I have no respect for the words spiritual or god…none.

They are two of the most vacuous words to have ever been uttered and so many of the people who use them, I have found upon much reflection,  do not deserve my respect. This is not necessarily true of all.

A person’s goodness has absolutely nothing to do with these words in any way shape or form. Goodness is purely the result of moral behaviour that is the product of nothing other than natural, perhaps even biologically innate, things or forces.

Respect for good people also comes irrespective of these vacuous words. It comes solely from their natural goodness and nothing else. If someone deserves my respect, that respect would have absolutely nothing to do with the vacuous words, spiritual or god, and/or  any other word that may be in any way connected to or associated with them.

If anyone utters the words spiritual or god in my presence, depending on the place and perhaps concern for others  around I may already respect – but then, maybe not even then – they will be asked to cease using them, as, beyond the indisputable  fact that they are completely empty of any meaning, I find the use of them  to be nothing other than presumptuously insulting.

I have been completely exhausted of any respect for these words and it cannot ever be redeemed.


“Just as the mechanical philosophy appeared to be triumphant, it was demolished by Newton, who reintroduced a kind of “occult” cause and quality, much to the dismay of leading scientists of the day, and Newton himself.The Cartesian theory of mind (such as it was) was unaffected by his discoveries, but the theory of body was demonstrated to be untenable. To put it differently, Newton eliminated the problem of “the ghost in the machine” by exorcising the machine; the ghost was unaffected.” (Chomsky, 1994 : Naturalism and Dualism in the Study of Language and Mind. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 2(2), 181-209 – p189)

“We can continue to distinguish ‘physical’ or ‘material’ from ‘mental’, but recognizing that the usage is only a descriptive convenience, with no metaphysical import” (Chomsky and His Critics, p13)