I tried googling psychological secularism, is it your own personal term? Couldn't find anything.
However, I will say that I only accept earthly influences and the mechanics of the human mind and the various structures which operate within our society like capitalism, democracy and so on. I don't believe in God or anything supernatural. I don't have much to say as religion as a source of consolation being a hindrance to true faith because I don't know what true faith is or what it's good for.
Yes I made up that term since the more common term of being “third force blind” is hard to understand at first. It has to do with the "Law of Three Forces”
There are ideas which could stop all quarrels; such an idea is the law of three. ~ P. D. Ouspensky
The fact that it is relatively unknown in secular society limited to the two forces of affirmation and denial we can be assured that everything will continue within the same level of understanding.
In a nutshell what the law of three means is that every action requires three forces. When three forces are present, things happen, actions are actualized. But without three forces—with one or two forces—nothing happens. There are different names for each force. The first force is called the active or positive or motivating force. The second force is called the negative or passive or denying force. The third force is called the neutralizing or facilitating or invisible force.
All esoteric laws, like the law of three, work both on the scale of our inner world and on the scale of the world around us, but it is often true that a law will be easier to observe in one or the other. I have personally found that the law of three is easiest to observe in my interactions with other people, so that’s what I’ll talk about here.............................
Life in Plato’s cave continues as it does since it is third force blind. It is closed to experience the vertical third force of reconciliation. Political secularism is by definition third force blind
Now this is a deep idea and takes a while to become familiar with but read how Simone Weil describes how algebra affects our awareness of the third force or the third dimension of thought: “meaning. The two forces of affirmation and denial that produce scientific discovery do not require the third force revealing “meaning” When the scientist becomes aware of the third dimension of meaning thet can acquire real intelligence or the unification of facts and the quality of “being.” Brainpickings by the way is an exceptional site featuring articles on many great ideas
https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/
After a swift primer on the evolution of science from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Planck, Weil turns to the key culprit in this major rift between classical and contemporary science — our increasing and, she admonishes, increasingly dangerous reliance on mathematical expression as the most accurate expression of reality, flattening and making artificially linear the dimensional and messy relationships of which reality itself is woven:
What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.
Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:
If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.
That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)
Can you see why your discussion with Logik is meaningless. It lacks third force awareness so just endlessly repeats. I read of science but communication requires the communication of meaning as well as facts. As Simone explained the fact that A+b=C may reveal a fact but without the third dimension of thought within which facts can be included it may only produce a distortion of meaning..
Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17
Perhaps you can be an atheist who can contribute to the purification of the notion of God.