"Researchers suggested that professors should encourage secular spiritual discussion in class, adding a nonmaterialistic purpose to education."

Blogger suggests that researchers get the Oxymoron of the Year Award for "secular spiritual discussion." Perhaps they meant "non-denominational"? Any professor who encourages spiritual discussion and who is not teaching in a theological seminary should get thrown out on his ass. (However, discussions of various conceptions of "spirituality" seem appropriate for certain philosophy classes.)

Students who are still looking for a nonmaterialistic education should try a seminar on Argumentation and Rhetoric instead of online courses in cost accounting. It might help them get their "secular spiritual" thoughts a bit more organized -- or at the very least, prepare them for law school.

I agree with you, Proffy Leen, about the oxymoronic "secular spiritual discussion." I did a double take as I stumbled across that. I don't think "non-denominational" is appropriate though, as it implies confining itself to one religion, like Christianity, and all denominations within that one religion. Perhaps "not religion specific" would convey the meaning better.

I suppose you could have a "secular spiritual discussion" if you're only discussing what beliefs are held by which of the various spiritual types, rather than a metaphysical discussion about our state of existence.

With that, I agree that professors should confine themselves to questions of objective fact. It is their job to prepare their students for a career, not for the afterlife. I also feel strongly that students wishing to know about spiritual matters should investigate and learn on their own. A university-taught class on religion would forward certain sets of beliefs as factual, not allowing for other interpretations.

I know I would be loathe to have a university professor tell me what Christians believe, and that if I didn't believe a certain thing, I could not call myself a Christian.