"Secular spirituality" reflects a paradigm that has long existed, but hasn't been commonly named. I would suggest, by your flapping, that it's the perfect name. Whilst I don't think there's any worthwhile evidence for the existence of "spirit" as you might like, secular spirituality is a handy collective term for some perfectly secular notions about human behaviour, emotions, and creativity.

(Pottsie)

Yeah, it's a handy term.  One that needs to be "invented" simply because it doesn't the IDEA doesn't fly.  In this case it is an Oxymoron.......and even though Jumbo Shrimp are named such.  They AREN'T big.  The same thing holds true here.  Just because one calls Spirituality "secular" doesn't mean it is.

(Ian)

As for quoting the dictionary, Pottsie, well that's rather disappointing. Dawkins is, after all, a Fellow of the Royal Society for Literature. He's also one of the most noted authors for his use of concise and accurate language. In other words, I think he has the edge on you (no offence).

(Pottsie)
...
Personally, I think they ought to revoke his "license to practice".  In this instance he would get "nailed to the cross"  ;)  If he got into a debate with anyone who had no ax to grind.  The term is simply laughable.

(Ian)
Language evolves, and "secular spiritiuality", in our increasingly non-religious world, is absolutely appropriate for the current mood.  

(Pottsie)

1.  Language evolves......but Ducks don't turn into cows.
2.  Our world may or may not be increasingly non-religious.  My bet is that it is about the same as it has always been.  And.....if you really think about it, if it were increasingly non-religious, Dawkins et al wouldn't be fighting it......they'd be ignoring it.  (Aside from that we have the matter that "secular spirituality" is not talking about religion.....it addresses Spirituality, something that the atheists conveniently ignore, attacking instead the beliefs of the extreme right.  I wonder why I never hear any criticism from them regarding Borg, Spong, Tillich, Niebuhr etc.

(Ian)

It also, as a funny coincidence, highlights the increasing irrelevance of religious thought to people's lives. Be it for guidance, understanding where we came from, support, or marking the events of our lives, our notions of spirituality are forever changed.

(Pottsie)

IMHO, it highlights nothing but ignorance of the definition of the two words.

 (Ian)
Dawkins is right on the pulse of this, your ideas on spirituality are increasingly out-moded. Whilst dictionaries can easily be updated to reflect the zeitgeist, are you too closed-minded?

(Pottsie)

1.  The definitions given for Secular and Spirituality have nothing to do with the content of the thought.  They have to do with the relationship that OTHER words have to the two sides of the Universe.  The Spirit and The Material.

2.  I don't believe that seeing the two sides of Reality  Spirit and Matter will ever become outdated.  I assume that you mean that people will come to see that the Spirit does not exist.  If that is the case, they won't see that things like "imagination", "beauty",  "truth", or "knowledge" exist........because these are "things of the Spirit"

You simply can't see that Dawkins et al. are fighting "Big Daddy in the Sky"........an idea that probably WILL die out.  I'd get off my soap box on this if atheists would simply OPEN THEIR MINDS and realize that every Effect has a Cause.  They can fight all they want about a particular idea of the Cause........but to say that It doesn't exist is simply ludicrous.........whether they are a Fellow at the Royal Society for Literature or the Janitor a Royal Albert Hall.

Namaste

Pottsie

"You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie