This adds to what I wrote recently when trying to come up with a definition of spirituality.

The demise of traditional spirituality in Western society along with the rise of fundamentalism in other parts of the world brings a need for a new formulation of what it means to be spiritual. Fundamentalism is worse than useless, dangerous even. So is being left with a spiritual vacuum.

To have no spirituality is deficient because there seems to be an innate need in human nature to have defined ideas around reason and purpose. People function better when believing in something. Also the threat from fundamentalism needs to be met not just by force, resistance and defence but also by an equally revered and ultimately more coherent philosophical defence that can take the modern world with all its scientific progress and encapsulate that in a set of moral principles that are widely held, easily argued, generally believed in and broadly beneficial to most. It would do this while still holding on to the broad strokes of liberalism and political democracy.

I should try to hone my definition of this development to a few simple concepts and terms. I should describe genuine spirituality as follows: something of high value, non-empirical and having as its litmus test a mutuality that is of lasting benefit. It would have to consist in some commitment, practice and discipline with respect to a central idea.

Humans without a meaningful spirituality are lesser beings. Humans without an appropriate and well-defined moral code are deficient. Any new enlightenment would be derived from a moral code that parts company with the old religiosity of the West and sets the tone for the future.