Originally Posted by Leo_the_Cat
I'll look at this. I am having a difficult time with the concept of a "secular higher power" or "secular spirituality". One definition of secular is "of or pertaining to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritial or sacred".
LOL, indeed Leo.
"Secular spirituality" is a veritable non sequitur. Here is just one criticism of the concept:
Culture can push things to extremes—and end up in some pretty peculiar places. Consider fireplace videos, for example. The video shows the fire and records the crackling of the flames for the full length of the tape or DVD. (There’s also a fishtank version.) Advertisers claim that the fireplace video will recreate the fire experience wherever it’s needed, without the mess or smell of a real fire. But if you’ve ever experienced a fire, the video is a far cry from reality. There’s an essence to a fire that can’t be captured on a screen.
Likewise is a bias toward the experience of faith practiced in community. Secular spirituality can emulate some aspects of the faith experience, and meet some spiritual needs, but it cannot entirely replace the experience. The danger in relying too heavily on the particulars of secular spirituality lies in the propensity to miss critical elements of shared faith.
The purpose of most spiritual practice is to transcend the self in order to experience or interact with a deeper divinity. This seems the antithesis of much secular spirituality—which tends to focus on the self and on self-improvement. Most of these books may attempt to oversimplify God and the complexities of religion. Many cater to consumerist desires rather than offer the spiritual joys and challenges of living in convenantal relationship with others.
-- Anne Van Dusen, Senior Research Associate, The Alban Institute
And there is another name for what Boulton is delving into -
philosophy. LOL
Secular humanism is nothing new. David Boulton is playing a bit fast and lose with labels IMO.
Good to meet y'all, btw. My first post in Sec-Con.
TenChips