you are obviously a thoughtful and widely-read individual, and you approach this topic with a relatively open mind. That is why a comment like the following is so aggravating to me:

"And that's why most people would rather live next to a moderate Christian than a reckless atheist. Wouldn't you?"

Yes, indeed. I would also rather live next door to a moderate atheist than a reckless Christian. I fail to see your point, unless it is that atheists are more likely to exhibit undesirable traits than Christians. And based on your other comments, I can't believe that this is what you intended to imply. At least I hope not...

It is my experience, anecdotal though it may be, that the children of fundamentalists are much more likely to be "problem children" or "burnouts" than the children of parents with more moderate views on religion. This does not invalidate religion any more than the odd "reckless atheist" invalidates atheism.

As an atheist, I don't believe in original sin. As a realist, I do believe that humans are flawed creatures, to some extent still in thrall to innate biological instincts and selfish behaviors. The patina of civilization with which we have succeeded in covering ourselves is thin indeed, but it does not consist only of religious precepts. As you acknowledge, there is a long tradition of secular reasoning that has been applied to perfecting human society, if not humans themselves.

Most prominently for our discussion here, our founding fathers resorted solely to reason and law in addressing these problems, and devised a constitution and a legal framework with which to constrain our baser instincts. Religion was left to its own sphere, and its free practice written into the secular instruments that founded our democracy.

I don't discount the long litany of societal ills you provide, but nor do I ascribe them to religion or the lack thereof. The demise of education in civics and history in this country is more troubling to me than the demise of religious education (not that I've seen much evidence of the latter.) I think we as a society would be much better served by a mandatory year or two of public service than by some kind of religious revival.

BRIAN: (#1) "How much measurable effect does, say, the idea of a quark or a light wave have on the physical universe?"

BRIAN: (#2) "Just because an idea does not correspond to a measurable effect in the physical universe does not mean that it does not have a vital function."

BEN: (to #1)"Light waves and quarks ARE measureable. ...This is why the concept of light waves is useful. The old particle model of light had to be revised to fit with new MEASURABLE data. Quarks were postulated to help explain similar, MEASURABLE phenomena."

BEN: (to #2)"Agreed...unless the idea purports to speak towards physical phenomena. For example, Christianity claims the actual existence of various things which are at odds with everything we currently understand about the universe. A 4000 year old earth, Noah's Arc, Water into wine, Imaculate Conception, Resurection, ascention into heaven, and the omniscient omnipotent heavenly father, these aren't just supposed to parts of a work of fiction, they're supposed to be as real.

Brian: Okay, Clam Chowder! I know. But I've been away. Ben, the concept of light waves IS useful, and so is the concept of God. The old model of God is tired and in need of revision, much like the old particle model of light. That doesn't mean that God is not real. Quarks and light waves are themselves temporary and temporarily sufficient ways to measure the realities they represent. When we have better ways to conceptualize light and matter they will be replaced. But no one has ever seen a quark or a light wave. That is my point. The behavior and effect of these unseen phenomena give rise to statements about reality that help shape our knowledge of our world. So it is with God. The IDEAS of quarks and light waves do not correspond to measurable effects, but they do have vital functions b/c they give us ways to speak about real things. And these ideas do speak to physical realities. 4000 yr old earth, maybe not, but the ideas of resurrection and water to wine, for instance, regardless of whether they physically ever occurred, have had enormous effects in human insight. Science is true. Can't a myth be true? Couldn't they be different ways of knowing, seeking?

Yes, I'd rather live next to a moderate atheist than a reckless Christian. In this regard we're both appreciative of moderation. Excess on either side is a scourge. Whether there are more reckless Christians or reckless atheists in America in all likelihood can't be proved. Since atheists are in the minority a good bet would be that there are more reckless religious zealots, including Christians.

The main issue, however, is the increasing secularization that occurred in America after the 60s, which was promoted by atheists, moderate religious believers and cafeteria-style religious believers who didn't generally embrace a secular equivalent of the religious moderation that was being diluted. In the process, civility was diminished, the overall sense of community was reduced, crime, particularly violent crime, rose, and a traditional sense of trust, e.g., unlocked doors, minimum fear of strangers, was lost. There are tons of statistics demonstrating the trend.

There are many causes, of course, so that no one faction can be blamed. It wasn't atheists or atheism per se that primarily caused the disruptions. Likewise, it wasn't extreme Christians or religious zealots mainly responsible for the trend either. For instance, at the time Jim Jones fled to Africa, the Moonies were under federal investigation, and the Krishna groups in airports were easily waved off as you headed to your gate. Granted, Reverend Billy Bob, the prototypical TV evangelist, was promising to heal your ills for $29.95, but no one was holding a gun to anyone's head.

Undeniably, the influence of religion, and Christianity in particular, was diminishing. Politicians rarely mentioned their affiliation, other than Kennedy whose Catholicism was controversial. Their attachment to religion customarily went no further than concluding a speech with "God bless America." Even though the Cold War was being fought between an openly atheistic form of governance and the West, America's strategy was not remotely associated with a religious type of Crusade or a specific campaign directed exclusively at eradicating the atheists.

Walter Lippmann's nod to secularism in 1929 had become a widespread phenomenon by 1960: "When men can no longer be theists, they must, if they are civilized, be humanists." As secularism exploded across America from the 60s to the 90s, where was that humanist agenda that was supposed to replace religious values? With rare exceptions, it didn't materialize. Unreflective secularism was too potent a force, emphasizing liberation without a commensurate degree of moderation. For Daniel Bell, the shift was accentuated with the credit card, which suddenly conditioned a society habituated to delayed gratification to now expect instant gratification - a fiscal arrangement that had revolutionary, ethical consequences.

What were the slogans? I did it my way. The Me Decade (80s). Anything Goes. Love the one you're with. If it feels good do it. Seize the moment. Grab the gusto. If you've got it flaunt it. I want my MTV. Imbued in these sentiments are the seeds for extremism since society no longer maintained an umbrella of moderation beyond the rule of law. As a result, the spirit of the law was weakening. Had an enlightened set of values been established by atheists, semi-religious believers or Martians, then the opportunities for the growth of fundamentalism would've been radically reduced. The fundamentalists who began to assert themselves with the rise of Reagan were responding directly to the secular excesses that had become pervasive by 1984. Excess bred excess.

For those wanting to blame fundamentalism and the empowerment of conservative movements, there are numerous justifications, but, along those same lines, don't be remiss in citing the secular causes that inspired their ascension. Had secularism, liberals, and the Democratic party gotten their house in order, i.e., by openly adopting a humanist, enlightened form of societal moderation, the conservative movement wouldn't have been given the opening to appeal to parents concerned about the excesses tempting their kids. Had the liberals faced these excesses as unacceptable behavior and instituted or openly supported an appropriate set of values, America wouldn't now be filled with so many people trying to fight sin and send the devil back to hell.