Thanks. By way of a sort of summary of the debate thus far, from my point of view: I empathize with anyone not wanting to thrash around in the thickets of this debate for a number of reasons. For one, its like a room full of cockroaches scattering every which way when the lights go on. I think many moderns use the term "spirituality" as a kind of non-sectarian catch-all for what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature". I would change Lincoln's "angels" to "aspects" and the generic "spirituality" of my peers to somewhat less nebulous things like "intuition", "conscience", "sentiment", "good will", and of course the all-important empathy for all life and interdependence of all life. I recognize the utility of generic, nebulous (slippery?) terms in some contexts but it seems to me that "good-faith" conversation between modern, educated, open-minded people is seldom such a context. I say that not to impugn anyone's good faith, but simply advisedly. Use of the term "spirituality" (much less terms like "divine") in clever company would seem to beg at least for extensive qualification or clarification. Even if we are respectfully and sympathetically discussing pre-scientific world-views, indigenous culture, religious beliefs, etc.--we are always to some extent discussing it in the context of our own culture and times whether we like it or not. On the whole, my primary aim is to question certain aspects of contemporary discourse and not the truth claims of various world views per se (although I have done both in my arguments). PR