You can, by way of speaking. But the language is historically a posteriori to an experience that is not secular.
The whole structure of a secular virtue is actually no simpler than any other. Instead of a theodicy one must give a "physidicy." It must also answer the origin of virtue and why we would act against nature. Unless I am mistaken, this is only possible in some form of dualism. I don't think along these lines, and I suggest that if you do, give us what you think. I might be converted.
Dualism remains possible until we can explain how a conscious volitional thought migrates down the nervous system and activates a muscle or gland. We might question consciousness, volition, or thought, or all three, but consciousness, especially self-consciousness seems a given.
I really don't find it very interesting to talk about virtue and morality with someone who considers it an inquisition to be asked why he seeks or does not seek virtue.
Such is the assertion, anyway - this assertion is, needless to say, rather contentious and not universally accepted in any case.
In any case, it seems that unless I can explain why virtuousness or morality is better than the lack thereof, and additionally where such concepts as "virtue" come from, you may very well see no need to be virtuous or moral. To the first, I offer you the same deal you have now - be moral or suffer the consequences. To the second, the mere fact that it exists is enough to proceed - from whence it came is not critical to its continued use.