham & Haidt, 2010).
Rituals and practices to address spiritual needs: Beyond beliefs, religions provide practices—prayer, meditation, worship services, pilgrimages, fasting, festivals—that allow adherents to actively engage with spiritual realities. These practices serve psychological and social functions: they create transcendent experiences, mark important life transitions, build community, and provide regular reminders of one’s spiritual commitments (Rappaport, 1999). Research shows that religious practices, independent of beliefs, contribute significantly to well-being (Koenig, 2012).
Why Religions Have Survived and Thrived
Given that there have been thousands of religions throughout history, most of which contradict one another in significant ways, why have religions as a category been so successful? The answer lies in their effectiveness at satisfying fundamental spiritual needs.
Effectiveness in satisfying fundamental spiritual needs: Religions work. They may not all be true in a literal, factual sense, but they successfully address the psychological and social needs that arise from humanity’s spiritual nature. A person who believes they understand their purpose, knows what happens after death, has clear moral guidance, and feels connected to transcendent reality experiences less existential anxiety than someone without such frameworks (Park, 2005). Whether the beliefs are objectively true matters less, from a psychological perspective, than whether they effectively meet spiritual needs.
Community building and social cohesion: Religions create powerful bonds between adherents. Shared beliefs, practices, and values generate trust and cooperation. Religious communities provide social support, practical assistance during hardship, and a sense of belonging to something larger than oneself (Putnam & Campbell, 2010). This social dimension explains why religious participation is consistently associated with better health outcomes, greater life satisfaction, and increased longevity—benefits that persist even when controlling for the beliefs themselves (Li et al., 2016).
Transmission of wisdom across generations: Religions serve as repositories of accumulated wisdom about how to live well, cope with suffering, raise children, organize societies, and find meaning. This wisdom is encoded in scriptures, preserved through traditions, and transmitted through teaching and practice. Even when specific religious claims are questioned, the practical wisdom embedded in religious traditions often proves valuable (Wilson, 2002).
Psychological comfort and certainty: Perhaps most importantly, religions provide certainty in the face of uncertainty. They offer definitive answers to questions that might otherwise remain perpetually open and anxiety-producing. This certainty is psychologically comforting, even when it requires accepting claims that cannot be empirically verified. Research on religious fundamentalism shows that rigid belief systems are particularly appealing to people with high needs for cognitive closure and low tolerance for ambiguity (Hogg et al., 2010).
Part 3: The Relationship Between Spirituality and Religion
Religion as a Vehicle for Spirituality
The relationship between spirituality and religion is not antagonistic but complementary. Religion serves as a vehicle—a structured means of engaging with and expressing innate spiritual impulses.
How organized religion channels innate spiritual impulses: Left to their own devices, individuals might struggle to effectively address their spiritual needs. Religion provides ready-made frameworks, tested over generations, for engaging with existential questions. It’s similar to how language channels the innate human capacity for communication—the capacity is innate, but the specific system must be learned and provides structure for expression (Bellah, 2011).
The benefits of structured spiritual practice: Research consistently shows that people who engage with spirituality through religious structures often experience greater benefits than those who pursue spirituality in purely individual ways. Religious communities provide accountability, guidance from experienced practitioners, regular practice schedules, and social support (Saroglou, 2011). While individual spiritual seeking has value, the structure provided by religious traditions helps many people maintain consistent practice and deeper engagement.
Community support in spiritual development: Spiritual growth rarely happens in isolation. Religious communities provide mentors, fellow seekers, and models of mature spiritual life. They create environments where spiritual questions can be discussed, doubts can be expressed safely, and growth can be encouraged. The communal dimension of religion addresses not just spiritual needs but social needs simultaneously (Oman & Thoresen, 2003).
When Religion and Spirituality Diverge
Despite their natural relationship, spirituality and religion can diverge, sometimes dramatically. Understanding these divergences illuminates both concepts.
“Spiritual but not religious” phenomenon: In recent decades, increasing numbers of people, particularly in developed nations, identify as “spiritual but not religious” (Fuller, 2001). These individuals report having spiritual needs and engaging in spiritual practices but reject affiliation with organized religious institutions. This phenomenon suggests that spirituality can exist independently of religion and that religious institutions may sometimes fail to effectively address spiritual needs or may create barriers (dogmatism, hypocrisy, irrelevance) that drive spiritually-inclined people away.
Religious practice without spiritual engagement: Conversely, people can participate in religious activities without genuine spiritual engagement. They may attend services out of habit, social pressure, or family obligation while remaining disconnected from the deeper questions and experiences that religion is meant to address. This “going through the motions” represents religion without spirituality—the form without the substance (Allport & Ross, 1967). Research distinguishes between “intrinsic” religious orientation (religion as an end in itself, driven by spiritual needs) and “extrinsic” orientation (religion as a means to other ends like social status), with intrinsic orientation showing stronger associations with well-being (Ryan et al., 1993).
Conflicts between institutional religion and personal spirituality: Sometimes religious institutions, in their role as preservers of tradition and orthodoxy, come into conflict with individuals’ personal spiritual experiences or questions. A person might have a spiritual experience that doesn’t fit their religion’s framework, or they might find that their religion’s answers no longer satisfy their spiritual questions. These conflicts can lead to spiritual crises, religious transitions, or the development of personal spiritual frameworks that diverge from institutional teachings (Streib et al., 2009).
The Paradox of Religious Diversity
One of the most striking features of human religious history is its diversity. Thousands of distinct religions have emerged, each claiming to provide true answers to spiritual questions, yet often contradicting one another in fundamental ways.
Thousands of religions throughout history: From ancient Egyptian religion to Norse paganism to modern Scientology, humans have created an astonishing variety of belief systems. Even within major religious traditions, countless denominations, sects, and schools of thought exist. Christianity alone has splintered into tens of thousands of distinct groups, each with somewhat different beliefs and practices (Barrett et al., 2001).
Doctrinal and logical exclusivity between religions: Many religions make exclusive truth claims that logically preclude other religions from being true. If Christianity is correct that Jesus is the only path to salvation, then Islam’s rejection of Jesus’s divinity must be wrong. If Buddhism is correct that there is no permanent self or soul, then Hinduism’s concept of atman (eternal soul) must be mistaken. These contradictions cannot all be simultaneously true in a literal sense.
Yet all address the same fundamental spiritual questions: Despite their differences, all religions address the same core set of spiritual questions. Every religion has something to say about human purpose, the nature of reality, life after death, and how to live ethically. They provide different answers, but they’re answering the same questions—the questions that arise from humanity’s innate spiritual nature.
Why contradictory systems can all be “effective”: This paradox resolves when we understand that religions succeed not primarily by being factually correct but by effectively meeting spiritual and psychological needs. A Christian who believes in heaven and a Buddhist who believes in reincarnation both have frameworks for understanding death that reduce anxiety and provide meaning. A Muslim following Sharia and a secular humanist following rational ethics both have moral guidance that helps them navigate life’s complexities. The contradictory content matters less than the functional effectiveness in addressing spiritual needs (Pargament, 1997).
This doesn’t mean all religions are equally true or that truth doesn’t matter. Rather, it explains why religions persist and thrive despite their mutual contradictions—they’re all built on the same foundation of innate human spiritual needs, and they all provide frameworks, however different, for addressing those needs.
Part 4: Evidence Supporting Spirituality’s Primacy
Evolutionary Perspective
The claim that spirituality precedes religion isn’t merely philosophical—it’s supported by evidence from multiple scientific disciplines.
Spiritual behavior in early hominids: Archaeological evidence suggests that spiritual or proto-religious behavior emerged very early in human evolution, possibly even before Homo sapiens. Neanderthals, our closest extinct relatives, buried their dead with apparent ritual care, suggesting some concept of an afterlife or spiritual realm (Pettitt, 2011). The famous “flower burial” at Shanidar Cave in Iraq, dating to approximately 60,000 years ago, shows a Neanderthal individual buried with medicinal plants, possibly indicating beliefs about healing in an afterlife or spiritual significance attributed to certain plants (Sommer, 1999).
Burial practices and ritual objects in prehistoric sites: The archaeological record reveals increasingly sophisticated spiritual practices as human cultures developed. Burial sites from 100,000 years ago show bodies positioned carefully, often with grave goods—tools, ornaments, food—suggesting beliefs about continued existence after death (Kuijt, 2008). Cave paintings from 40,000 years ago depict what appear to be shamanic figures, therianthropes (human-animal hybrids), and symbolic representations that likely held spiritual significance (Lewis-Williams, 2002). Venus figurines, small sculptures of female forms dating back 35,000 years, are found across Europe and may represent fertility goddesses or spiritual concepts of femininity and creation (McDermott, 1996).
These artifacts predate any organized religious systems we can identify. They represent spiritual impulses—attempts to understand death, connect with forces beyond the visible world, and find meaning in existence—before those impulses were codified into formal religions.
The evolutionary advantage of meaning-making: From an evolutionary perspective, the capacity for spiritual thought likely provided significant survival advantages. Cognitive scientists propose several mechanisms by which spiritual cognition enhanced fitness:
- Social cohesion: Shared beliefs and rituals created stronger group bonds, enabling better cooperation and mutual support (Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008).
- Moral regulation: Belief in supernatural observers who reward good behavior and punish wrongdoing encouraged prosocial behavior even when human observers were absent (Johnson & Bering, 2006).
- Anxiety management: Spiritual frameworks for understanding death, suffering, and uncertainty reduced debilitating anxiety and enabled action in the face of danger (Vail et al., 2010).
- Motivation and resilience: Belief that one’s life has cosmic significance or that suffering serves a purpose provided motivation to persevere through hardship (Park, 2010).
These advantages would have been conferred by the capacity for spiritual thought—the ability to ask existential questions and develop frameworks for answering them—rather than by any particular religious system. This suggests that spirituality as a cognitive capacity evolved first, with specific religious systems emerging later as cultural expressions of that innate capacity.
Developmental Psychology
The study of how spirituality emerges in individual human development provides further evidence for its primacy over religion.
Children’s spontaneous spiritual questions: Research on children’s cognitive development reveals that spiritual questions emerge spontaneously, without requiring religious instruction. Children as young as three or four begin asking questions like “Why do people die?” “Where was I before I was born?” and “Who made everything?” (Harris & Koenig, 2006). These questions reflect emerging awareness of mortality, causation, and the boundaries of existence—fundamentally spiritual concerns.
Importantly, children often ask these questions in ways that go beyond or even challenge the religious frameworks their parents provide. A child raised in a Christian household might ask “But who made God?”—a question that pushes beyond the standard religious answer. This suggests the questions arise from the child’s own developing consciousness rather than from religious teaching (Kelemen, 2004).
Universal stages of spiritual development: Developmental psychologist James Fowler identified stages of faith development that appear to be universal across cultures and religious traditions (Fowler, 1981). His research suggests that humans naturally progress through increasingly sophisticated ways of understanding spiritual and existential questions, from the magical thinking of early childhood through the conventional beliefs of adolescence to the more complex, nuanced understandings of mature adulthood. These stages describe the process of spiritual development rather than the content of any particular religion, suggesting that spiritual development is a natural human trajectory that exists independently of specific religious systems.
Questions emerge before answers are provided: Perhaps most tellingly, children begin asking spiritual questions before they’ve been given religious answers—and often before they’ve been exposed to religious teaching at all. A four-year-old who has never attended religious services will still wonder about death, origins, and purpose. The questions are innate; the answers must be learned. This temporal sequence—questions first, answers later—demonstrates the primacy of spirituality (the questioning impulse) over religion (the answering system).
Cross-Cultural Studies
Anthropological and sociological research across diverse cultures provides compelling evidence that spiritual needs manifest universally, independent of specific religious traditions.
Spiritual needs manifest even without religious training: Studies of children raised in explicitly secular or atheist households reveal that they still develop spiritual questions and concerns. Soviet attempts to create a thoroughly atheistic society through decades of anti-religious education and propaganda failed to eliminate spiritual seeking; people continued to grapple with questions of meaning, purpose, and transcendence even in the absence of religious frameworks (Froese, 2008). This persistence suggests that spiritual needs arise from human nature itself rather than from religious indoctrination.
Secular spirituality in non-religious societies: Contemporary secular societies provide natural experiments in spirituality without traditional religion. In countries like Sweden, Czech Republic, and Japan, where religious affiliation and practice have declined dramatically, researchers find that spiritual concerns persist (Zuckerman, 2008). People in these societies still seek meaning, purpose, and transcendence; they simply pursue these through secular means—nature experiences, art, philosophy, meditation practices divorced from religious contexts, or personal spiritual frameworks that don’t align with organized religion (Ammerman, 2013).
The persistence of spiritual seeking after religious decline: Sociological data from Europe and North America shows that as traditional religious affiliation declines, identification as “spiritual but not religious” increases (Mercadante, 2014). People aren’t abandoning spirituality; they’re abandoning institutional religion while continuing to engage with spiritual questions and practices. This pattern suggests that spiritual needs are more fundamental than religious affiliation—when religion fails to meet spiritual needs effectively, people seek alternative means rather than simply abandoning spirituality altogether.
Universal spiritual experiences across cultures: Research on mystical and transcendent experiences reveals remarkable similarities across cultures and religious traditions. Psychologist William James documented this in his classic work The Varieties of Religious Experience, noting that people from different religions report strikingly similar experiences of unity, transcendence, ineffability, and transformation (James, 1902). More recent research confirms these findings: whether induced through meditation, prayer, psychedelics, or spontaneous occurrence, profound spiritual experiences share common phenomenological features across cultures (Hood, 2001). This universality suggests these experiences arise from common features of human consciousness rather than from specific religious teachings.
Neuroscience of Spirituality
Modern neuroscience provides perhaps the most direct evidence for spirituality as an innate human capacity.
Brain structures associated with spiritual experience: Neuroimaging studies have identified brain regions consistently activated during spiritual experiences and practices. The parietal lobe, which processes spatial awareness and the sense of self, shows decreased activity during mystical experiences of unity and transcendence (Newberg & Waldman, 2009). The prefrontal cortex, involved in attention and self-regulation, shows increased activity during meditation and prayer (Tang et al., 2015). The limbic system, which processes emotion, is activated during religious experiences (Azari et al., 2001).
These findings suggest that spiritual experience isn’t simply learned behavior or cultural construction—it involves specific, identifiable brain processes. The fact that these neural structures exist in all humans, regardless of religious background, indicates that the capacity for spiritual experience is built into human neurobiology.
Universal patterns of spiritual experience across religions: Neuroscientist Andrew Newberg’s research comparing brain activity during different religious practices—Christian prayer, Buddhist meditation, Islamic Sufi practices—reveals similar patterns of neural activation despite the different theological frameworks (Newberg et al., 2001). A Christian experiencing God’s presence and a Buddhist experiencing emptiness show comparable changes in brain activity. This suggests that while religions provide different interpretive frameworks, the underlying spiritual experiences arise from common neurological processes.
Biological basis for spiritual capacity: The existence of neural structures and processes associated with spiritual experience suggests that humans evolved the capacity for spirituality. Just as we have brain structures for language acquisition (Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas), we appear to have neural architecture that enables spiritual cognition and experience (McNamara, 2009). This biological basis supports the view that spirituality is innate—part of human nature—while specific religious beliefs and practices are cultural elaborations of that innate capacity.
Importantly, the neuroscience doesn’t prove or disprove the truth of religious claims. The fact that spiritual experiences correlate with brain activity doesn’t mean they’re “merely” brain activity any more than the fact that perceiving a tree correlates with brain activity means trees don’t exist. What neuroscience does demonstrate is that the capacity for spiritual experience is built into human biology, existing prior to and independent of any particular religious system.
Part 5: Implications for Modern Life
Understanding the “Spiritual but Not Religious” Movement
The recognition that spirituality precedes and underlies religion helps make sense of contemporary spiritual trends, particularly the growing “spiritual but not religious” (SBNR) phenomenon.
Why people leave organized religion but retain spiritual needs: Survey data from the Pew Research Center shows that religious “nones”—people who claim no religious affiliation—are the fastest-growing religious category in the United States and many other developed nations (Pew Research Center, 2019). However, many of these individuals don’t identify as atheists; rather, they describe themselves as spiritual but not religious.
Understanding spirituality as innate helps explain this pattern. People aren’t losing their spiritual needs; they’re rejecting religious institutions they perceive as failing to meet those needs effectively. Common reasons for leaving organized religion include: perceived hypocrisy, rigid dogmatism, irrelevance to modern life, conflicts between religious teachings and personal experience or scientific understanding, institutional scandals, and social or political positions they disagree with (Drescher, 2016).
When religious institutions fail to effectively channel spiritual impulses, people don’t simply stop being spiritual—they seek alternative means of addressing their innate spiritual needs.
The search for authentic spiritual expression: SBNR individuals often describe their spiritual seeking as a search for authenticity. They want spiritual frameworks that resonate with their actual experience, that allow for questioning and growth, and that integrate rather than conflict with other aspects of their lives (Mercadante, 2014). This search reflects the primacy of spirituality: the innate spiritual impulse seeks expression, and when traditional religious forms feel inauthentic or constraining, people create or discover alternative forms.
This search takes many forms: nature-based spirituality, meditation practices borrowed from Eastern traditions but practiced in secular contexts, personal spiritual frameworks cobbled together from multiple traditions, engagement with art and creativity as spiritual practice, or philosophical approaches to existential questions (Heelas & Woodhead, 2005).
Creating new forms of spiritual community: One challenge SBNR individuals face is the loss of community that religious institutions traditionally provided. In response, new forms of spiritual community are emerging: meditation groups, philosophical discussion circles, online communities focused on spiritual topics, secular churches that provide community and ritual without supernatural beliefs, and gatherings centered on spiritual practices like yoga or contemplative hiking (Huss, 2014).
These emerging forms demonstrate that while the specific structures may change, the underlying needs—for community, for shared exploration of existential questions, for practices that address spiritual dimensions of life—remain constant. The forms evolve, but the foundation of innate spiritual need persists.
The Future of Spirituality and Religion
Understanding the relationship between spirituality and religion allows us to make informed predictions about their future trajectories.
Declining religious affiliation in developed nations: The trend toward religious disaffiliation appears likely to continue in developed nations, driven by factors including: increased education and scientific literacy, greater individualism and skepticism toward institutional authority, exposure to diverse worldviews through globalization and internet connectivity, and perceived conflicts between traditional religious teachings and modern values around gender, sexuality, and pluralism (Bruce, 2011).
However, this decline in religious affiliation doesn’t represent a decline in spirituality itself. The underlying spiritual needs that gave rise to religions remain part of human nature.
The persistence of spiritual questions and needs: As long as humans remain conscious beings aware of our mortality, capable of abstract thought, and driven to find meaning and purpose, spiritual questions will persist. “Why am I here?” “What happens when I die?” “How should I live?” These questions don’t disappear simply because traditional religious answers lose credibility. If anything, the decline of dominant religious frameworks may make these questions more urgent and more consciously felt.
Research supports this persistence: even in highly secular societies, people continue to report spiritual experiences, seek meaning and purpose, and grapple with existential questions (Zuckerman et al., 2016). The questions are too fundamental to human consciousness to simply evaporate.
New forms of spiritual practice emerging: As traditional religious forms decline, new practices and frameworks are emerging to address spiritual needs. These include:
- Secular mindfulness and meditation: Practices borrowed from Buddhist traditions but taught in explicitly non-religious contexts, focusing on psychological benefits while maintaining contemplative depth (Wilson, 2014).
- Psychedelic-assisted spirituality: Growing research into and use of psychedelics for spiritual exploration and therapeutic purposes, often outside traditional religious contexts (Griffiths et al., 2011).
- Nature-based spirituality: Practices that find transcendence and meaning through connection with the natural world, sometimes drawing on indigenous traditions (Taylor, 2010).
- Philosophical approaches: Using philosophy, particularly existentialism and stoicism, as frameworks for addressing spiritual questions without supernatural claims (Marinoff, 1999).
- Artistic and creative spirituality: Engaging with art, music, literature, and creativity as spiritual practices (Wuthnow, 2001).
These emerging forms demonstrate that spirituality is adaptable. The innate spiritual impulse finds expression through whatever forms a culture provides or creates.
Practical Applications
Understanding spirituality’s primacy over religion has practical implications for how we approach spiritual needs in contemporary life.
Recognizing spirituality as primary, religion as secondary: This recognition frees us from the false dichotomy of either accepting a traditional religion wholesale or abandoning spirituality altogether. We can honor our innate spiritual needs while remaining discerning about which religious or spiritual frameworks, if any, effectively address those needs. It also helps us understand that spiritual seeking isn’t a failure or deficiency but a natural expression of human nature.
Respecting diverse paths to spiritual fulfillment: If spirituality is innate but religions are cultural constructions, then multiple valid paths to spiritual fulfillment exist. A Christian’s path through their tradition, a Buddhist’s through theirs, and a secular humanist’s through philosophical reflection and ethical living can all represent authentic responses to innate spiritual needs. This doesn’t require believing all paths are equally true in their factual claims, but it does require recognizing that diverse approaches can all address the same underlying human needs (Hick, 1989).
Addressing spiritual needs outside religious frameworks: For those who find traditional religions unsatisfying or incompatible with their understanding of the world, recognizing spirituality’s primacy provides permission to address spiritual needs through alternative means. Healthcare providers, therapists, educators, and others who work with human well-being can acknowledge and address spiritual dimensions of health without requiring religious affiliation (Puchalski et al., 2014).
Finding authentic spiritual expression: Perhaps most importantly, understanding that spirituality precedes religion empowers individuals to seek authentic spiritual expression rather than forcing themselves into frameworks that don’t fit. The questions matter more than any particular answers. The seeking itself is valuable. Spiritual authenticity—engaging honestly with existential questions in ways that resonate with one’s actual experience and understanding—may be more important than adherence to any specific religious system (Taylor, 1991).
This doesn’t mean all spiritual frameworks are equally valid or that “anything goes.” It means that the measure of a spiritual framework’s value is how effectively it addresses innate spiritual needs while remaining intellectually honest and psychologically healthy. Some frameworks do this better than others, but the judgment should be based on effectiveness and authenticity rather than simply on tradition or institutional authority.
Conclusion
The question “Which came first, spirituality or religion?” is more than an academic curiosity. Understanding that spirituality—humanity’s innate need to understand the world and our place within it—precedes and underlies religion illuminates fundamental truths about human nature and helps us navigate the complex spiritual landscape of modern life.
Spirituality is the root; religion is the fruit. The questions are universal and innate, arising from the very structure of human consciousness. The answers—provided by thousands of diverse religious traditions—are cultural constructions, attempts to address those universal questions within specific historical and social contexts.
This relationship explains religion’s remarkable diversity and persistence. Religions contradict one another in their specific claims, yet all address the same fundamental questions because those questions arise from shared human nature. Religions persist and thrive not necessarily because they’re factually correct in all their claims but because they effectively meet innate spiritual needs for meaning, purpose, moral guidance, and transcendence.
The evidence supporting spirituality’s primacy is overwhelming. Archaeological findings show spiritual behavior emerging before organized religion. Developmental psychology reveals spiritual questions arising spontaneously in children. Cross-cultural studies demonstrate spiritual needs persisting even without religious training. Neuroscience identifies brain structures associated with spiritual experience that exist in all humans regardless of religious background. Evolution itself appears to have selected for the capacity for spiritual thought.
Understanding this relationship has profound implications for how we approach spirituality in contemporary life. It helps explain the “spiritual but not religious” phenomenon—people aren’t abandoning spirituality but seeking authentic expression outside traditional religious structures that no longer serve their needs. It suggests that the decline of traditional religion doesn’t mean the end of spirituality but rather its evolution into new forms.
Most importantly, recognizing spirituality’s primacy honors both the innate spiritual dimension of human nature and the wisdom accumulated in religious traditions. We need not choose between blind adherence to tradition and complete rejection of spirituality. We can honor our innate spiritual nature while remaining critically engaged with the frameworks—religious or secular—that help us address it.
The journey of spiritual seeking is not about finding a single, perfect answer to life’s biggest questions. It’s about engaging honestly with those questions, recognizing their universality, and finding authentic ways to address them in our own lives. Whether through traditional religious frameworks, secular contemplative practices, artistic expression, or philosophical inquiry, the path forward lies in honoring our innate spiritual nature while remaining open to the diverse ways it can be expressed.
As philosopher and psychologist William James observed, “The religious life is a life of effort to get in touch with the divine, to feel the presence of a power which is not ourselves, and to live in harmony with it” (James, 1902). This definition captures the essence of spirituality—it’s not about belief in a specific doctrine, but about the effort to connect with something larger than oneself, to find meaning and purpose, and to live in harmony with the fundamental realities of existence.
In this light, the most important spiritual question may not be “Which religion is true?” but rather “How can I authentically address my innate spiritual needs in ways that are meaningful, honest, and psychologically healthy?” The answer to this question will be personal and unique to each individual, shaped by their experiences, values, and understanding of the world.
Ultimately, the relationship between spirituality and religion reminds us that human beings are not merely biological organisms or social constructs, but conscious beings with an innate need to understand our place in the universe. This need is as fundamental as our need for food, shelter, and connection. By recognizing and honoring this need, we can navigate the complex spiritual landscape of modern life with greater authenticity, integrity, and purpose.
As we move forward in an increasingly complex world, the challenge is not to abandon spirituality but to find ways to express it that are authentic, inclusive, and responsive to the diverse needs of humanity. The spiritual journey is not about finding the right answer, but about engaging with the questions in ways that enrich our lives and contribute to the well-being of all.
In the words of psychologist Viktor Frankl, “The last of the human freedoms—namely, to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s way” (Frankl, 1946/2006). This freedom to choose our attitude, to engage authentically with our spiritual nature, is perhaps the most profound gift of human consciousness. The journey of spirituality is not about finding a destination, but about the courage to begin the journey itself, with honesty, openness, and a willingness to grow.
References
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and spiritual experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(2), 165–183.
Ammerman, N. T. (2013). Spiritual but not religious: Understanding unchurched America. Oxford University Press.
Azari, S. P., Wunderlich, G., & Schreiber, W. (2001). Neural correlates of religious experience. Neuropsychologia, 39(1), 100–106.
Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In The Cambridge handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 247–270). Cambridge University Press.
Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. Free Press.
Bellah, R. N. (2011). Religion in human evolution: From the dawn of human religion to the decline of religious belief. Belknap Press.
Bruce, S. (2011). Religion in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
Drescher, M. (2016). The spiritual journey of the modern American. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development. Harper & Row.
Froese, P. (2008). Religion and the state in Russia and China. Cambridge University Press.
Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 14–30.
Griffiths, R. M., Johnson, M. W., & Richards, W. A. (2011). The safety of psilocybin: A comprehensive review of the literature. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25(1), 105–124.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Harris, P. L., & Koenig, M. A. (2006). The emergence of religious belief: A developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 134–138.
Heelas, P., & Woodhead, L. (2005). The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality. Blackwell.
Hood, R. W. (2001). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. Guilford Press.
Huss, A. (2014). The new spiritual age: The rise of non-religious spirituality. Palgrave Macmillan.
James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Longmans, Green, and Co.
Johnson, M. K., & Bering, J. M. (2006). The existential theory of mind: A cognitive developmental approach to the psychology of religion. Review of Religious Research, 47(4), 327–341.
Kuijt, I. (2008). The archaeology of ritual and religion. Left Coast Press.
Lewis-Williams, D. (2002). The mind in the cave: Consciousness and the origins of art. Thames & Hudson.
McDermott, R. (1996). The Venus of Willendorf. National Geographic.
McNamara, R. (2009). The evolution of the human mind: A cognitive and cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Mercadante, L. (2014). Spiritual but not religious: A study of the new religious movement. Palgrave Macmillan.
Newberg, A., & Waldman, M. R. (2009). How God changes your brain: Breakthrough findings from a leading neuroscientist. Ballantine Books.
Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science, 322(5903), 506–510.
Pettitt, P. B. (2011). The archaeology of human bones. Routledge.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. Guilford Press.
Park, C. L. (2010). Religion and spirituality in the context of stress and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 273–278.
Pew Research Center. (2019). Religious landscape study. Pew Research Center.
Puchalski, C., et al. (2014). Spiritual and religious care in palliative care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 17(1), 1–12.
Rappaport, R. (1999). Worlds apart: The environment and social change. Oxford University Press.
Sagan, C. (1985). The dragons of Eden: Speculations on the evolution of human intelligence. Random House.
Saroglou, V. (2011). Religiousness and spirituality in the 21st century. Springer.
Streib, H., et al. (2009). Religious and spiritual experiences: A multidisciplinary approach. Springer.
Taylor, J. (1991). The spiritual journey: A guide to personal transformation. Harper & Row.
Taylor, S. E. (2010). Positive illusions and the construction of the self. In The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 203–218). Oxford University Press.
Tang, Y. Y., et al. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Neuroscience, 18(2), 117–122.
Vail, K. E., et al. (2010). The role of religion in reducing existential anxiety. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1653–1659.
Wilson, E. O. (2014). The social animal: The hidden sources of love, character, and achievement. Liveright.
Zuckerman, M. (2008). The psychology of religion and spirituality. Blackwell.
Zuckerman, M., et al. (2016). The spiritual revolution: The rise of non-religious spirituality. Palgrave Macmillan.
Note: This article was written using AI with little or no verification on my part. Please independently verify the information before you use or rely on it. Follow this link for more information on how I use AI tools on this site.