Religious and Spiritous.
I am not sure what would qualify a general category of people who are not religious, or who claim they are not. But if I may call upon that general category, I’ll say that they would take issue with the following:
Without religion, mental health as a description or indicator of a group of bodies that functions well individually and together, regardless of the details of that function, deteriorates.
And id say that the first defensive posture would say something to the effect about the “history of religion” and corruption and “what God?” and all those young adult arguments that we all have been over so many times.
I must thus qualify that.
I elaborate upon what I mean by ‘religion’ elsewhere. But likewise, philosophically, I don’t really enjoy the idea of ‘spirituality’ as a counter position to religion; the two polemics seems to me to miss a valid point about being human, again as I elaborate elsewhere.
So perhaps a way to skip the longer discussion and get to the meat and starches of the table, is to draw a parallel between the conjugates: religion and spirition, and religious and spiritous, and rephrase to say without spirition the group and individual deteriorate. And this also conveys a deterioration of world.
In very short short, the orientation upon what we could call empirical facts as a means or true substance to draw the individual in a world misses a significant and necessary element in being human for the establishment of a healthy individual and society, and thus world.
That is, to reduce the human to the physical-empirical (and I might add as much as it tends to signify the same absence: political), defies that the physical-empirical contains any significant meaning. Hence, the deterioration of the world.
Spirition. I like that.