The debate over secularism has been using a term whose meaning has been corrupted and a ‘dialectical’, that is a depiction based on a set of complementary philosophies is the only way to proceed: the secular contains strains of religion, the Reformation, of science, the scientific revolution, of politics, the language of freedom emerging to liberalism, the philosophies of nature from Spinoza to Kant/Hegel, and so on via a bird’s eye view of the early modern from 1500 to 1800. Note that Bach’s religious music is therefore ‘secular’ music.
If you adopt the kind of twisted definition rapidly gaining currency of groups like the new atheists, you are stuck with a perspective that restricts the definition to atheists, materialists, darwinists and the tenets of hard scientism. That can lead to nothing but cultural confusion.
The problem derives from the way the subculture of scientism remains undeducated about the rise of modernity and is narrowed to a study of science that rejects everything not in that track. Even people like Pinker cannot get past the impulsed to demolish the liberal arts.
It is a pathetic situation that will undermine modernity in the end.