Philosophy Now Forum

Gee responded:

So you are saying that "dual" means the same as "dualism". "Race" means the same as "racism".

No, cognates do not mean *exactly* the same. If they did, we would not need two words. But you can have no dualism without a duality. And there is no such thing as racism if race doesn't exist. They are related terms, not replication of terms.

Making a distinction between the "spiritual" and the "religious" is correct, but in this case trivial. The secular means that both concepts are hedged out of public discourse, kept to private judgment only. A person does not even have to believe in anything "spiritual" at all in order to be a member of a secular order.

Gee wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote: Well, the definition of "secular" clearly rules out the spiritual:

No. Secular rules out religion. You keep insisting that religion and spiritual are the same thing.

Neither I nor the dictionary have insisted anything of the sort.

"denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis"

Note that this is about religious spirituality.

No, it's about "things that have no religious or spiritual basis"

"not spiritual : of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world"

Note that this is about superstition as there is no "spiritual world". If you think otherwise, please show it to me.

The "spiritual world" exists at the very least as a concept. As such, anything "secular" would be opposed to that (including the notion that such a world does not exist). But even so, you're question-begging insofar as you've assumed your conclusion. Fallacies are not rebuttals.

"Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."

This is again about religion.

Again, or.

Spirituality is NOT religion. Do you have any idea of what spirituality actually is?

Do you really not know what the word "or" means? I pasted the definitions of "secular" to show that the word is defined in opposition to religion or spiritual things.

Now, you seem to think there's some wide gulf between "spiritual" and "spirituality." Strange, but I'll play that game (once). "Spirituality," is defined as "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things." (Oxford) Now, how do you make sense of Secular Spirituality if the first word means "of or relating to the physical world" and the second word means "affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things?" Lincoln's belief system was "relating to the physical world, opposed to material or physical things?" You cannot describe a "spirituality" that's not based on the "spiritual" (do we actually need to do a semantic analysis of the word "spirituality" here?). The words, literally by definition, will not allow you to. You cannot speak of a "not spiritual spirituality" in any logical sense. There is no "Not A, A." Do you not see how that doesn't make sense? Stop this nonsense and just assent to the propositions (1) that words don't just mean what you want them to mean and (2) non-contradiction isn't just a fancy word.