Arty, I apologize for any sarcasm I may have directed your way in previous responses. Your most recent post was, dare I say, enlightening. I'd like to get a quick point out of the way before delving into the main.

Subsequently, brain scientists have been looking for, and allegedly finding, a part of the brain dedicated to connecting to the divine. Their research signifies that, at least, spiritual expression, if not religion itself, is probably genetic.

You should definitely read 'The End Of Faith' by Sam Harris, if you have not already. Most of his views, if almost strident at times, address many of the issues we've discussed here. But more important, Harris himself is "completing a doctorate in neuroscience, studying the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty with functional magnetic resonance imaging." (from his site, samharris.org) He is certainly not a dabbler.

Spirituality and religion were going to be the common pursuits for attaining meaning, ethics and a higher purpose.

and

If only humankind could follow that Delphic prescription [...] then religions may never have been invented, and a search for a higher purpose kept a private affair. Do you atheists have a plan for making that possible? If not most people most of the time are going to rely on religion and God as the viable alternatives. (edited for brevity)

This is something I have pondered only recently, namely that most humans yearn for an authority that will both simplify their otherwise cluttered sphere of thought and provide absolute answers to difficult questions. Religion fills that vacuum, whereas atheism dismisses it. I'm speaking generally, of course, but it is a problem that atheists need to address.

What makes it troubling for atheists, however, is that identifying this 'spiritual void' in the first place is to acknowledge that not all people are equal when it comes to self-awareness and self-confidence. I think most atheists feel that they are 'above' religion (if the subject is forced upon them) and can generate their own guidance without relying on external entities and superstition. So the thinking goes, "Well if I can do it, why can't everyone else?" But the problem, as you have pointed out, is that many people cannot rely on their own facilities for everything (certainly we all go to someone else for medical help or legal counsel) so who or what steps in to fill the void?

Here's my generalization of the issue: Atheists deny the problem, whereas religion exploits it. But crude accusations aside, there IS a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. Once we get past the uncomfortable fact that there are weak and strong among us, something has to be done if we are to remain a functional society.

One regret I have in education is I never took a philosophy course. (I studied engineering, so you can imagine it wasn't high on the list of electives.) Lately I've been compensating by reading 'popularized' accounts and lectures, if only to learn the basics. It's been extremely valuable for thinking about this subject, and I wish more people took the time to learn the human history that puts us where we are. Now as a novice I might be overreaching here, but I would suggest that a more rigorous application of philosophy, psychology, and ethics can fill the void that religion currently addresses. It's not a perfect fit, but it also doesn't carry the superstitious baggage of religion. More important, however, is that the above disciplines rely far less on dogma, and can be guided with some of the same strengths that make the scientific method work so well in its field.

Arty, you're right about one thing. Atheists do not have a cohesive 'plan'. They (we) are prone to adopt the same behavior as one who lives inside a walled compound; "Our needs and security are taken care of, let everyone else fend for themselves." This approach cannot last, as the rest of the world is an unpredictable place. Unfortunately, those who DO have a plan, or more likely 'The Plan', have formulated it so that it is encumbered with incontrovertibility and hardened against all outside reason. Furthermore, they've had thousands of years to drive their message home.

At the risk of sounding crass, atheists have a 'marketing' problem. I don't think our morals or values are wrong, or our logic flawed. It's a matter of effectively communicating secular ideas that address the broader problems that humans face, with the proper intellectual frameworks to support the argument. The quandary nonetheless is getting 'the word' out without elevating it to doctrine or reducing it to catchphrases. And unfortunately the world simply doesn't have the attention span required for complex explanations.

That letter, deluxe, brilliantly summarized the dilemma few atheists acknowledge. Your adage, look yourself in the mirror, is not entirely without merit for the enlightened soul. But then after having shed religious beliefs and their concomitant ethical restrictions, is that part of the human character, Plato called beastly, going to be sufficiently restricted so that society can live in peace? It all depends on the level of self-regulating principles liberated souls place on themselves. And in a society dedicated to an ill-defined sense of the pursuit of happiness, rank egoism, self-promotion, nearly limitless competition, is that person who gave up imposed restrictions going to adopt secular equivalents that sustain a societal equilibrium? Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely.

Since this dilemma hasn't been successfully solved in this society, namely atheists and secularists accepting and promoting a modernized equivalent of Delphic enlightenment, we have culture wars that inspire politicians to take an active role. As many of these letters have made clear, this breach of the traditional separation of Church and State is wrong first and foremost not because fundamentalists want to peer into our bedrooms and take away our condoms but because true democracy, which is based on secular principles, is constantly being eroded. But what is the fundamentalist parent whose son is communicating with sexual predators on the internet, has a stash of porn under his bed, a bong in his closet, and a gothic tattoo on his forehead supposed to do to keep him in line? Where are all the secular enlightened values? Girls Gone Wild? Rampant corporate greed? Conspicuous consumption? Bling? You get the picture. Dumb and Dumberer? We all do.

In an enlightened free society all the girls who want to go wild, all the pecuniary emulation, gothic transubstantiation, pagan symbols, and violent video games are placed in perspective by an overarching set of values that moderate actions and control excesses so that there's a general sense of equilibrium. Are you going to argue that we're living in that kind of society now? What keeps us in line are laws, and more laws. They grow like bacteria and the long list is now a testament to how ineffective this society is in self-regulating itself. And in part that's because the honorable desires of libertarians got crushed because in freeing themselves from government mandates they generally neglected to restrict themselves voluntarily with enlightened ideals. For the most part they mistakenly presumed that to be free of external restrictions meant that individuals would naturally restrict themselves. But they didn't; thus a nation with more laws and more cops than other civilized, secular countries that somehow established more enlightened ways of living.

Look at the rate of incarceration, the profusion of substance abuse, illegitimate birth rates, high school dropouts, serial murderers. Are these signs of a society capably restricting itself? And that's why most people would rather live next to a moderate Christian than a reckless atheist. Wouldn't you?

No apology is necessary for being sarcastic; one's beliefs, even if they're not objectively sacred, are sacred to each and every one of us and you were simply defending them with passion. Besides, your earnestness triumphed over any sense of sarcasm. I'll look further into Sam Harris.

If you're interested in exploring philosophical avenues, I'd highly recommend Rousseau's essays on inequality where he extolls the virtues of the Noble Savage and check out Montaigne's essay on cannibals. Are savages and cannibals - innocent, as it were, of formal religion - decent souls? If so how do they stay that way? And then check out Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil," an atheist's handbook. Though he often refers to other, what will seem to be arcane philosophical references to the uninitiated, his direct and passionate style clearly conveys the message. And don't hesitate to pick up Armstrong's "History of God." It's loaded with sound atheistic arguments.

Keep up the good work and spread that secular enlightenment as far as it will go. The world's in desperate need of it.